CCPR/C/122/D/2265/2013 violation by the State party of articles 6 (1), 7, 9 (1)–(4), 10 (1) and 16 of the Covenant. The authors contend that Mr. Sharma’s case falls within an existing pattern of enforced disappearances perpetrated by security forces in the State party during the “people’s war” and that, for this reason, the offence may be labelled as a crime against humanity that triggers an aggravated responsibility of the State. 3.2 Mr. Sharma did not die during his enforced disappearance from 21 October 2003 to 8 March 2005, but he was placed outside the protection of the law and exposed to grave dangers to his life.5 The State party therefore violated article 6 (1) of the Covenant. The episode of late December 2003 (para. 2.8), illustrative of the widespread practice of arbitrary killing, plainly demonstrates the threat of death faced by Mr. Sharma. 3.3 The authors are of the view that enforced disappearance in and of itself constitutes an act of torture and a violation of article 7 of the Covenant.6 They submit that the countless instances of torture and ill-treatment that Mr. Sharma was subjected to also constitute a violation of article 7. In addition, the authors allege that the overall conditions of detention were extremely poor and degrading and that the total absence of health care or assistance, even after torture sessions, are also a violation of article 7. 3.4 During his enforced disappearance, Mr. Sharma was not informed of the reasons for his detention and he was kept in detention without charges for a period well over the legal maximum at the time in Nepal (180 days and a further 180 days upon the approval of the Home Secretary). His detention was not registered in any official records, and his relatives and counsel were not informed of his whereabouts or allowed to visit him. He was never brought before a judge or any other official authorized by law. He had also been unable to challenge the lawfulness of his deprivation of liberty. The authors submit that the writ of habeas corpus submitted by Ms. Sharma on 29 October 2003 was ineffective, as it had elicited a response only two years later. The authors are of the view that these facts amount to a violation of article 9 (1)–(4) of the Covenant. From 8 March 2005 to 19 December 2005, immediately after his enforced disappearance, Mr. Sharma remained in detention. This detention, which was declared illegal by the Supreme Court of Nepal in its ruling of 15 December 2005, also amounted to a violation of article 9. 3.5 The authors consider that the extremely poor conditions of detention suffered by Mr. Sharma stripped him of his dignity, in violation of article 10 (1) of the Covenant. 3.6 The authors view the enforced disappearance as a failure to recognize Mr. Sharma as a person before the law, as the State refused to provide information about his fate or whereabouts, putting him outside the protection of the law. The authors thus contend that the State party violated Mr. Sharma’s rights under article 16. 3.7 The authors argue that the authorities’ ongoing failure to conduct an ex officio, prompt, impartial, independent investigation of Mr. Sharma’s arbitrary detention, disappearance and torture in order to provide him with adequate remedies and prosecute and sanction the perpetrators also constitutes a violation of article 2 (3), read in conjunction with articles 6 (1), 7, 9 (1)–(4), 10 (1) and 16 of the Covenant. 3.8 The authors allege that Ms. Sharma was subjected to a violation of article 7 of the Covenant owing to the severe mental distress and anguish she experienced during the enforced disappearance of her husband and to the hostile attitude of the State party’s authorities, which made her feel humiliated and abused. She still suffers from bouts of anxiety and insomnia and has occasional nervous breakdowns. 3.9 Ms. Sharma, seriously traumatized, had to bear the brunt of looking after and bringing up the couple’s three young children. The enforced disappearance of her husband caused a grave disruption to her family life and was thus a violation of article 17 of the Covenant. 5 6 The authors refer to Guezout et al. v. Algeria (CCPR/C/105/D/1753/2008). The authors refer to Mojica v. Dominican Republic (CCPR/C/51/D/449/1991), Grioua and Grioua v. Algeria (CCPR/C/90/D/1327/2004) and Celis Laureano v. Peru (CCPR/C/56/D/540/1993). 5