CCPR/C/105/D/1303/2004 Author’s comments to the State party’s observations 8.1 On 1 February 2010, the author reiterates that the State party violated her husband’s rights, as he suffered physical torture following his arrest on 28 October 1997. In addition, she and her children suffered mental harm as a consequence of the torture her husband went through as well as material damage linked to the destruction of their belongings. The author contends that the amount of compensation paid corresponds to a small fraction of the loss suffered, which the author finally accepted out of despair because she was destitute. 8.2 Following the eviction, the author went to live with her sister. However, after a few days, she and her sister were also evicted from her sister’s home. The State authorities clearly mentioned that the eviction of the author’s sister from her home was related to her hosting the author. From that moment, the author moved from one house to another, in fear of being again evicted. 8.3 As the children carried their father’s family name, they were denied registration at school. The author considers that she and her children were deprived of a normal life. Furthermore, she was unable to find an employment, which consequently left her destitute. State party’s further submission on admissibility 9.1 On 3 March 2011, the State party contends that contrary to the author’s comments, the case is still being considered by the Government. The State party considers that there is no evidence to show that it has not been responding to the author’s demands. There is evidence that, in 2006, the Government paid K 20 million in an attempt to settle this matter, which the author does not dispute. The State party concludes that adequate remedies are at the author’s disposal, which she did not exhaust. Since the submission of her communication to the Committee, the author has been constantly outside the State party’s jurisdiction and as such has made it extremely difficult for the Government to conclude the matter. The State party mentions its attachment to resolving the author’s claim efficiently and through “mutual understanding”. 9.2 The State party refers to a letter of the Ministry of Justice dated 14 December 2006 in which it states that the author had not yet presented herself to the Ministry of Finance to endorse the amount of the compensation due to her absence of the State party’s territory. Absence of State party’s additional observations on the merits 10. In notes verbales dated 8 March 2005 and 24 May 2005, the State party was requested to provide additional information to the Committee on the merits of the communication. Following the author’s decision not to agree to the amount of the compensation offered by the State party, the Committee set a new deadline to the State party to submit observations on the merits to 25 August 2010. Despite three reminders dated 13 October and 23 December 2010 and 1 March 2011, the State party did not provide its observations. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 11.1 Before considering any claims contained in a communication, the Human Rights Committee must, in accordance with rule 93 of its rules of procedure, decide whether it is admissible under the Optional Protocol to the Covenant. 11.2 While observing the considerable delay in receiving information from the author following registration of the communication, the Committee nevertheless considers that, 6