CCPR/C/128/D/2924/2016 6.2 The Committee notes that the State party has not responded to the author’s allegations and recalls its jurisprudence according to which the burden of proof should not rest solely on the author of a communication, especially given that the author and the State party do not always have the same degree of access to evidence and that often only the State party is in possession of the necessary information.13 In accordance with article 4 (2) of the Optional Protocol, the State party has the duty to investigate in good faith all allegations of violations of the Covenant made against it and its representatives and to transmit to the Committee the information in its possession. 14 In the absence of any explanations from the State party in this respect, due weight must be given to the author’s allegations, provided that they have been sufficiently substantiated. 6.3 The Committee recalls that, while the Covenant does not explicitly use the term “enforced disappearance” in any of its articles, enforced disappearance constitutes a unique and integrated series of acts that represents continuing violation of various rights recognized in that treaty, such as the right to life, the right not to be subjected to torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, and the right to liberty and security of person.15 6.4 The Committee notes that Ahmed Braih was last seen by the author’s older brother in April 2011, while he was being held at the military prison in Blida. It further notes that the State party has not provided any information that could shed light on the fate of Ahmed Braih and has never even confirmed his detention. The Committee recalls that, in cases of enforced disappearance, the deprivation of liberty, followed by a refusal to acknowledge that deprivation of liberty or by concealment of the fate of the disappeared person, in effect removes that person from the protection of the law and places his or her life at serious and constant risk, for which the State is accountable.16 In the present case, the Committee notes that the State party has produced no evidence to indicate that it has fulfilled its obligation to protect the life of Ahmed Braih. Accordingly, it concludes that the State party has failed in its obligation to protect the life of Ahmed Braih, in violation of article 6 (1) of the Covenant. 6.5 The Committee also recognizes the degree of suffering involved in indefinite detention without contact with the outside world. It recalls its general comment No. 20 (1992) on the prohibition of torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, in which it recommends that States parties make provision against incommunicado detention. It notes in the present case that after Ahmed Braih’s oldest son was able to see him at the Blida military prison in April 2011, his family members, including the author, were never again given access to any information whatsoever about his fate, despite their attempts to visit him at the Blida prison and their repeated requests for information from the competent authorities of the State party. The Committee is therefore of the view that Ahmed Braih is potentially still being held incommunicado by the Algerian authorities and is a victim, together with his family, of an enforced disappearance lasting from 6 January 2009 to April 2011 and from April 2011 to date, in violation of article 7 of the Covenant in respect of Ahmed Braih.17 6.6 In view of the foregoing, the Committee will not consider separately the claims relating to the violation of article 10 of the Covenant.18 13 14 15 16 17 18 8 See, inter alia, Ammari v. Algeria, para. 8.3; Mezine v. Algeria, para. 8.3; El Abani v. Libyan Arab Jamahiriya (CCPR/C/99/D/1640/2007), para. 7.4; and Berzig v. Algeria (CCPR/C/103/D/1781/2008), para. 8.3. Mezine v. Algeria, para. 8.3, and Medjnoune v. Algeria, para. 8.3. Katwal v. Nepal (CCPR/C/113/D/2000/2010), para. 11.3; Serna et al. v. Colombia (CCPR/C/114/D/2134/2012), para. 9.4; and El Boathi v. Algeria (CCPR/C/119/D/2259/2013), para. 7.4. See also the Committee’s general comment No. 36 (2018), para. 58. Louddi v. Algeria (CCPR/C/112/D/2117/2011), para. 7.4; Mezine v. Algeria, para. 8.4; and Boudjemai v. Algeria, para. 8.4. See also the Committee’s general comment No. 36 (2018), para. 58. Ammari v. Algeria, para. 8.5; Mezine v. Algeria, para. 8.5; Khirani v. Algeria (CCPR/C/104/D/1905/2009), para. 7.5; Berzig v. Algeria, para. 8.5; and El Alwani v. Libyan Arab Jamahiriya (CCPR/C/90/D/1295/2004), para. 6.5. Ammari v. Algeria, para. 8.6. GE.20-14652