CCPR/C/120/D/2170/2012 5.4 The authors also argue that the commission to be set up under the ordinance of March 2013 would not constitute an effective remedy in line with international standards as it would not be a judicial body and would not have any authority to impose appropriate punishment for perpetrators of grave human rights violations. In addition, on 24 March 2013, two writs were filed with the Supreme Court arguing that the ordinance was unconstitutional and contrary to international law. The authors contend that there is no reasonable possibility of success in obtaining an effective remedy via the prospective commission. 5.5 The authors note that the response of the State party concerning the merits of the communication revisited the admissibility issues and did not contest the authors’ allegations concerning the facts. 5.6 Finally, the authors also claim that the amount of the interim relief received by Mrs. Neupane was 100,000 Nepalese rupees; she was not entitled to more because Mr. Neupane’s fate or whereabouts remained to be clarified. They also allege that the State party’s obligation to conduct an ex officio, prompt, impartial, thorough and independent investigation as well as to criminally prosecute, judge and sanction those responsible for the crimes concerned, and to provide integral redress to the victims, cannot be eluded through an interim monetary compensation. Additional observations From the authors 6. On 10 January 2014, the authors informed the Committee that on 2 January, the Supreme Court of Nepal had declared unconstitutional and inconsistent with international standards the ordinance of 14 March 2013, which provided for the establishment of a commission on investigation into disappeared persons, truth and reconciliation. The Court ordered the Nepalese authorities to establish a different commission. The authors reiterate their position that under no circumstances can a potential commission be considered an effective remedy. From the State party 7.1 On 11 August and 11 December 2014, the State party informed the Committee that the Act on the Commission on Investigation of Disappeared Persons, Truth and Reconciliation had been adopted by Parliament. The State argues that a truth and reconciliation commission and an enforced disappearance commission would be established soon, and provides a brief description of the main provisions of the Act. The State party affirms that the Act is a landmark instrument to address the issue of past human rights violations committed by both the State party and non-State actors. It also states that bills to criminalize torture and enforced disappearance have been drafted and were in the process of resubmission to Parliament. In this respect, the State party contends that the author’s claims would be addressed fully after the establishment of these mechanisms. 7.2 Notwithstanding that a chapter on kidnapping and hostage-taking is in force under the General Code (Muluki Ain), the State party also argues that the authors have not lodged a complaint with the concerned authorities in connection with the allegations of enforced disappearance of Mr. Neupane. 7.3 The State party maintains that Mr. Neupane’s family was awarded 300,000 Nepalese rupees as interim relief and reiterates its previous submissions with regard to the situation of transitional justice in Nepal. From the authors 8. On 1 September 2014 and 12 January 2015, the authors reiterated their allegations regarding the transitional justice mechanism and argue that several provisions of the Act 7