CCPR/C/126/D/2750/2016 fate or whereabouts. The Committee recalls that, in cases of enforced disappearance, 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. 40 In the present case, the State party has not submitted any information indicating that it took any measures to preserve the life of Mr. Téllez Padilla when he was detained by the authorities, in violation of article 6 (1) of the Covenant. 9.7 The Committee also takes note of the authors’ claim that the acts constitute treatment contrary to article 7 of the Covenant in respect of Mr. Téllez Padilla, because of the severe suffering, the uncertainty and the effect on his physical and psychological integrity as a result of the enforced disappearance. In the absence of any information from the State party on this point, the Committee considers that the facts as described constitute a violation of article 7 of the Covenant in respect of Mr. Téllez Padilla. The Committee also notes the authors’ assertion that Mr. Téllez Padilla’s disappearance and the pursuit of justice have caused them distress and suffering. The Committee considers that these facts reveal a violation of article 7 of the Covenant in respect of the authors of the communication.41 9.8 With regard to the alleged violation of article 9 of the Covenant, the Committee takes note of the authors’ allegations that Mr. Téllez Padilla was arrested without a warrant and without being brought before a judicial authority, which would have enabled him to challenge the lawfulness of his deprivation of liberty. The Committee recalls its general comment No. 35, in which it observes that enforced disappearance constitutes a particularly aggravated form of arbitrary detention; 42 it recalls that article 17 of the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance provides that no one shall be held in secret detention and calls for the establishment of registers of persons deprived of their liberty as a fundamental safeguard against enforced disappearance; and it notes that the Inter-American Court of Human Rights has found that clandestine detention centres are per se a violation of the rights to personal liberty. 43 Since the State party has not provided any information in this regard, the Committee considers that due weight should be given to the authors’ allegations and finds that the deprivation of liberty of Mr. Téllez Padilla was a violation of his rights under article 9 of the Covenant. 9.9 As for the authors’ claim that Mr. Téllez Padilla was removed from the protection of the law and was last seen in the hands of the authorities, in violation of article 16 of the Covenant, the Committee recalls that the deliberate removal of a person from the protection of the law constitutes a denial of that person’s right to recognition as a person before the law, particularly if his or her family’s attempts to obtain effective remedies have been systematically obstructed.44 In the present case, the Committee observes that the State party has not furnished any convincing explanation concerning the fate or whereabouts of Mr. Téllez Padilla, and that, when last seen, he was in the hands of the authorities. The 40 41 42 43 44 12 Gyan Devi Bolakhe et al. v. Nepal, para. 7.8, and general comment No. 36, para. 58. See also InterAmerican Court of Human Rights, Velásquez-Rodríguez v. Honduras, merits, judgment of 29 July 1988, Series C, No. 4: “The practice of disappearances often involves secret execution without trial, followed by concealment of the body to eliminate any material evidence of the crime and to ensure the impunity of those responsible. This is a flagrant violation of the right to life ...” (para. 157), and “the context in which the disappearance ... occurred and the lack of knowledge seven years later about his fate create a reasonable presumption that he was killed” (para. 188). Gyan Devi Bolakhe et al. v. Nepal (CCPR/C/123/D/2658/2015), para. 7.16, and general comment No. 36, para. 58. General comment No. 35, para. 17, and general comment No. 36, para. 58. Settled jurisprudence of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights since the case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru, preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs, judgment of 22 September 2009, Series C, No. 202, para. 63. Gyan Devi Bolakhe et al. v. Nepal, para. 7.18, and also general comment No. 36, para. 58. See also the view of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights: “... disappearance is not only one of the most serious forms of placing the person outside the protection of the law but it also entails to deny that person’s existence and to place him or her in a kind of limbo or uncertain legal situation before the society, the State and even the international community” (Anzualdo Castro v. Peru, para. 90). GE.19-15740