CCPR/C/120/D/2267/2013 State party do not have equal access to the evidence and when the State party is often in sole possession of the relevant information, such as information related to the arrest and disappearance of Youcef Khelifati. 11 The Committee notes that the State party has not provided any facts to clarify the fate of the victim even though he was seen for the last time in the hands of regular officers of the national police on 20 June 1994. Despite the author’s persistent enquiries, no authority has confirmed where Youcef Khelifati is being held or officially established the exact circumstances of his possible death. The vague, indirect and brief piece of information passed on by the National Human Rights Observatory on 11 October 1994 to the effect that Youcef Khelifati was reportedly killed by the security forces in July 1994 (para. 2.6) did not lead to an investigation or the return of his body to the family. 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 denies that person the protection of the law and places his or her life at serious and constant risk, for which the State is accountable. 12 Given the many years since Youcef Khelifati’s disappearance and the information received regarding his execution, it is very likely that he was the victim of a summary execution or that he died in detention, and the State party clearly failed to meet its obligation to protect his life. The Committee concludes that article 6 (1) of the Covenant was violated. 6.5 The Committee acknowledges the degree of suffering caused by being detained without contact with the outside world for an indefinite period. 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 take steps to prohibit incommunicado detention. It notes, in the present case, that the author and Youcef Khelifati’s family have never received any information on his fate or place of detention. In the absence of any explanation from the State party, the Committee considers that this disappearance constitutes a violation of article 7 of the Covenant with regard to Youcef Khelifati. 13 6.6 In the light of the foregoing, the Committee will not consider separately the claims in relation to the violation of article 10 of the Covenant. 14 6.7 The Committee takes note of the anguish and distress caused to the author and his family by the disappearance of his son. It also takes note of the author’s allegation that his second son, Mohamed Khelifati, Youcef Khelifati’s younger brother, was subjected to reprisals in the form of arrests, prosecution, violence and threats by army personnel. The Committee notes that the State party has not refuted this information and considers that the facts before it disclose a violation of article 7, read alone and in conjunction with article 2 (3) of the Covenant, with regard to the author and his family. 15 6.8 Regarding the claims of a violation of article 9, the Committee notes the author’s allegations that Youcef Khelifati was arbitrarily arrested without a warrant and was not charged or brought before a judicial authority where he could have challenged the legality of his detention. In the absence of any information from the State party in that regard, the Committee considers that due weight must be given to the author’s allegations16 and finds a violation of article 9 with regard to Youcef Khelifati. 17 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 GE.17-16622 See, for example, communication No. 888/1999, Telitsin v. Russian Federation, Views adopted on 29 March 2004, paras. 7.5 and 7.6. See also communication No. 1832/2008, Al Khazmi v. Libya, Views adopted on 18 July 2013, para. 8.2. See communications, El Boathi v. Algeria, para. 7.5; No. 2117/2011, Louddi v. Algeria, Views adopted on 30 October 2014, para. 7.4; Mezine v. Algeria, para. 8.4; and Boudjemai v. Algeria, para. 8.4. See communications, Ammari v. Algeria, para. 8.5; Mezine v. Algeria, para. 8.5; Khirani v. Algeria, para. 7.5; Djebrouni v. Algeria, para. 8.5; and No.1295/2004, El Alwani v. Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Views adopted on 11 July 2007, para. 6.5. See Ammari v. Algeria, para. 8.6. See communications, Mezine v. Algeria, para. 8.6; Khirani v. Algeria, para. 7.6; Djebrouni v. Algeria, para. 8.6; No. 1640/2007, El Abani v. Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Views adopted on 26 July 2010, para. 7.5; and No. 1422/2005, El Hassy v. Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Views adopted on 24 October 2007, para. 6.11. See communication No. 2297/2013, Chani v. Algeria, Views adopted on 11 March 2016, para. 7.5. See, inter alia, El Boathi v. Algeria, para. 7.9; Mezine v. Algeria, para. 8.7; Khirani v. Algeria, para. 7.7; and Djebrouni v. Algeria, para. 8.7. 7