A/HRC/13/42* page 95 that he had received a large number of allegations relating to persons taken involuntarily by security forces and who were being held incommunicado at unknown locations.364 182. In many of the cases attributed to the RNA, a clear pattern was documented. A person suspected of Maoist sympathies, or simply of having contact with the Maoists, was seized by a large group of known military personnel out on patrol. They were blindfolded and had their hands tied behind their back. The victim was put into a military vehicle and taken away. The security forces often appeared in plain clothes, so that no personal names or unit names were visible. In almost all cases, the victim was held incommunicado in army barracks, with no access to family or legal counsel, and subjected to physical abuse and torture.365 Two OHCHR reports, in 2006 and 2008, documented the treatment of detainees in two secret detention sites within RNA barracks, the Maharajgunj barracks in Kathmandu and Chisapani barracks in Bardiya district.361 The reports, based on interviews with former detainees, families of the disappeared and other witnesses, describe how all the detainees in Maharajgunj barracks were continuously blindfolded during their often months-long periods of detention by the RNA, subjected to deliberate and systematic torture during interrogation, including beating, electric shocks, submersion in water and, in some cases, sexual humiliation. In 2004, it was also applied to induce some detainees to renounce their CPN-M allegiance. Despite the general climate of fear and insecurity, many relatives of those arrested went to the RNA barracks to inquire after their family. They were denied access and told that their relatives had not been arrested by the RNA and were not held inside. 183. Some families, assisted by non-governmental organizations, petitioned to the courts for the writ of habeas corpus. In some cases, the petitions were effective, where the authorities acknowledged detention; however when the RNA denied detention, the Supreme Court normally denied the petition.366 In a number of cases, the army flatly denied before the Supreme Court that a particular person was in detention, only to reverse that position later when forced to do so by revelations in the media, in political debate, and even in official documents issued by other branches of the public authority.367 The Working Group on Enforced and Involuntary Disappearances explained that one central difficulty in these habeas corpus cases was that under Nepalese law, Government officials could not be charged with perjury for failing to tell the truth in habeas corpus proceedings.367 184. In its report of January 2005, the Working Group on Enforced and Involuntary Disappearances drew attention to the impact of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Control and Punishment) Act of 2002 and the ordinance of the same name of 2004 on the security forces’ instigation of secret detentions and disappearances, noting that the establishment by the act of 364 Report of the Special Rapporteur on torture on his mission to Nepal (E/CN.4/2006/6/Add.5), para. 22. 365 E/CN.4/2005/65/Add.1, para. 29. 366 E/CN.4/2005/65/Add.1, para. 41. 367 Ibid., para. 42.