CCPR/C/86/992/2001 page 10 should make provision against incommunicado detention. In the circumstances, the Committee concludes that the disappearance of the author’s husband and the prevention of contact with his family and with the outside world constitute a violation of article 7 of the Covenant.14 The Committee also notes the anguish and stress caused to the author by the disappearance of her husband and the continued uncertainty concerning his fate and whereabouts. The Committee is therefore of the opinion that the facts before it reveal a violation of article 7 of the Covenant with regard to the author’s husband as well as the author15 herself. 9.9 In light of the above findings, the Committee does not consider it necessary to address the author’s claims under article 10 of the Covenant. 9.10 As to the alleged violation of article 6, paragraph 1, of the Covenant, the Committee notes that according to the letter from the judicial police (referring to Decision No. 16536/96 of the Director of Public Prosecutions of the Tribunal of Constantine), the author’s husband was handed to government agents on 3 July 1994, and that the author has not heard from her husband since then. The Committee also notes that the author understood the letter from the National Observatory for Human Rights as informing her of his death. 9.11 The Committee refers to its general comment No. 6 (16) concerning article 6 of the Covenant, which provides inter alia that States parties should take specific and effective measures to prevent the disappearance of individuals and establish facilities and procedures to investigate thoroughly, by an appropriate impartial body, cases of missing and disappeared persons in circumstances which may involve a violation of the right to life.16 In the present case, the Committee notes that the State party does not deny that the author’s husband has been unaccounted for since at least 29 July 1995, when the judgement in absentia was handed down by the criminal division of the Court of Constantine. As the State party has not provided any information or evidence relating to the victim’s release from the Territorial Centre, the Committee is of the opinion that the facts before it reveal a violation of article 6, paragraph 1, in that the State party failed to protect the life of Mr. Saker. 9.12 The author has invoked article 2, paragraph 3, of the Covenant, which requires that in addition to effective protection of Covenant rights States parties must ensure that individuals also have accessible, effective and enforceable remedies to vindicate those rights. The Committee attaches importance to States parties establishing appropriate judicial and administrative mechanism for addressing claims of rights violations under domestic law. It refers to its general comment No. 31 (80) on the nature of the general legal obligation imposed on States parties to the Covenant, which provides inter alia that a failure by a State party to investigate allegations of violations could in and of itself give rise to a separate breach of the Covenant.17 In the present case, the information before the Committee indicates that the author did not have access to such effective remedies, and concludes that the facts before it disclose a violation of article 2, paragraph 3, of the Covenant in conjunction with articles 6, paragraph 1, 7 and 9. 10. The Human Rights Committee, acting under article 5, paragraph 4, of the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, is of the view that the facts before it reveal violations by the State party of articles 6, paragraph 1, 7 and 9, paragraphs 1, 3 and 4, of the Covenant in relation to the author’s husband as well as article 7 in relation to the author, violations in conjunction with article 2, paragraph 3, of the Covenant.