CCPR/C/120/D/2170/2012 were not in compliance with international human rights standards 8 and would not offer them an effective remedy. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 9.1 Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Human Rights Committee must, in accordance with rule 93 of its rules of procedure, decide whether the communication is admissible under the Optional Protocol. 9.2 The Committee has ascertained, as required under article 5 (2) (a) of the Optional Protocol, that the same matter is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 9.3 The Committee notes the argument of the State party that the authors have not exhausted domestic remedies, since Mr. Neupane’s case would be addressed by the transitional justice mechanism created under the Interim Constitution of Nepal of 2007. The Committee also notes the authors’ claims regarding the steps taken by Shanta Neupane in trying to locate her husband: between 25 and 30 May 1999, Mrs. Neupane visited several detention centres in Kathmandu and on 26 May and 17 August 1999, she also filed two writs of habeas corpus petitions with the Supreme Court on behalf of her husband. Both petitions were quashed by the Court, which determined that the claims could not be established. In her efforts to locate her husband, Mrs. Neupane also submitted written appeals to Parliament and to the Prime Minister requesting that his whereabouts be made public. The Committee also notes the argument made by the authors that a first information report would not have been an effective remedy in the circumstances of the case, since enforced disappearance is not codified as a separate crime in Nepal. Despite Mrs. Neupane’s efforts, the disappearance of her husband has remained unclarified for more than 17 years and no investigation has yet been undertaken. The Committee further recalls its jurisprudence according to which a judicial remedy is required in cases of serious violations. 9 In this respect, the Committee observes that the transitional justice bodies established by the Act on the Commission on Investigation of Disappeared Persons, Truth and Reconciliation of 2014 are not judicial organs capable of affording a judicial remedy.10 Accordingly, the Committee considers that the remedies identified by the State party have been ineffective and that there are no obstacles to the examination of the communication under article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol. 9.4 As all admissibility requirements have been met, the Committee declares the communication admissible and proceeds to its examination of the merits. Consideration of the merits 10.1 The Committee has considered the communication in the light of all the information made available to it by the parties, as provided for under article 5 (1) of the Optional Protocol. 10.2 The Committee takes note of the authors’ allegation that Mr. Neupane was a victim of enforced disappearance, which was supported by the testimonies of two witnesses who were present at the time of his arrest. Despite the attempts made by Mrs. Neupane to locate him, Mr. Neupane’s fate and whereabouts remain unknown. Although Mrs. Neupane filed two writs of habeas corpus petitions with the Supreme Court, no prompt, impartial, 8 9 10 8 The authors refer to the technical note issued by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), “The Nepal Act on the Commission on Investigation of Disappeared Persons, Truth and Reconciliation, 2071 (2014) — as gazetted 21 May 2014” and the OHCHR press release, “Nepal: truth-seeking legislation risks further entrenching impunity, alert United Nations rights experts”, of 4 July 2014. See communications No. 1761/2008, Giri v. Nepal, Views adopted on 24 March 2011, para. 6.3. See communications No. 2038/2011, Tharu and others v. Nepal, Views adopted on 3 July 2015, para. 9.3; No. 2164/2012, Basnet v. Nepal, Views adopted on 12 July 2016, para. 9.3; No. 2184/2012, Nakarmi v. Nepal, Views adopted on 10 March 2017, para. 10.3; and No. 2185/2012, Dhakal and others v. Nepal, Views adopted on 17 March 2017, para. 10.3.