CCPR/C/112/D/2111/2011 had been arrested, kept in the Maharajgunj barracks and disappeared by members of the Bhairabnath battalion. In the light of the documentation submitted by the author, the Committee considers that the State party has not provided sufficient and concrete explanations that oppose the findings and conclusions of the National Human Rights Commission and OHCHR-Nepal. The Committee recalls its jurisprudence 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.13 In the instant case, the State party has produced no evidence to show that it met its obligations to protect the life of Mr. Tripathi. Accordingly, the Committee concludes that the State party failed in its duty to protect Mr. Tripathi’s life, in violation of article 6, paragraph 1, of the Covenant.14 7.4 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 cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, in which it recommended that States parties make provision against incommunicado detention. It notes the author’s allegations that her husband was arrested in September 2003 and kept incommunicado at the Maharajgunj barracks, without contact with the outside world; and that when he was last seen in the barracks by other detainees, he was in poor physical condition and had visible signs of torture. In the absence of information from the State party that would contradict the aforementioned, the Committee concludes that the facts, as described, amount to a violation of article 7 of the Covenant. Having reached that conclusion the Committee will not examine the claims regarding the violation of article 10 of the Covenant. 7.5 The Committee notes the anguish and distress caused to the author and her minor daughter, C.T., by the disappearance of Mr. Tripathi in September 2003. The author and her daughter have never received an adequate explanation of the circumstances surrounding Mr. Tripathi’s disappearance. Moreover, although reliable evidence suggests that the chances of finding her husband alive are minimal, no investigation has been carried out to ascertain his fate, and, in case of his death, to return his bodily remains to his family. The Committee considers that the facts, as described, also disclose a violation of article 7 of the Covenant with regard to the author and her daughter.15 Having reached that conclusion the Committee will not examine the claims regarding the violation of article 24, paragraph 1, of the Covenant concerning C.T. 7.6 Regarding the alleged violations of article 9 of the Covenant, the Committee notes the author’s claims that the fact that her husband was last seen alive in the hands of the Army at the Maharajgunj barracks, together with the context of massive arrests of persons suspected of being Maoists, allows for a presumption that, on 26 September 2003, he was arrested without a warrant; held incommunicado at the Maharajgunj barracks; and never brought before a judge, or any other official authorized by law to exercise judicial power; nor could he take proceedings before a court to challenge the lawfulness of his detention. In that regard, the Committee observes that the State party has not refuted the findings of the National Human Rights Commission of 4 July 2006. In the absence of a pertinent 13 14 15 12 See communication No. 1913/2009, Abushaala v. Libya, Views adopted on 18 March 2013, para. 6.2. See Il Khwildy v. Libya, para. 7.12. See communication No. 1640/2007, El Abani v. Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Views adopted on 26 July 2010, para. 7.5; No. 1295/2004, El Alwani v. Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Views adopted on 11 July 2007, para. 6.5; No. 107/1981, Quinteros v. Uruguay, Views adopted on 21 July 1983, para. 14; and No. 950/2000, Sarma v. Sri Lanka, Views adopted on 16 July 2003, para. 9.5.