CCPR/C/122/D/2364/2014 Optional Protocol that the State party has the duty to investigate in good faith all allegations of violations of the Covenant made against it and its representatives, and to provide the Committee with the information available to it. In cases where the author has submitted allegations to the State party that are corroborated by credible evidence, and where further clarification depends on information that is solely in the hands of the State party, the Committee may consider the author’s allegations substantiated, in the absence of satisfactory evidence or explanations to the contrary presented by the State party. 9.5 The Committee recalls that, while the Covenant does not explicitly use the term “enforced disappearance” in any of its articles, enforced disappearance constitutes a unique and integrated series of acts that represent continuing violation of various rights recognized in that treaty.28 9.6. In the present case, the Committee notes the State party’s allegation that Ms. Sharma was arrested under the provision of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention and Punishment) Act, 2002, but the State party has not clarified on which date, pursuant to which provisions or on which grounds. The State party has not challenged the authors’ allegations concerning the arbitrary character of Ms. Sharma’s arrest without a warrant on 20 October 2003. The Committee observes that promptly after Mr. Paudel became aware of his wife’s disappearance, he submitted an application to the National Human Rights Commission and a writ of habeas corpus on 30 October 2003. It also notes that the detention of Ms. Sharma at Maharajgunj is corroborated by the statement of other codetainees. According to the Malego Committee, she was a victim of enforced disappearance. It further observes that, in the context of the habeas corpus proceedings before the Supreme Court, all authorities, including the Bhairabnat Battalion, denied that Ms. Sharma had ever been detained. The Committee notes that, on 4 February 2004, Amnesty International requested the Government to provide clarifications concerning the fate and whereabouts of Ms. Sharma, among other disappeared persons, but never received a reply. It also notes that Mr. Paudel was only informed of the whereabouts of his wife through a letter that she had managed to send him secretly through a friend whom she had met by chance while she was in the hospital, and then through a cook at Maharajgunj. However, the State party never produced any evidence as to the whereabouts of Ms. Sharma that would have made it possible to locate her if she had not managed to send her letters to her husband. The Committee therefore considers that Ms. Sharma’s deprivation of liberty from 20 October 2003 to 25 August 2004, followed by the authorities’ refusal to acknowledge it and the concealment of her fate, constituted an enforced disappearance. 9.7 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, removes the person from the protection of the law and places his or her life at serious and constant risk, for which the State is accountable. 29 In the present case, the State party has produced no evidence to show that, from 20 October 2003 to 25 August 2004, while Ms. Sharma was held in incommunicado detention, it met its obligations to protect her life. Accordingly, the Committee concludes that the State party failed in its duty to protect Ms. Sharma’s life, in violation of article 6 (1) of the Covenant.30 9.8 The Committee notes the authors’ allegations that the detention and subsequent enforced disappearance of Ms. Sharma amount per se to treatment contrary to article 7. 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, the Committee notes the authors’ allegations that Ms. Sharma was kept 28 29 30 v. Nepal, para. 10.3; Nakarmi v. Nepal, para. 11.4; Dhakal and others v. Nepal, para. 11.4; and Neupane and Neupane v. Nepal, para. 10.4. See Katwal v. Nepal, para. 11.3; Serna et al. v. Colombia (CCPR/C/114/D/2134/2012), para. 9.4; Basnet v. Nepal, para. 10.4; Nakarmi v. Nepal, para. 11.5; Dhakal and others v. Nepal, para. 11.5; and Neupane and Neupane v. Nepal, para. 10.5. See Abushaala v. Libya, para. 6.2; Basnet v. Nepal, para. 10.5; Nakarmi v. Nepal, para. 11.6; Dhakal and others v. Nepal, para. 11.6; and Neupane and Neupane v. Nepal, para. 10.6. See Il Khwildy v. Libya, para. 7.12. 13