CCPR/C/86/992/2001 page 8 8.2 The Committee notes that the same matter is not being examined under any other international procedure, in line with the requirements of article 5, paragraph 2 (a), of the Optional Protocol. 8.3 The Committee also notes that the State party maintains that the author has not exhausted available domestic remedies. On this point, the Committee takes note of the author’s claim that her complaint lodged on 20 January 1996 remains under consideration, and that this exempts her from exhausting the civil party remedies highlighted by the State party. The Committee considers that the application of domestic remedies has been unduly prolonged in relation to the complaint introduced on 20 January 1996. It has not been demonstrated by the State party that the other remedies it refers to are or would be effective, in light of the serious and grave nature of the allegation, and the repeated attempts made by the author to elucidate the whereabouts of her husband. Therefore, the Committee considers that the author exhausted domestic remedies in conformity with article 5, paragraph 2 (b), of the Optional Protocol. 8.4 As to the alleged violation of article 14, paragraph 3, the Committee considers that the author’s allegations have been insufficiently substantiated for purposes of admissibility. On the question of the complaints under articles 2, paragraph 3; 6, paragraph 1; 7; 9 and 10, the Committee considers that these allegations have been sufficiently substantiated. The Committee therefore concludes that the communication is admissible under articles 2, paragraph 3; 6, paragraph 1; 7; 9 and 10, of the Covenant and proceeds to their consideration on the merits. Consideration of the merits 9.1 The Human Rights Committee has considered the present communication in the light of all the information made available to it by the parties, as provided for in article 5, paragraph 1 of the Optional Protocol. 9.2 The Committee recalls the definition of enforced disappearance in article 7, paragraph 2 (i), of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: Enforced disappearance of persons means the arrest, detention or abduction of persons by, or with the authorization, support or acquiescence of, a State or a political organization, followed by a refusal to acknowledge that deprivation of freedom or to give information on the fate or whereabouts of those persons, with the intention of removing them from the protection of the law for a prolonged period of time. Any act of such disappearance constitutes a violation of many of the rights enshrined in the Covenant, including the right to liberty and security of the person (art. 9), the right not to be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (art. 7), and the right of all persons deprived of their liberty to be treated with humanity and with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person (art. 10). It also violates or constitutes a grave threat to the right to life (art. 6). 9.3 With regard to the author’s claim of the disappearance of her husband, the Committee notes that the author and the State party have submitted different accounts, dates and outcome of events. While the author contends that her husband was arrested without a warrant on 29 May 1994, and according to a letter from the judicial police (referring to Decision No. 16536/96 of the Director of Public Prosecutions of the Tribunal of Constantine) he was handed over to the Territorial Centre on 3 July 1994, the State party contends that Mr. Saker was arrested on 12 June 1994, handed over to the military branch of the judicial police on