CCPR/C/112/D/2111/2011 the author submits that her husband’s enforced disappearance as such, and subsequent killing, constitute a violation by the State party of his rights under article 6 of the Covenant. 3.3 The incommunicado detention and enforced disappearance of the author’s husband per se amount to a treatment contrary to article 7 of the Covenant. By keeping him in detention without contact with the outside world since September 2003, the authorities placed him at the mercy of the officers of the Maharajgunj barracks. Further, according to eyewitnesses who saw him in the barracks, he was in poor physical condition and with visible signs of torture. It has been well documented that torture was a common practice at Maharajgunj barracks. 3.4 Mr. Tripathi’s conditions of detention at the Maharajgunj barracks also constituted a violation of his rights under articles 7; and 10, paragraph 1, of the Covenant. Testimonies of former detainees, as well as the reports of the National Human Rights Commission and OHCHR-Nepal, indicate that detainees were permanently handcuffed and blindfolded and were held in overcrowded cells, with limited access to food of very poor quality, with dirty water and toilets. Those detainees who were suffering from diseases and infections did not receive medical treatment. 3.5 The author’s husband was also a victim of violations of his rights under article 9, paragraphs 1–4, of the Covenant. The fact that her husband was last seen alive in the hands of the Army at the Maharajgunj barracks, in the context of massive arrests of persons suspected of being Maoists, allows for a presumption that he was arrested on 26 September 2003 by State agents, without any legal grounds. His detention was not entered in any official record or register and his relatives have never seen him again. He was never charged with a crime, nor was he brought before a judge, or any other official authorized by law to exercise judicial power. He was unable to take proceedings before a court to challenge the lawfulness of his detention. 3.6 Mr. Tripathi’s enforced disappearance and the failure by the authorities to conduct an effective investigation concerning his whereabouts and fate have maintained him outside the protection of the law since September 2003, preventing him from enjoying his human rights and freedoms. Consequently, the State party is responsible for a continuing violation of article 16 of the Covenant. 3.7 The author claims that her husband’s arbitrary detention, enforced disappearance and alleged arbitrary deprivation of life, were directly related to his membership of ANNISU-R and, therefore, constitute a violation of his rights under article 22, paragraph 1, of the Covenant. 3.8 Although the author reported promptly the arbitrary deprivation of liberty and enforced disappearance of her husband, no ex officio, prompt, impartial, thorough and independent investigation has been carried out, and his fate and whereabouts remain unknown to date. Moreover, as of today, no one has been summoned or convicted for his arbitrary deprivation of liberty, enforced disappearance, torture, most likely arbitrary execution and the subsequent concealment of his mortal remains. Accordingly, the State party has violated and is continuing to violate his rights under articles 6, paragraph 1; 7; 9, paragraphs 1–4; 10, paragraph 1; 16 and 22, read in conjunction with article 2, paragraph 3, of the Covenant. 3.9 The author claims that the State party violated her rights under article 7, read in conjunction with article 2, paragraph 3, of the Covenant, as she was subjected to deep anguish and distress owing to the arbitrary arrest and subsequent enforced disappearance of her husband, as well as to the acts and omissions of the authorities in dealing with thosee issues. As a result of her husband’s disappearance, she has had to bring up her daughter alone. In that regard, she argues that wives and families of disappeared persons are often stigmatized in Nepal. 6