CCPR/C/128/D/2924/2016 faced real risks to their safety. It is therefore now impossible, in practice, for them to take further steps at the domestic level. The complaint 3.1 The author alleges that his father is the victim of an enforced disappearance that is due to the actions of Algerian security agents and is therefore attributable to the State party, in accordance with the definition of enforced disappearance under article 2 of the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance. The author states that even though no provision of the Covenant specifically mentions enforced disappearance, the practice involves violations of 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. In the present case, the author claims violations by the State party of articles 6 (1), 7, 9 (1)–(4), 10 (1), 16 and 23 (1), read alone and in conjunction with article 2 (3), and of article 2 (1), read in conjunction with article 2 (3), of the Covenant. 3.2 The author recalls the supreme nature of the right to life and the State party’s obligation not only to refrain from arbitrarily depriving any individual of his or her right to life, but also to prevent and punish any act involving a violation of article 6 of the Covenant, including acts perpetrated by agents of the State. He also recalls the State party’s obligation to protect the lives of persons in detention and to investigate any cases of disappearance, as the failure to investigate may in itself constitute a breach of article 6 of the Covenant, including in cases where the disappearance is not attributable to agents of the State. The author states that his father was arrested in January 2009 and, on an unknown date, was placed in detention at the Blida military prison. Ahmed Braih has therefore been the victim of enforced disappearance on two occasions: first, for the period of more than two years that elapsed between the time of his arrest and the only visit that the Blida prison authorities allowed his oldest son to pay him, in April 2011; and second, from the date of that visit to the date of submission of the present communication. Ahmed Braih has now been unlawfully detained for more than eight years. The Algerian authorities should have taken all necessary measures to ensure that his arrest did not become an abduction, that his fundamental rights are respected and that he is not detained incommunicado, for the purpose inter alia of allowing his family to visit him regularly and of recognizing his right to have access to a lawyer to assist him and to challenge the lawfulness of his detention. By depriving Ahmed Braih of all his rights and placing him outside the protection of the law, the Algerian authorities have violated their obligation to safeguard his right to life. These facts demonstrate a failure by the State party to fulfil its obligations and constitute a violation of article 6 (1) of the Covenant. 3.3 The author also recalls that the right not to be subjected to torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment is an absolute right from which no derogation is permissible. Incommunicado detention automatically creates an environment that is conducive to the practice of torture, as the individual is removed from the protection of the law. According to the Committee’s jurisprudence, this practice may in itself constitute a violation of article 7 of the Covenant. The State party has an obligation to open an inquiry as soon as an allegation of incommunicado detention is brought to its attention. The Committee has previously stressed that amnesty laws are generally incompatible with the duty of States to investigate and to punish any individual who is responsible for incommunicado detention.5 The author states that, in the absence of registration or any other procedure that could have been made known to the family, Ahmed Braih is being held incommunicado. Since his oldest son’s visit in April 2011, his family has not been able to contact him, no information has been provided as to his fate or whereabouts and no further visits have been authorized. The State party has done nothing to ensure that Ahmed Braih is not detained incommunicado, and no investigation has been carried out. No explanation has been provided by the State party since the time of Ahmed Braih’s arrest in January 2009. The impossibility of communicating with the outside world, which is inherent in incommunicado detention, causes such detainees immense psychological suffering that is 5 4 General comment No. 20 (1992), para. 15. GE.20-14652