CCPR/C/119/D/2184/2012 enacted by Parliament in April 2014, and that the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and the Enforced Disappearance Commission would be established soon. It also provided a brief description of the main provisions of the Act and held that it was a landmark instrument to address the issue of past human rights violations committed by both the State party and non-State actors. It also submitted that the bills to criminalize torture and enforced disappearance had been drafted and were in the process of resubmission to Parliament. The criminal justice system could not provide full remedy to the victims of the armed conflict without the transitional justice mechanisms. In this respect, the author’s claims would be addressed fully after the establishment of the said mechanisms. 8.2 The State party maintains that the author has not lodged a complaint with the concerned authorities in connection with the allegations of enforced disappearance of her husband, notwithstanding the fact that a chapter on kidnapping and hostage-taking is in force under the General Code (Muluki Ain). 8.3 The State party submits that Mr Nakarmi’s family was awarded Nr 300,000 as interim relief and reiterated its previous allegations with regard to the situation of transitional justice in Nepal. Additional observations from the author 9. On 2 September 2014 and 12 January 2015, the author reiterated her allegations regarding the transitional justice mechanism, and argued that several provisions of the Act were incompatible with international human rights standards10 and would not offer her an effective remedy. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 10.1 Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Committee must decide, in accordance with rule 93 of its rules of procedure, whether the case is admissible under the Optional Protocol. 10.2 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. 10.3 With respect to the requirement of exhaustion of domestic remedies, the Committee notes the State party’s arguments that the author has not exhausted domestic remedies, as she failed to register a first information report with the police and to file a complaint under the chapter on kidnapping and hostage-taking of the General Code (Muluki Ain); and that her husband’s case will be addressed within the transitional justice mechanisms, established in conformity with the Interim Constitution of 2007. The Committee also notes the author’s allegations that she tried to file a first information report twice with the District Police Office; that the second one was registered on 19 June 2006; and that it is not an appropriate remedy, as it is limited to the crimes listed in schedule 1 of the State Cases Act of 1992, which does not include enforced disappearance, torture and extrajudicial execution; that the Compensation relating to Torture Act does not provide for criminal accountability, but only for compensation of a maximum of Nr100,000; and that transitional justice mechanisms do not replace access to justice and cannot be considered an effective remedy to be exhausted. The Committee observes that the author’s writ of mandamus was quashed by the Supreme Court on 26 August 2010. Although she promptly reported her husband’s disappearance to the authorities, more than 13 years later the circumstances of his alleged disappearance remain unclear and no investigation has yet been concluded. The Committee further recalls its jurisprudence that in cases of serious violations a judicial remedy is required. 11 In this respect, the Committee observes that the transitional justice bodies established by the Enforced Disappearances Enquiry, Truth and Reconciliation Commission Act of 2014 are 10 11 8 The author refers to OHCHR, “The Nepal Act on the Commission on Investigation of Disappeared Persons, Truth and Reconciliation, 2071 (2014) – as gazetted 21 May 2014”, OHCHR technical note; and OHCHR, “Nepal: truth-seeking legislation risks further entrenching impunity, alert United Nations rights experts”, news release of 4 July 2014. See communication No. 1761/2008, Giri v. Nepal, Views adopted on 24 March 2011, para. 6.3.