A/56/156 of the disappeared. The Special Rapporteur notes in the case of El-Megreisi v. Libyan Arab Jamahiriya that the Committee concluded “... from the information before it, that Mohammed El-Megreisi was detained incommunicado for more than three years, until April 1992, when he was allowed a visit by his wife, and that after that date he has again been detained incommunicado and in a secret location. Having regard to these facts, the Committee finds that Mr. Mohammed Bashir El-Megreisi, by being subjected to prolonged incommunicado detention in an unknown location, is the victim of torture and cruel and inhuman treatment, in violation of articles 7 and 10, paragraph 1, of the Covenant.”8 While the Special Rapporteur notes that the term “disappearance” was not used by the Committee, presumably because the fact of detention and its substantial duration had been confirmed before the case even reached the Committee, he believes that what appears to have been enforced disappearance, is justifiably described by the Committee as torture.9 12. The Special Rapporteur also notes that, in article 1, the Declaration states that any act of enforced disappearance inflicts severe suffering on the victims and their families and in the fifth preambular paragraph refers to the anguish and sorrows caused by those disappearances. The Special Rapporteur would like to emphasize that the working definition of “disappearance” refers also to the refusal to disclose the fate or whereabouts of the persons concerned or a refusal to acknowledge the deprivation of their liberty.10 This is an intentional act directly affecting close family members. Being fully aware they are hurling family members into a turmoil of uncertainty, fear and anguish regarding the fate of their loved one(s), public officials are said to maliciously lie to the family, with a view to punishing or intimidating them and others.11 13. The Special Rapporteur would like to draw the attention of Governments to the views of the Human Rights Committee in Maria del Carmen Almeida de Quinteros, on behalf of her daughter, Elena Quinteros Almeida, and on her own behalf v. Uruguay — namely, that with regard to the violations alleged by the author on her own behalf, the Committee understands the anguish and uncertainty concerning the fate and whereabouts of her daughter. The author has the right to know what has happened to her daughter. In these respects, she too is a victim of the violations of the Covenant suffered by her daughter, in particular, of article 7. 14. The Special Rapporteur notes that, according to both Committees, the rationale of duration has often been considered one of the principal elements in determining the severity of ill-treatment.12 While reaffirming that enforced disappearances are unlawful under international law and cause much anguish, whatever their duration, the Special Rapporteur believes that to make someone disappear is a form of prohibited torture or ill-treatment, clearly as regards the relatives of the disappeared person and arguably in respect of the disappeared person or him/herself.13 He further believes that prolonged incommunicado detention in a secret place may amount to torture as described in article 1 of the Convention against Torture. The suffering endured by the disappeared persons, who are isolated from the outside world and denied any recourse to the protection of the law, and by their relatives doubtless increases as time goes by. 15. In the light of the above, the Special Rapporteur welcomes the decision of the Commission on Human Rights in its resolution 2001/46 (23 April 2001), entitled “Question of enforced or involuntary disappearances”, to “appoint an independent expert to examine the existing international criminal and human rights framework for the protection of persons from enforced or involuntary disappearance, taking into account relevant legal instruments at the international and regional levels, intergovernmental arrangements on judicial cooperation, the draft international convention on the protection of all persons from enforced disappearance (E/CN.4/Sub.2/1998/19, annex) transmitted by the Sub-Commission in its resolution 1998/25 of 26 August 1998, and also comments of States and intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations, with a view to identifying any gaps in order to ensure full protection from enforced or involuntary disappearance ...”. 16. Finally, the Special Rapporteur would like to indicate his intention to continue to refrain from dealing with cases of disappearances so as to avoid duplication with the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances. He nevertheless hopes to be in a position to send joint communications with the Working Group, especially when fears have been expressed that the persons concerned may be at risk of torture and further disappearance in view of the 5