CCPR/C/112/D/2111/2011 6.5 The Committee takes note of the author’s claim under article 22 of the Covenant that her husband’s alleged arbitrary detention, enforced disappearance and extrajudicial execution were directly related to his membership of ANNISU-R, where he held important positions. The Committee considers that this claim has not been sufficiently substantiated for purposes of admissibility and finds it inadmissible, pursuant to article 2 of the Optional Protocol. 6.6 The Committee considers that the remaining claims have been sufficiently substantiated for purposes of admissibility. It therefore considers that the communication is admissible and proceeds to the examination of the claims in respect Of Gyanendra Tripathi under articles 6; 7; 9; 10, paragraph 1, and 16, alone and read in conjunction with article 2, paragraph 3, of the Covenant; as well as in respect of the author under article 7, read in conjunction with article 2, paragraph 3, and of her minor daughter under article 7, read in conjunction with articles 2, paragraph 3, and 24, paragraph 1, of the Covenant. Consideration of the merits 7.1 The Human Rights Committee has considered the communication in the light of all the information made available to it by the parties, as provided for under article 5, paragraph 1, of the Optional Protocol. 7.2 The Committee takes note of the author’s allegation that, although there were no eye-witnesses to the precise moment of her husband’s arrest, several reports and testimonies indicate that her husband was detained by the Army on 26 September 2003, kept incommunicado at the Maharajgunj barracks and forcibly disappeared by State agents. According to the author, the chances of finding her husband alive are minimal, since concurring evidence suggests that he was killed by members of the Army on or about 20 December 2003. The Committee also notes the State party’s argument that the author’s allegations are based on mere suspicion; and that within the habeas corpus proceedings, she was unable to prove that her husband had been arrested and detained by State agents. The Committee reaffirms that the burden of proof cannot rest solely on the author of the communication, especially considering that the author and the State party do not always have equal access to evidence, and that frequently the State party alone has access to the relevant information.12 It is implicit in article 4, paragraph 2, of the 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. 7.3 In the present case, the Committee observes that promptly after losing contact with her husband in September 2003, the author approached several Army barracks in Kathmandu inquiring as to his whereabouts and fate. However, the authorities denied that he had been detained. The Committee also observes that, according to reports issued by OHCHR-Nepal and the National Human Rights Commission in 2006 and 2009, respectively, and testimonies from former detainees at theMaharajgunj barracks, her husband was last seen in those barracks in the custody of the Army, in December 2003. Further, on 4 July 2006, the National Human Rights Commission found that Mr. Tripathi 12 See communications No. 1422/2005, El Hassy v. the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Views adopted on 24 October 2007, para. 6.7; No. 1297/2004; Medjnoune v. Algeria, Views adopted on 14 July 2006, para. 8.3; and No. 1804/2008, Il Khwildy v. Libya, Views adopted on 1 November 2012, para. 7.2. 11