CCPR/C/112/D/2111/2011 explanation from the State party, the Committee considers that the facts described constitute a violation of article 9 of the Covenant. 7.7 In respect of article 16 of the Covenant, the Committee reiterates its established jurisprudence, according to which intentionally removing a person from the protection of the law for a prolonged period of time may constitute a refusal of recognition as a person before the law if the victim was in the hands of the State authorities when last seen and, at the same time, if the efforts of his or her relatives to obtain access to potentially effective remedies, including judicial remedies (see art. 2, para. 3, of the Covenant), have been systematically impeded.16 In the present case, the author claims that, despite the efforts of Mr. Tripathi’s family, the State party has failed to provide them with relevant information concerning his fate and whereabouts and that despite the recommendations of the National Human Rights Commmission and the ruling by the Supreme Court of 1 June 2007, no effective investigation has been carried out to ascertain his whereabouts, maintaining him outside the protection of the law since September 2003. The Committee, therefore, finds that the enforced disappearance of Mr. Tripathi deprives him of the protection of the law and deprived him of his right to recognition as person before the law, in violation of article 16 of the Covenant. 7.8 The author invokes article 2, paragraph 3, of the Covenant, which requires States parties to ensure that individuals have accessible, effective and enforceable remedies for asserting the rights recognized in the Covenant. The Committee reiterates the importance it attaches to States parties establishing appropriate judicial and administrative mechanisms for addressing alleged violations of rights under domestic law. It refers to its general comment No. 31 (2004) on the nature of the general legal obligation imposed on States parties to the Covenant, in which it states that failure by a State party to investigate allegations of violations could in and of itself give rise to a separate breach of the Covenant. In the present case, the Committee observes that, shortly after losing contact with her husband, the author approached several barracks in Kathmandu, tried to report his disappearance to the Chief District Officer in Hanumandhoka and lodged a writ of habeas corpus with the Supreme Court. Despite the author’s efforts, almost 12 years after the disappearance of her husband, no thorough and effective investigation has been concluded by the State party in order to elucidate the circumstances surrounding his detention, and no criminal investigation has even been started to bring the perpetrators to justice. Therefore, the Committee considers that the State party has failed to conduct a thorough and effective investigation into the disappearance of the author’s husband. Additionally, the Nr. 300,000 received by the author as interim relief does not constitute an adequate remedy commensurate with the seriousness of the violations inflicted. Accordingly, the Committee concludes that the facts before it also reveal a violation of article 2, paragraph 3, read in conjunction with articles 6, paragraph 1; 7; 9 and 16 of the Covenant, with regard to Mr. Tripathi; and article 2, paragraph 3, read in conjunction with article 7 of the Covenant with respect to the author and C.T. 8. The Human Rights Committee, acting under article 5, paragraph 4, of the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, is of the view that the information before it discloses violations by the State party of articles 6, paragraph 1; 7; 9 and 16 of the Covenant; and of article 2, paragraph 3, read in conjunction with articles 6, paragraph 1; 7; 9 and 16 of the Covenant with regard to Gyanendra Tripathi; and of 16 See El Abani v. Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, para. 7.9; and communications No. 1327/2004, Grioua v. Algeria, Views adopted on 10 July 2007, para. 7.8; No. 1495/2006, Madoui v. Algeria, Views adopted on 28 October 2008, para. 7.7; and No. 1905/2009, Khirani v. Algeria, Views adopted on 26 March 2012, para. 7.8. 13