CCPR/C/117/D/2164/2012 and integrated series of acts that represent continuing violation of various rights recognized in the treaty.14 10.5 In the present case, the Committee observes that after losing contact with her husband in May 1999, the author promptly approached several police stations in Kathmandu searching for him; that although the police at the headquarters in Naxal, Kathmandu, refused her access to her husband, she was allowed to hand over some clean clothes for him and a policeman on duty gave her some dirty clothes belonging to her husband; that after 10 June 1999 when she allegedly last saw him, from a distance, in the hands of the police at police headquarters, she continued to inquire as to his fate and whereabouts, but received contradictory information. In that regard, the Committee observes that in an article published in the Mahanagar Daily on 31 August 1999, provided by the author, it was reported that, although the then Prime Minister had stated that Mr. Nepali had been killed, he was in fact alive and being tortured and held by the Riot Control Police in Pokhara; whereas within the habeas corpus proceedings before the Supreme Court the authorities denied that he had ever been detained by the police. No further information has been provided as to the fate and whereabouts of the author’s husband. However, Mr. Nepali’s name is included in the National Human Rights Commission list of conflictrelated disappearances and the ICRC missing persons database. In the light of the documentation submitted by the author, the Committee considers that the State party has not provided sufficient and concrete explanations to refute the author’s allegations regarding her husband’s enforced disappearance. 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, 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.15 In the present case, the State party has produced no evidence to show that it met its obligations to protect the life of Mr. Nepali. Accordingly, the Committee concludes that the State party failed in its duty to protect Mr. Nepali’s life, in violation of article 6 (1) of the Covenant. 10.6 The Committee takes note of the author’s allegations that the detention and subsequent enforced disappearance of her husband amount per se to treatment contrary to article 7 of the Covenant. 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 should make provisions against incommunicado detention. In the present case, in the absence of a satisfactory explanation from the State party, the Committee finds that the enforced disappearance of the author’s husband constitutes 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 (1) of the Covenant for the same facts. 10.7 The Committee also takes note of the anguish and stress caused to the author by the disappearance of her husband. In particular, the author has never received an adequate explanation of the circumstances surrounding Mr. Nepali’s disappearance or his alleged death, nor has she received his body remains. In the absence of a satisfactory explanation from the State party, the Committee considers that these facts reveal a violation of article 7 of the Covenant with respect to the author. 10.8 The Committee takes note of the author’s allegations under article 9 (1-4) that her husband was detained without an arrest warrant, that he was never brought before a judge 14 15 See communications No. 2000/2010, Katwal v. Nepal, Views adopted on 1 April 2015, para. 11.3, and No. 2134/2012, Serna and others v. Colombia, Views adopted on 9 July 2015, para. 9.4. See communication No. 1913/2009, Abushaala v. Libya, Views adopted on 18 March 2013, para. 6.2. 11