CCPR/C/122/D/2364/2014 case was rejected as statute-barred, on the basis that she should had requested the compensation 35 days after the date when she was released from detention. The complaint 3.1 The authors divide Ms. Sharma’s detention into two different periods: from 20 October 2003 to 25 August 2004, when she was able to secretly write a letter to her husband; and from 25 August 2004 until she was finally released, on 30 June 2005. 3.2 The authors allege that the arbitrary arrest and detention of Ms. Sharma by State agents from 20 October 2003 to 25 August 2004 constitute enforced disappearance. Throughout that period, Nepalese authorities continuously denied any involvement in her deprivation of liberty and persistently refused to disclose her fate and whereabouts. The National Human Rights Commission, the Kathmandu Chief District Officer and the Malego Commission acknowledged that she had been subjected to enforced disappearance. The authors submit that enforced disappearances violate per se multiple human rights enshrined in the Covenant, namely articles 6, 7, 9 (1–4), 10 (1) and 16, as well as article 2 (3).5 3.3 The authors contend that, even if Ms. Sharma did not die during her enforced disappearance, she was put outside the protection of the law and her life was at grave risk.6 Ms. Sharma was personally subjected to ill-treatment, and her health condition became so critical that she risked losing her life and had to be hospitalized. The State party therefore violated article 6 of the Covenant. 3.4 The authors consider that enforced disappearance constitutes in and of itself an act of torture, and a violation of article 7 of the Covenant. 7 They also submit that Ms. Sharma was repeatedly subjected to torture, both physical and psychological. Her suffering was witnessed by a number of fellow detainees and confirmed by the National Human Rights Commission. A medical examination conducted in 2011 by the Department of Forensic Medicine concluded that her injuries could have been produced by blunt force impacts, and a psychological assessment conducted during the same period certified that she was affected by depressive illness, as there had been a significant history of physical and mental torture. 3.5 The authors contend that the unacknowledged detention of any individual, as well as any incommunicado detention, constitutes a violation of article 9 (1–4) of the Covenant.8 Ms. Sharma was held incommunicado until August 2004. During the time of her enforced disappearance, Ms. Sharma was not informed of the reasons she was being detained, and was kept in detention without charges for over the maximum legal period at the time in Nepal. She was never brought before a judge or any other official authorized by law, and she had no opportunity to challenge the lawfulness of her deprivation of liberty. Her detention was not officially registered, and her relatives and counsel were not informed of her whereabouts and were not allowed to visit her. The authors further submit that the writ of habeas corpus submitted by Mr. Paudel on 30 October 2003 was inefficient, as the concerned authorities denied their involvement in Ms. Sharma’s detention. The authors consider that these facts amount to a violation of article 9 (1–4) of the Covenant by the State party. 3.6 The authors consider that enforced disappearance itself constitutes a violation of article 10 (1) of the Covenant.9 In addition, the inhumane conditions of deprivation of 5 6 7 8 9 The authors refer to Bousroual v. Algeria (CCPR/C/86/D/992/2001), para. 9.2; El-Abani v. Libyan Arab Jamahiriya (CCPR/C/99/D/1640/2007), para. 7.3; and Sarma v. Sri Lanka (CCPR/C/78/D/950/2000), para. 9.3. The authors refer to Guezout and Rakik v. Algeria (CCPR/C/105/D/1753/2008), para. 8.4. The authors refer to Mojica v. Dominican Republic (CCPR/C/51/D/449/1991); Grioua v. Algeria (CCPR/C/90/D/1327/2004); and Celis Laureano v. Peru (CCPR/C/56/D/540/1993). The authors refer to Madoui v. Algeria (CCPR/C/94/D/1495/2006); Grioua v. Algeria; and Bautista v. Colombia (CCPR/C/55/D/563/1993). The authors refer to Sharma v. Nepal (CCPR/C/94/D/1469/2006); Sedhai v. Nepal (CCPR/C/108/D/1865/2009); Azouz v. Algeria (CCPR/C/108/D/1798/2008); and Aouali, Faraoun and Bouregba v. Algeria (CCPR/C/109/D/1884/2009 and Corr.1). 5