CCPR/C/119/D/2184/2012 authorities denied that he had been detained on several occasions. This position was maintained by the authorities before the Supreme Court within the writ of mandamus proceedings instituted by the author. On the other hand, the Committee also observes that, according to reports issued by OHCHR-Nepal and the National Human Rights Commission in 2006 and 2009, respectively, testimonies by former detainees at the Bhairab Nath Barracks indicate that the author’s husband was last seen in those Barracks in the custody of the Army between December 2003 and February 2004, that he fell very ill, and that it is believed that he died as a result of torture inflicted on him. Further, a decision of the Supreme Court of Nepal of 1 June 2007, concerning the habeas corpus petitions of 83 disappeared persons also noted that, according to one of the writs, the author’s husband had died as a result of torture inflicted in the Bhairab Nath Barracks. Mr. Nakarmi’s name is also included on the National Human Rights Commission’s list of conflict-related disappearances and the missing persons’ database of the International Committee of the Red Cross. In the light of the documentation submitted by the author, the Committee considers that the State party has not provided sufficient and concrete explanations to refute the author’s allegations regarding her husband’s enforced disappearance. The Committee recalls that, in cases of enforced disappearance, the deprivation of liberty followed by a refusal to acknowledge the deprivation of liberty, or by concealment of the fate of the disappeared person, denies the person the protection of the law and places his or her life at serious and constant risk, for which the State is accountable.15 In the instant case, the State party has produced no evidence to show that it met its obligations to protect the life of Mr. Nakarmi. Accordingly, the Committee concludes that the State party failed in its duty to protect Mr. Nakarmi’s life, in violation of article 6 (1) of the Covenant. 11.7 The Committee takes note of the author’s allegations that the incommunicado detention since September 2003 and subsequent enforced disappearance of her husband amount per se to treatment contrary to article 7; and that the reports of OHCHR-Nepal and the National Human Rights Commission also indicated that he was subjected to torture while in detention, which severely affected his health and presumably caused his death. 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 provision to ban incommunicado detention. In the present case, in the absence of a satisfactory explanation from the State party, the Committee finds that the enforced disappearance of the author’s husband and the treatment given to him while in detention constitute a violation of article 7 of the Covenant. Having reached that conclusion, the Committee will not examine the claims regarding the violation of article 10 (1) of the Covenant for the same facts. 11.8 The Committee notes the anguish and distress caused to the author and her minor daughter by the disappearance of Mr. Nakarmi and the lack of information on the circumstances surrounding it. No investigation has been carried out to ascertain his fate, and, in case of his death, to return his bodily remains to his family. The Committee considers that these facts reveal a violation of article 7 of the Covenant with respect to the author and her minor daughter. Having reached that conclusion, the Committee will not examine the claims regarding the violation of article 24 (1) of the Covenant concerning the author’s minor daughter. 11.9 The Committee takes note of the author’s allegations under article 9 that her husband was detained by members of the Royal Nepalese Army without an arrest warrant, that he was never brought before a judge or any other official authorized by law to exercise judicial power and that he could not take proceedings before a court to challenge the lawfulness of his detention. In the absence of a response from the State party in that regard, the Committee considers that the detention of the author’s husband constitutes a violation of his rights under article 9 of the Covenant. 11.10 With regard to the alleged violation of article 16, the Committee notes the author’s allegations that her husband was arrested by members of the Royal Nepalese Army in the presence of several witnesses, including the author and Mr. Nakarmi’s mother and brother; that since then the State party has failed to provide the author with relevant information concerning her husband’s fate and whereabouts; and that no effective investigation has 15 10 See communication No. 1913/2009, Abushaala v. Libya, Views adopted on 18 March 2013, para. 6.2.