security of person. In its prior jurisprudence, the Committee has held that this right may be invoked not only in the context of arrest and detention, and that an interpretation which would allow States parties to tolerate, condone or ignore threats made by persons in authority to the personal liberty and security of non-detained individuals within the State party's jurisdiction would render ineffective the guarantees of the Covenant.1 In the circumstances of the case, the Committee concludes that the State party has failed to ensure Rafael Mojica's right to liberty and security of the person, in violation of article 9, paragraph 1, of the Covenant. satisfied that the requirements of article 5, paragraph 2 (b), of the Optional Protocol had been met. 4.2 As to the author's claim under article 10, paragraph 1, of the Covenant, the Committee considered that it had not been substantiated and that it related to what might hypothetically have happened to Rafael Mojica after his disappearance on 5 May 1990; the Committee thus concluded that in this respect, the author had no claim under article 2 of the Optional Protocol. 4.3 Concerning the author's claims under articles 6, 7 and 9, paragraph 1, the Committee considered them to be substantiated, for purposes of admissibility. On 18 March 1993, therefore, the Committee declared the communication admissible in so far as it appeared to raise issues under articles 6, 7 and 9 of the Covenant. The State party was requested, in particular, to provide information about the results of the investigation into Mr. Mojica's disappearance and to forward copies of all relevant documentation in the case. 5.5 In respect of the alleged violation of article 6, paragraph 1, the Committee recalls its general comment 6 (16) on article 6, in which it is stated, inter alia, that States parties should take specific and effective measures to prevent the disappearance of individuals and establish effective facilities and procedures to investigate thoroughly, by an appropriate impartial body, cases of missing and disappeared persons in circumstances that may involve a violation of the right to life. Examination of the merits 5.6 The Committee observes that the State party has not denied that Rafael Mojica (a) has in fact disappeared and remains unaccounted for since the evening of 5 May 1990, and (b) that his disappearance was caused by individuals belonging to the Government's security forces. In the circumstances, the Committee finds that the right to life enshrined in article 6 has not been effectively protected by the Dominican Republic, especially considering that this is a case where the victim's life had previously been threatened by military officers. 5.1 The State party's deadline under article 4, paragraph 2, of the Optional Protocol expired on 10 November 1993. No submission on the merits has been received from the State party, in spite of a reminder addressed to it on 2 May 1994. 5.2 The Committee has noted with regret and concern the absence of cooperation on the part of the State party in respect of both the admissibility and the merits of the communication. It is implicit in article 4, paragraph 2, of the Optional Protocol and in rule 91 of the rules of procedure that a State party should investigate thoroughly, in good faith and within the imparted deadlines, all the allegations of violations of the Covenant made against it and make available to the Committee all the information at its disposal. This the State party has failed to do. Accordingly, due weight must be given to the author's allegations, to the extent that they have been substantiated. 5.7 The circumstances surrounding Rafael Mojica's disappearance, including the threats made against him, give rise to a strong inference that he was tortured or subjected to cruel and inhuman treatment. Nothing has been submitted to the Committee by the State party to dispel or counter this inference. Aware of the nature of enforced or involuntary disappearances in many countries, the Committee feels confident in concluding that the disappearance of persons is inseparably linked to treatment that amounts to a violation of article 7. 5.3 The author has alleged a violation of article 9, paragraph 1, of the Covenant. Although there is no evidence that Rafael Mojica was actually arrested or detained on or after 5 May 1990, the Committee recalls that under the terms of the decision on admissibility, the State party was requested to clarify these issues; it has not done so. The Committee further notes the allegation that Rafael Mojica had received death threats from some military officers of the Dirección de Bienes Nacionales in the weeks prior to his disappearance; this information, again, has not been refuted by the State party. 1 See Official Records of the General Assembly, Fortysixth Session, Supplement No. 40 (A/46/40), annex IX.D, communication No. 195/1985 (Delgado Páez v. Colombia), Views adopted on 12 July 1990, paras. 5.5 and 5.6; ibid., Forty-eighth Session, Supplement No. 40 (A/48/40), annex XII.I, communication No. 314/1988 (Bwalya v. Zambia), Views adopted on 14 July 1993, para. 6.4; and annex IX.BB below, communication No. 468/1991 (Oló Bahamonde v. Equatorial Guinea), Views adopted on 20 October 1993, para. 9.2. 5.4 The first sentence of article 9, paragraph 1, guarantees to everyone the right to liberty and 71