CCPR/C/120/D/2170/2012 international human rights law and international humanitarian law for all members of the Royal Nepal Army, the security forces and the judiciary. State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 4.1 On 13 May 2013, the State party submitted its observations on admissibility and the merits of the communication. On the admissibility, the State party contends that the authors have not exhausted domestic remedies. 4.2 The State party notes that the alleged case occurred during the armed conflict in Nepal. The Interim Constitution of Nepal of 2007 and the Comprehensive Peace Agreement of 2006 have set down the means and methods to be adopted to address the issues relating to serious violations of human rights and humanitarian law that occurred during the conflict. The State party also refers to the decision of the Supreme Court of 1 June 2007 in Rajendra Prasad Dhakal v. the Government of Nepal, in which it ordered the Government to table a bill in Parliament on enabling legislation to establish an independent, impartial and competent transitional justice mechanism and to bring the perpetrators of human rights violations to justice. 4.3 The State contends that on 14 March 2013, the President promulgated the Ordinance on Investigation of Disappeared Persons, Truth and Reconciliation Commission, 7 which provided for the establishment of a high-level commission on investigation of disappeared persons, truth and reconciliation. The ordinance also defined “serious violation of human rights”, including disappearance. In this regard, the State party argues that the allegations made by the authors would explicitly fall under the jurisdiction of the commission. Against this background, the State alleges that it would not be appropriate to consider that the authors have exhausted the available domestic remedies; thus, the communication is inadmissible. 4.4 Regarding the merits, the State party states that the commission on investigation of disappeared persons, truth and reconciliation would be established soon and would carry out prompt, independent, impartial and credible investigations. In the view of the State party, this would constitute a viable and legitimate remedial measure for the authors. The State party also refers to the petitions for writs of habeas corpus that were quashed by the Supreme Court because the allegations were not substantiated. It also maintains that the amount of interim relief provided to the authors had been substantially increased, from 100,000 to 300,000 Nepalese rupees. Authors’ comments on the State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 5.1 On 25 June 2013, the authors submitted their comments on the State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits. 5.2 With regard to the exhaustion of domestic remedies, the authors state that the Committee has consistently interpreted this requirement in the sense that not only must domestic remedies be available, but they also must be effective. They submit that the Committee has also considered that whenever the highest domestic tribunal has decided the matter at issue, no other remedies must be exhausted. The authors refer to the steps taken to exhaust remedies in Nepal. Mrs. Neupane made several efforts to locate her husband, including by visiting the District Police Office and other detention centres in Kathmandu. She also filed two petitions for writs of habeas corpus with the Supreme Court of Nepal on Mr. Neupane’s behalf, which were quashed by the Court. In addition, the authors argue that they also submitted written appeals to Parliament and to the Prime Minister. 5.3 The authors also reiterate that they did not attempt to submit a first information report because in the circumstance of the case it would not have been an effective remedy, as enforced disappearance is not a crime in Nepal. Furthermore, the lack of a first information report should not prevent the Nepali authorities from conducting an ex officio criminal investigation. 7 6 A copy of the ordinance was submitted by the authors.