CCPR/C/86/992/2001 page 9 15 June 1994, and released some time thereafter. The Committee also recalls that according to the National Observatory for Human Rights, the author’s husband was “kidnapped” by an unidentified military group, this according to information received from the security forces. The Committee notes that the State party has not responded to the sufficiently detailed allegations exposed by the author, nor submitted any evidence such as arrest warrants, release papers, records of interrogation or detention. 9.4 The Committee has consistently maintained11 that the burden of proof cannot rest alone on the author of the communication, especially considering that the author and the State party do not always have equal access to the evidence and that frequently the State party alone has access to the relevant information. It is implicit in article 4, paragraph 2, of the Optional Protocol that the State party has the duty to investigate in good faith all allegations of violation of the Covenant made against it and its authorities and to furnish to the Committee the information available to it. In cases where the allegations are corroborated by evidence submitted by the author and where further clarification of the cases depends on information exclusively in the hands of the State party, the Committee may consider the author’s allegations as substantiated in the absence of satisfactory evidence and explanation to the contrary submitted by the State party. 9.5 As to the alleged violation of article 9, paragraph 1, the evidence before the Committee reveals that Mr. Saker was removed from his home by State agents. The State party has not addressed the author’s claims that her husband’s arrest was made in the absence of a warrant. It has failed to indicate the legal basis on which the author’s husband was subsequently transferred to military custody. It has failed to document its assertion that he was subsequently released, even less how he was released with conditions of safety. All these considerations lead the Committee to conclude that the detention as a whole was arbitrary, nor has the State party adduced evidence that the detention of Mr. Saker was not arbitrary or illegal. The Committee concludes that, in the circumstances, there has been a violation of article 9, paragraph 1.12 9.6 As to the alleged violation of article 9, paragraph 3, the Committee recalls that the right to be brought “promptly” before a judicial authority implies that delays must not exceed a few days, and that incommunicado detention as such may violate article 9, paragraph 3.13 It takes note of the author’s argument that her husband was held incommunicado for 33 days by the judicial police before being transferred to the Territorial Centre on 3 July 1994, without any possibility of access to a lawyer during that period. It concludes that the facts before it disclose a violation of article 9, paragraph 3. 9.7 As to the alleged violation of article 9, paragraph 4, the Committee recalls that the author’s husband had no access to counsel during his incommunicado detention, which prevented him from challenging the lawfulness of his detention during that period. In the absence of any pertinent information on this point from the State party, the Committee finds that Mr. Saker’s right to judicial review of the lawfulness of his detention (art. 9, para. 4) has also been violated. 9.8 The Committee notes that while not specifically invoked by the author, the communication appears to raise issues under article 7 of the Covenant in relation to the author and her husband. The Committee recognizes the degree of suffering involved in being held indefinitely without contact with the outside world. In this context, the Committee recalls its general comment No. 20 (44) on article 7 of the Covenant, which recommends that States parties