CCPR/C/112/D/2117/2011 refusal to acknowledge the 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. 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 Hacen Louddi. It therefore concludes that the State party has failed in its duty to protect the life of Hacen Louddi, in violation of article 6 (para. 1) of the Covenant. 18 7.5 The Committee recognizes the degree of suffering involved in being held indefinitely 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, which recommends that States parties should make provisions against incommunicado detention. It notes in the case in question that Hacen Louddi was arrested on 9 April 1995 by police officers from the Châteauneuf PCO, where he was seen for the last time by a fellow detainee on the night of 18 November 1995, and that his fate is still unknown. In the absence of a satisfactory explanation from the State party, the Committee considers that this disappearance constitutes a violation of article 7 of the Covenant with regard to Hacen Louddi.19 7.6 The Committee also takes note of the anguish and distress caused to the author and her family by the disappearance of her son and by the uncertainty as to what has become of him and the fact that no effective investigation has shed light on his fate. It considers that the facts before it disclose a violation of article 7 of the Covenant with regard to the author and her family.20 7.7 With regard to the alleged violation of article 9, the Committee notes the author’s allegations that Hacen Louddi was arrested by the police, without a warrant, on 9 April 1995, that he was not charged or brought before a judicial authority, which would have enabled him to challenge the lawfulness of his detention, and that no official information regarding his fate was given to his family. 21 In the absence of satisfactory explanations from the State party, the Committee finds a violation of article 9. 22 7.8 Regarding the complaint under article 10 (para. 1), the Committee reiterates that persons deprived of their liberty may not be subjected to any hardship or constraint other than that resulting from the deprivation of liberty and that they must be treated with humanity and respect for their dignity. In view of the incommunicado detention of Hacen Louddi and in the absence of any information from the State party in that regard, the Committee finds a violation of article 10 (para. 1) of the Covenant. 23 7.9 With regard to the alleged violation of article 16, the Committee reiterates its established jurisprudence, according to which the intentional removal of a person from the protection of the law for a prolonged period of time may constitute a refusal to recognize 18 19 20 21 22 23 10 See Mezine v. Algeria, para. 8.4; and Boudemai v. Algeria, para. 8.4. See Mezine v. Algeria, para. 8.5; Khirani v. Algeria, para. 7.5; Berzig v. Algeria, para. 8.5; and communication No. 1295/2004, El Alwani v. Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Views adopted on 11 July 2007, para. 6.5. See Mezine v. Algeria, para. 8.6; Khirani v. Algeria, para. 7.6; Berzig v. Algeria, para. 8.6; El Abani v. Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, para. 7.5; and communication No. 1422/2005, El Hassy v. Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Views adopted on 24 October 2007, para. 6.11. See para. 2.3 above. See, inter alia, Mezine v. Algeria, para. 8.7; Khirani v. Algeria, para. 7.7; and Berzig v. Algeria, para. 8.7. See general comment No. 21 (1992) on humane treatment of persons deprived of their liberty, para. 3; Mezine v. Algeria, para. 8.8; Zarzi v. Algeria, para. 7.8; and communication No. 1134/2002, GorjiDinka v. Cameroon, Views adopted on 17 March 2005, para. 5.2. GE.14-22809