CCPR/C/119/D/2185/2012 Court’s orders have never been implemented and no thorough and effective investigation has been carried out to establish his fate and whereabouts. In that context, the burden of proof rests on the State party to show that it has complied with its obligation to guarantee the right to life of the person under its control. Therefore, in the light of the State party’s failure to demonstrate the contrary, the authors submit that Rajendra Dhakal’s enforced disappearance constitutes a violation of his rights under article 6 of the Covenant. 3.3 The incommunicado detention and enforced disappearance of Rajendra Dhakal amount to treatment contrary to article 7 of the Covenant. By keeping him in detention without contact with the outside world since 8 January 1999, the authorities placed him at the mercy of the police. In addition, it is likely that he suffered immensely from mental anguish as to his fate, owing to the circumstances surrounding his disappearance, including his previous ill-treatment in detention and the death threats received from the security forces after the issuance of the arrest warrant against him. 3.4 Over 12 years have passed since Rajendra Dhakal was arbitrarily deprived of his liberty, taken to Bel Chautara Area Police Office and subjected to enforced disappearance by policemen. His long-lasting incommunicado detention constitutes per se a violation of article 9 of the Covenant. Even admitting that his arrest was made pursuant to a valid arrest warrant, such as the one issued on 7 August 1998 by Tanahun District Court, none of the procedures required by Nepalese and international law have been met. His detention was not entered in any official record or registered and his relatives have never seen him again. He was never charged with a crime, nor was he brought before a judge or any other official authorized by law to exercise judicial power. He was unable to bring proceedings before a court to challenge the lawfulness of his detention. 3.5 The authors argue that Rajendra Dhakal’s arbitrary arrest, incommunicado detention and enforced disappearance, as well as the conditions to which he was subjected by the police, themselves constitute violations of article 10 of the Covenant. 3.6 Rajendra Dhakal’s incommunicado detention, subsequent enforced disappearance and the failure by the authorities to conduct an effective investigation into his whereabouts and fate have denied him the protection of the law since 8 January 1999, preventing him from enjoying his human rights and freedoms. Consequently, the State party is responsible for a continuing violation of article 16 of the Covenant. 3.7 Although the authors promptly reported the arbitrary deprivation of liberty and enforced disappearance of Rajendra Dhakal and the Supreme Court found that he was indeed forcibly disappeared by the police, no ex officio, prompt, impartial, thorough and independent investigation has been carried out and his fate and whereabouts remain unknown to date. Moreover, to date, no one has been summoned or convicted for his arbitrary deprivation of liberty, enforced disappearance, torture and possible death and the subsequent concealment of his mortal remains. Accordingly, the State party has violated and is continuing to violate his rights under articles 6, 7, 9, 10 and 16, read in conjunction with article 2 (3) of the Covenant. 3.8 The State party has violated the first and second authors’ rights under article 7, read in conjunction with article 2 (3) of the Covenant, as they were subjected to deep anguish and distress owing to the arbitrary arrest and subsequent enforced disappearance of their relative, as well as to the acts and omissions of the authorities in dealing with those issues. Rajendra Dhakal’s disappearance has grievous emotional and psychological consequences for the family. It clearly disrupted the first author’s family life and adversely affected its financial sustainability. The first author faced difficulties providing for her children and their education. She used to take medication in order to overcome anxiety and recurrent nervous breakdowns and is still deeply affected by her husband’s disappearance. The second author was distressed by the utter lack of cooperation by the police authorities and feared being detained himself for his frequent visits and inquiries to police posts. Not feeling safe in Gorkha, he eventually decided to move to Japan, but still maintained regular contact with the first author and her family. Despite having moved abroad, he used to have recurrent nightmares picturing his brother being beaten up or himself travelling to find him. He consulted a doctor to try to recover from those tribulations and he undertook treatment with antidepressant and anxiolytic medication. To date, the authors’ right to know the truth 5