CCPR/C/114/D/2038/2011 prosecute those responsible. Following this ruling, the Council of Ministers decided to provide interim relief to various categories of victims of the armed conflict, including the relatives of disappeared persons. Between September 2008 and March 2009, the Manau Village Development Committee issued letters certifying that the authors’ relatives were still disappeared. 2.15 In December 2008, the United Nations Human Rights Office in Nepal (OHCHRNepal) issued a report on enforced disappearances in Bardiya District.9 It noted that the Human Rights Cell of the Royal Nepalese Army had provided information about 35 cases, including the same information it had given to the Ministry of Home Affairs Disappearances Committee. The authors point out that the authorities transmitted the same information to additional institutions, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross. 2.16 In April 2009, the Ministry of Peace and Reconstruction provided the authors, as families of disappeared persons, with an interim relief of Nr 100,000. The authors maintain that this amount was intended only to provide temporary assistance to the victims or their families, and that it cannot be considered a measure of reparation. 2.17 The authors claim that their communication meets the admissibility requirement established in article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol and that they have exhausted all available judicial remedies. Despite their efforts, the fate and whereabouts of their relatives remain unknown, no effective investigation has taken place to clarify the circumstances of their disappearances and no one has been sanctioned. Moreover, neither the National Human Rights Commission nor the Ministry of Home Affairs Disappearances Committee can be considered an effective source of remedy. The authors argue that they did not try to file a first information report with the police, as this procedure is limited to the crimes listed in Schedule 1 of the State Cases Act of 1992, which does not include enforced disappearance. 2.18 As to the requirement established in article 5 (2) (a) of the Optional Protocol, the authors submit that the same matter is not being taken up under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. While it is an important special procedure within the United Nations system, the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances does not constitute a procedure analogous to the one established by the Optional Protocol, as it is of a strictly humanitarian nature. The complaint 3.1 The authors argue that their eight relatives were victims of enforced disappearance and therefore of a violation of their rights under articles 6, 7, 9, 10, 16, 23 (1) and 24 (1), alone and in conjunction with article 2 (3), and that their rights under articles 7, 17 (1) and 23, read alone and in conjunction with article 2 (3) of the Covenant, were also violated by the State party. 3.2 The authors claim that members of the Royal Nepalese Army arbitrarily detained their eight relatives. Despite the authors’ efforts and although their relatives’ detention was promptly reported by them, the fate and whereabouts of their relatives remain unknown. All of the authorities initially denied that the authors’ relatives had been deprived of liberty. Later, the Army alleged, without supporting evidence or investigation, that seven of the authors' relatives had been killed on 11 April 2002 in crossfire with the security forces in the nursery area of Manau. The authors maintain that it would be highly unlikely, if not impossible, for the Army to have referred to these seven persons by name if they had been killed in crossfire, since none of them, with the exception of Prem Prakash, had a 9 6 See footnote 3.