CCPR/C/121/D/2283/2013 Committee have not been introduced, Ordinance No. 06-01 contributes, in the present case, to impunity and cannot be considered compatible with the provisions of the Covenant. 5 8.3 The Committee notes that the State party has not replied to the author’s claims concerning the merits of the case and recalls its jurisprudence, according to which the burden of proof should not lie solely with the author of a communication, especially given that the author and the State party do not always have the same degree of access to evidence and that often only the State party is in possession of the necessary information. 6 In conformity with article 4 (2) of the Optional Protocol, 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. 7 In the absence of any explanations from the State party in this respect, due weight must be given to the author’s allegations, provided they have been sufficiently substantiated. 8.4 The Committee recalls that, while the Covenant does not explicitly use the term “enforced disappearance” in any of its articles, enforced disappearance constitutes a unique and integrated series of acts that represent continuing violation of various rights recognized in the treaty.8 8.5 The Committee notes that Mahmoud Boudjema was seen for the last time on the night of 19 to 20 August 1996 when he was arrested at his home by soldiers of the people’s national army. It notes that two persons affirmed that they were detained the same night with the victim and that the author and his family have since then gone without word of him. The Committee notes that the State party has produced no evidence to establish what happened to Mahmoud Boudjema and has never even confirmed his detention. The Committee recalls 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, effectively 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.9 In the present case, the Committee notes that the State party has produced no evidence to indicate that it fulfilled its obligation to protect the life of Mahmoud Boudjema. The Committee therefore finds that the State party has failed in its duty to protect Mahmoud Boudjema’s life, in violation of article 6 (1) of the Covenant. 8.6 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 other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, in which it recommends that States parties take steps to prohibit incommunicado detention. It notes, in the present case, that the author and Mahmoud Boudjema’s family have never received any information on his fate or place of detention. The Committee therefore considers that it is possible that Mahmoud Boudjema, who disappeared on the night of 19 to 20 August 1996, is still being held incommunicado by the Algerian authorities. In the absence of any explanation from the State party, the Committee 5 6 7 8 9 GE.17-21416 See Ammari v. Algeria, para. 8.2. See, inter alia, Ammari v. Algeria, para. 8.3; Mezine v. Algeria, para. 8.3; communication No. 1640/2007, El Abani v. Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Views adopted on 26 July 2010, para. 7.4; and Djebrouni v. Algeria, para. 8.3. See Mezine v. Algeria, para. 8.3; and communication No. 1297/2004, Medjnoune v. Algeria, Views adopted on 14 July 2006, para. 8.3. See communications No. 2000/2010, Katwal v. Nepal, Views adopted on 1 April 2015, para. 11.3; No. 2134/2012, Serna et al. v. Colombia, Views adopted on 9 July 2015, para. 9.4; and No. 2259/2013, El Boathi v. Algeria, Views adopted on 17 March 2017, para. 7.4. See also general comment No. 6 (1982) on the right to life, para. 4: “States parties should also take specific and effective measures to prevent the disappearance of individuals, something which unfortunately has become all too frequent and leads too often to arbitrary deprivation of life. Furthermore, States should establish effective facilities and procedures to investigate thoroughly cases of missing and disappeared persons in circumstances which may involve a violation of the right to life.” See communication No. 2117/2011, Louddi v. Algeria, Views adopted on 30 October 2014, para. 7.4; Mezine v. Algeria, para. 8.4; and Boudjemai v. Algeria, para. 8.4. 9