CCPR/C/128/D/2924/2016 serious enough to fall within the scope of article 7 of the Covenant. The author therefore claims that Ahmed Braih is a victim of a violation of article 7 of the Covenant. With regard to the family of Ahmed Braih, the anguish, distress and uncertainty caused by his disappearance, the authorities’ denial and the fact that no investigation has been carried out for more than five years constitute inhuman treatment and, therefore, a violation of article 7, read alone and in conjunction with article 2 (3), of the Covenant. 3.4 The author further recalls that the right to liberty and security of person, as recognized under article 9 of the Covenant, entails the prohibition of arbitrary arrest and detention and requires that the State party provide a number of procedural safeguards. In relation to article 9 of the Covenant, the author alleges that his father is the victim of violations by the State party of: (a) paragraph 1, as Ahmed Braih has not been tried and has been held incommunicado on two occasions; (b) paragraph 2, as the officers who arrested Ahmed Braih neither explained the reasons for his arrest nor presented an arrest warrant, and he has never received any official notification since his arrest; (c) paragraph 3, as Ahmed Braih was not brought before a competent judge following his arrest, nor has he been tried or released, and the eight years that have elapsed since his arrest far exceed the maximum period of 12 days in police custody provided for in the Code of Criminal Procedure for terrorism-related offences; and (d) paragraph 4, as Ahmed Braih has been removed from the protection of the law and thus has never been able to challenge the lawfulness of his detention. 3.5 The author then recalls the fundamental and universal character of the principle that all persons deprived of their liberty must be treated with humanity and with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person, which is set out in article 10 (1) of the Covenant. Ahmed Braih has been deprived of all contact with the outside world. Incommunicado detention is likely to cause the detainee suffering that is serious enough to qualify as torture. Such detention is also conducive to inhuman treatment. Insofar as Ahmed Braih has been subjected to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, in violation of article 7 of the Covenant, he has been, a fortiori, a victim of a violation of article 10 (1), since cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment is, by its very nature, incompatible with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person. 3.6 The author also recalls that everyone has the right to recognition as a person before the law. In that connection, he refers to the Committee’s concluding observations on the second periodic report submitted by Algeria under article 40 of the Covenant, 6 in which the Committee established that, when a disappeared individual is still alive and is kept incommunicado, he or she is a victim of a violation of the right to recognition as a person before the law, as enshrined in article 16 of the Covenant. Accordingly, the incommunicado detention of Ahmed Braih constitutes a violation by the State party of article 16 of the Covenant. 3.7 Recalling that article 23 (1) of the Covenant provides that the family is entitled to protection, the author argues that Ahmed Braih’s disappearance has deprived his family of a father and a husband, and thus constitutes a violation of that article. 3.8 Under article 2 (3) of the Covenant, any person who alleges that any of his or her rights under the Covenant have been violated must have access to effective remedies. The author states that Ahmed Braih, as a victim of enforced disappearance, is unable in practice to avail himself of any remedy. On the basis of the Committee’s jurisprudence, the author recalls the State party’s obligation to investigate alleged violations of human rights and to prosecute and punish those responsible, and expresses the view that the Algerian authorities’ failure to respond to the requests made by the victim’s family constitutes a failure by the State party to fulfil its obligations under article 2 of the Covenant. In the present case, the violation of the right to an effective remedy stems not only from the Algerian authorities’ failure to respond, but also from the fact that Ahmed Braih’s family members, as refugees living in the Tindouf camps, do not have access to the courts of the State party, which has in practice delegated to the authorities of the Frente POLISARIO the responsibility for adjudicating on any matters brought by Saharan refugees in its territory. This situation 6 GE.20-14652 CCPR/C/79/Add.95, para. 10. 5