CCPR/C/130/D/2777/2016 7 of the Covenant.18 The author especially notes that torture is not codified as an autonomous criminal offence in Nepal and that the Compensation for Torture Act only allows for disciplinary, not criminal, action to be taken and limits the notion of reparation for victims of torture entitled to compensation. 3.4 The author further claims a violation of article 9 (1), (2), (3) and (5) of the Covenant, read alone and in conjunction with article 2 (3) of the Covenant, as he was subjected to arbitrary arrest and detention in both November–December 2002 and March 2006. In both cases, he was arrested without a warrant; he was not promptly informed of any formal charges against him; his arrest and detention were never entered into official records; he was subjected to arrest and incommunicado detention that were not officially acknowledged and did not have prompt access to a lawyer; his case was not promptly brought before a court of law19 and the author was never given the opportunity to challenge the lawfulness of the arrest and detention in court.20 The author also contends that the State party failed to conduct an investigation into these allegations and that he did not receive any compensation for the arbitrary deprivation of liberty he was subjected to on different occasions. 3.5 The author also alleges a violation of article 17 of the Covenant, read alone and in conjunction with article 2 (3) of the Covenant, as he was subjected to arbitrary and unlawful interference with his privacy, home and family life.21 In particular, during the search of his house of 29 November 2002, his family members, including his then 14-year-old daughter, were subjected to abuse, harassment, threats and humiliation by the police officers, who attacked their honour and reputation. In the subsequent years, the author and his family were again subjected to repeated threats and harassment, without any preventive measures being taken by the State party, despite repeated reports of such violations and with none of the police personnel involved being prosecuted or subjected to sanction. 22 3.6 The author requests the State party to investigate the facts of his case, to identify and punish those responsible and to give him full reparation, including prompt, fair and adequate compensation proportionate to the gravity of the harm he was subjected to, encompassing physical and mental harm, lost opportunities in terms of employment, education and social benefits, moral damages and costs required for expert assistance, medicine and medical services. The author further requests that the State party ensure that measures of reparation are adopted to cover material and moral damages and incorporate measures aiming at restitution, rehabilitation, satisfaction, including restoration of dignity and reputation, and guarantees of non-repetition. 3.7 The author also claims his communication is admissible both ratione temporis and ratione loci. The author also claims that the case has never been submitted to any other procedure of international investigation or settlement. The author contends that he has exhausted all domestic remedies as he pursued domestic proceedings up to the Supreme Court and could not be reasonably expected to take any further steps at the domestic level. The remedies offered by Nepalese legislation did not prove effective and he never received 18 19 20 21 22 6 See the Committee’s general comment No. 31 (2004); Chihoub v. Algeria (CCPR/C/103/D/1811/2008), individual (concurring) opinion of Fabián Salvioli, joined by Cornelis Flinterman, paras. 5–7; and Djebrouni v. Algeria (CCPR/C/103/D/1781/2008), individual (concurring) opinion of Fabián Salvioli, joined by Cornelis Flinterman, paras. 5–7. The author alleges that this is against the State party’s domestic laws, including the Interim Constitution of Nepal, the State Cases Act and the Police Act. See the Committee’s general comment No. 35 (2014). The author refers to several Views of the Committee, including Khoroshenko v. Russian Federation (CCPR/C/101/D/1304/2004). See the Committee’s general comment No. 16 (1988). The author refers to the Committee’s jurisprudence, including Faraoun v. Algeria (CCPR/C/109/D/1884/2009 and Corr.1), para. 7.12; Mezine v. Algeria (CCPR/C/106/D/1779/2008/Rev.1), para. 8.10; and Peiris v. Sri Lanka (CCPR/C/103/D/1862/2009), paras.7.6–7.7. The author submits that he was not able to benefit from his entitlement to a pension as his retirement was not formally acknowledged and that this was in retaliation for the complaint he had made concerning torture. The family has suffered severe economic conditions since his retirement because of his lack of a pension and loss of a peaceful family life as a consequence of the threats and harassment.