CCPR/C/115/D/2214/2012 9. In its Views adopted on 26 July 2010 in the case of Benaziza v. Algeria, the Committee replaces the reference to the Rome Statute with a reference to the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, which had just been adopted by the General Assembly. Although the definition from the Convention mentions neither the element of special intent, nor a time factor, the Committee still does not relinquish either of these. In fact, in paragraph 9.8 of the Views, it refers to both the standards mentioned above, which are largely contradictory. i 10. However, from October 2010 onward, the Committee “simplifies” the drafting of its views: firstly, it deletes any reference to texts other than the Covenant — whether the Rome Statute or the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance; it also removes the latter from the paragraph devoted to article 16 and retains only the restrictive standard based on the definition in the Rome Statute, namely the intention to remove the person from the protection of the law for a prolonged period of time, to which, as noted, it adds a further condition, namely that the efforts of the relatives of the disappeared person to gain access to potentially useful remedies, including before the courts (Covenant, art. 2, para. 3), must have been systematically hampered. j 11. If that standard is taken as a reference, it could indeed seem doubtful that Mr. Lumbala Tshidika was the victim of a violation of article 16. Firstly, it is very difficult to demonstrate the intention of ANR to remove him from the protection of the law for a prolonged period of time, and in any case, since the author did manage to escape, any such demonstration is — fortunately — rendered impossible. k Secondly, it is difficult to assert that the efforts of his relatives were “systematically hampered”: in this case, the judicial authorities quite simply did not respond to the complaints filed by the author’s brother, while any direct application to ANR was clearly not an option for fear of reprisals. 12. It should however be noted that the Committee’s jurisprudence has evolved recently and, in our opinion, that should have led the Committee to find a violation of article 16. 13. In its Views on the case of Tharu et al. v. Nepal, adopted on 3 July 2015, the Committee decided to drop the time factor derived from the definition in the Rome __________________ i j k 16/17 See communication No. 1588/2007, Benaziza v. Algeria, Views adopted on 26 July 2010; and communication No. 1640/2007, Abdelhakim Wanis El Abani (El Ouerfeli) v. Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Views adopted on 26 July 2010. See, for example, communication No. 1751/2008, Adam Hassan Aboussedra v. Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Views adopted on 25 October 2010, para. 7.9; and communication No. 1811/2008, Taous Djebbar and Saadi Chihoub v. Algeria, Views adopted on 31 October 2011, para. 8.9. Application of the time factor has led to heated debate within the Committee, as evidenced in opinions attached to the Views in the case of Tahar Mohamed Aboufaied v. Libya, communication No. 1782/2008, Views adopted on 21 March 2012, individual opinion (concurring) of Sir Nigel Rodley; individual opinion (partly dissenting) of Walter Kaelin; individual opinion (partly dissenting) of Fabián Salvioli. On this point, see the opinion of Fabián Salvioli on the case of Aboufaied v. Libya cited in the previous note, on the element of time in the Rome Statute definition: “it should be noted that there is no reference to the duration of detention; it merely has to be proved that the perpetrator intended to remove the person from the protection of the law for a certain length of time . Thus, for example, if a person is detained or abducted by or with the acquiescence of agents of the State, no information is provided on the place of detention and a few days later the person concerned is found dead, or even if he succeeds in escaping from captivity and is reunited with his family, it is difficult to maintain that he was not the victim of enforced disappearance, as has happened in numerous cases in many countries of the world, particularly in South America during the military dictatorships.” GE.15-22873