CCPR/C/114/D/2038/2011 6.4 The authors reiterate that a first information report is not an effective remedy. As to the possibility of requesting compensation as a victim of torture under the Compensation relating to Torture Act , the authors point out that their relatives cannot materially pursue this procedure since they have been removed from the protection of the law by enforced disappearance, and that in general it is not an effective remedy with respect to the arbitrary detention and disappearance of their relatives. Likewise, it is not an effective remedy for the torture inflicted on them, since according to section 2 of the Act it applies only to torture committed in detention. 6.5 The potential future transitional justice mechanism is not relevant to the determination of the admissibility of the communication and, even if established, would not constitute an effective remedy. Fact-finding processes by non-judicial bodies can never replace access to justice and redress for victims of gross human rights violations and fo r their relatives, since it is the criminal justice system that is the more appropriate avenue for immediate criminal investigation and punishment. 6.6 The authors claim that, in the absence of concrete observations of the State party on the merits of the communication that refute their allegations, their claims should be considered substantiated. They point out that the State party refers to the investigations carried out by the Joint Secretaries at the Ministry of Home Affairs and by the Army; however, it failed to provide details as to how such investigations had been undertaken and why the Army concluded that seven of the authors’ relatives had been killed in crossfire in April 2002. Further submissions from the parties 7.1 On 4 July 2014 and 15 March 2015, the authors informed the Committee that on 25 April 2014 the State party’s Parliament had adopted Act 2071 (2014) creating the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and the Commission on Investigation of Disappeared Persons. On 21 May 2014, the Act was published in the Official Gazette. 7.2 The authors point out that this Act is applicable to all cases of “serious violations of human rights” committed during the period of armed conflict, and argue that several provisions are incompatible with international human rights standards. Notably, it confers on the Commissions the power to recommend amnesties for gross violations of international human rights law or serious violations of international humanitarian law, such as the ones raised in the present communication; the Commissioners lack guarantees of independence and impartiality; and the Act fails to recognize the right of victims to full reparation.13 Should the Committee find that the Covenant has been violated in the present case, the Committee could recommend that the State party amend the Act, following appropriate consultation with victims, their families, civil society and the National Human Rights Commission. 7.3 On 26 February 2015, the Supreme Court found several provisions of Act 2071 (2014) contrary to the Interim Constitution and the State party’s international obligations. Notably, it stated that the Act’s amnesty provision was in violation of international law; that reconciliation could be granted only with the consent of the victims; that cases under consideration by the Court could continue to be dealt with by it, as they fell under its jurisdiction; and that the Attorney-General did not require the permission of the ministry to begin a prosecution. Nevertheless, the authors expressed their concern about the prospects 13 10 See 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 (4 July 2014).