CCPR/C/130/D/2777/2016 permission of the competent authority and was released on 28 March 2006 by the order of the Supreme Court. 4.7 The State party also contends that the Constitution of Nepal guarantees fundamental rights, including the right to be protected from torture and arbitrary deprivation of liberty. 25 The State party argues that, pursuant to article 126 of the Constitution, judicial power is exercised by independent courts and other independent bodies in accordance with the Constitution, the State party’s laws and recognized principles of justice. Among them, the provision of section 9 of the Nepal Treaty Act 1990 establishes the sanctity of the international human rights instruments and ensures that no laws or actions can be interpreted in contravention of the standard of fair and competent justice. In accordance with the Constitution, prevailing laws and the standard of fair and competent justice, the author received justice. Regarding the case filed by the author with the Kathmandu District Court on 26 April 2006 against 12 police officers regarding his alleged torture and ill-treatment by them, the Court ordered that he should be paid 21,000 Nepalese rupees and that no departmental action should be taken against the police officers; that order has already been confirmed by the higher courts. 4.8 Although the author asserts that the amount of compensation, 21,000 Nepalese rupees, is neither adequate nor fair compensation for the damage he suffered, the State party claims that the amount was determined by a national court in line with the provisions of prevailing laws and based on the gravity of the case, the harm suffered by the victim and other related facts. Thus, the decision made by the independent judiciary must be respected by all. 4.9 In conclusion, the State party argues that the communication is not admissible, or alternatively lacks merit, since the case has been settled by the independent, impartial, competent judiciary in accordance with the Constitution and prevailing laws and in accordance with due process and internationally accepted standards for fair trial in all three tiers of the courts. Author’s comments on the State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 5.1 On 21 October 2016, the author submitted his comments on the State party’s observations. 5.2 With regard to the admissibility of the communication, the author notes that it is not clear on what grounds the State party alleges that the communication is inadmissible. The author considers that the State party’s allegation that the communication is inadmissible refers to the requirement of exhaustion of domestic remedies pursuant to article 5 (2) (b) of the Covenant. The author reiterates that he undertook all legal steps available at the domestic level, which proved to be ineffective since no effective investigation was conducted, the perpetrators were not prosecuted and no appropriate reparations were made. Furthermore, the author contends that the State party itself confirms that the author has exhausted all available domestic remedies by indicating that the author’s case was already settled through examination in all three tiers of the domestic courts. The author argues that the communication fulfils the criteria regarding other grounds of admissibility under article 5 (2) and thus should be declared admissible. 5.3 Regarding the merits of the communication, although the State party insists that the author’s case was settled in the domestic proceedings, the author reiterates that there was no effective investigation in the context of legal proceedings, nor were those responsible prosecuted and punished. Although the State party cited the court ruling of 13 July 2004 which rejected the author’s claim because the alleged torturer had not been identified, he contends that he has always known the identity of the perpetrators of the criminal acts committed against him and has publicly denounced them on several occasions. He indicates that some of the alleged perpetrators were even promoted or offered a promotion in the police force, which, in his view, confirms that no investigation into the author’s allegation has taken place and that impunity still prevails. 25 8 The State party reiterates that, under the Constitution, torture is considered as a criminal offence and compensation must be awarded to victims of torture.