Article 20 to provide information on inquiries into systematic practices. communication, such as a copy of the first information report with police, a writ of habeas corpus or mandamus filed with the court, a copy of decisions of the court, a petition before other non-judicial or quasi-judicial bodies like the National Human Rights Commission, Women’s Commission, or the Chief District Officer, as well as a copy of the petition before other national or international human rights organizations like AF, World Organisation Against Torture (OMCT), International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), and Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR). It is very difficult to actually carry out the inquiry and to feed information to the Committee under Article 20. The information on inquiry to the Committee was articulated in the Concluding Observations (2005) of the Committee in its Periodic Report,33 where the Committee said that there are patterns of systematic practice of torture by the different law enforcement agencies. There was also a visit from the Special Rapporteur in 2005, which led to a strong report that came to the same conclusion.34 Further, there were reports from the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights,35 while it was located in Nepal, as well as a report from the AF36 that indicates, out of its daily work, at least twenty percent of people are tortured. Thus, the pattern is consistent, indicating that the state does practice torture systematically—during this period, there was an armed conflict, and the army, the armed police force, and the other quasi-judicial bodies that do law enforcement work practiced torture in the same way as that practiced by other agencies. Advocacy Forum also provides evidence showing that certain remedies are unavailable or ineffective. The alleged violation of torture in Nepal is not criminalized, so the only remedy available under the Torture Compensation Act38 is financial compensation, which must be brought within 35 days from the event of torture or the date of release, something the HRC has already dubbed flagrantly inconsistent with the gravity of the crime of torture. Maharjan vs. Nepal39 is one of the cases that AF brought, with REDRESS, to the HRC regarding this issue. Based on the information provided by the AF and other organizations, and as a result of the unwillingness of the government to effectively engage with the Committee to allow Committee personnel to visit the country, the Committee issued a report under Article 2037 with the consent of the government. The government submitted its response, stating that it accepted the presence of torture but that the practice was not systematic, but sporadic. After obtaining the government’s consent, the Committee published its report. The government will be asked again by the Committee to substantiate its claims and to respond to the Committee’s questions. Organizations like AF provide further information to substantiate claims and to verify that a similar practice does continue. One of the government responses was that there was an armed conflict before 2006 and, since then, there has been no conflict and the torture has been reduced. Advocacy Forum analyzed the pattern of torture after 2006, after the armed conflict, finding that there has been a consistent practice of torture; it has not been reduced from twenty percent even after the armed conflict. Additionally, evidence showing unreasonably prolonged delays should be submitted in the communication. This can be substantiated by showing either that no investigation was initiated by the State Party over a considerable period of time since the allegation was first brought to the authorities concerned, or by the non-compliance with a court order by the State Party over a considerable period of time can also be taken into account to prolong delay. Any views or decisions of quasi-judicial bodies should be attached as an addendum to the communication. Other evidence that should be submitted includes the following: medical and psychological reports explaining that physical and/or mental injuries resulted from torture and ill-treatment while in detention; physical evidence such as photographs; newspaper reports or articles relating to the incident; reports of national or international organizations (such as Advocacy Forum, OHCHR, Amnesty International, OMCT, etc.) relating to the general trend of the allegation such as torture, extrajudicial execution, sexual violence, disappearance; and identification of the perpetrator, which helps to strengthen the case. Evidence showing pecuniary and other non-pecuniary losses is also important, such as anguish and distress caused to the victim and/or his/her immediate relatives as result of the acts of the State Party; physical and mental problems faced by the victim or his/her relative after the torture; killing or disappearance of the victim; and the impact on their social and economic wellbeing. Presenting Cases Before the UN Treaty Bodies Advocacy Forum has experience working with the Human Rights Committee (HRC) on cases involving torture. Some of the cases are conflict-related, requiring different strategies such as assisting the victim in filing the communication to prove exhaustion of domestic remedies or ineffectiveness of available remedies, and preparing documentation (collection, translation, verification) that comes from the documentation work of AF. These forms of evidence are the result of best practices when presenting a case before the Committee. Advocacy Forum works with many cases. When preparing the case, it chooses a strong case with a lot of evidence in the supporting documents. It is very difficult to simply choose one case. This is some of the evidence required in the context of cases submitted to the Human Rights Committee. In torture-related cases, it is especially important for AF to prepare communications to the Human Rights Committee. Advocacy Forum has succeeded in at least two cases in which it ensured that the petitioner had exhausted all domestic remedies, which can be done by mentioning in the communication every legal or judicial step the petitioner had taken for legal redress. Advocacy Forum also attached evidence to the Challenges in Gathering Evidence Some challenges exist in providing authentic information. One challenge is the ineffective medico-legal examination facilities 38