CCPR/C/130/D/2777/2016 compensation or any other redress.23 The author also adds that the present communication cannot be considered an abuse of right of submission. 24 State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 4.1 On 13 October 2016, the State party submitted that the author’s communication is inadmissible, or without merit, claiming that the author’s allegations are not based on facts and reality and that the case has already been settled at the domestic level. 4.2 The State party submits that, in December 2002, a policeman at the police headquarters filed a complaint against the author claiming that he had stolen gold at the airport. On 21 February 2003, the police headquarters authorities requested the author to respond to the charges against him and the author filed the writ of mandamus against the police headquarters in the Appellate Court of Patan, requesting an interim order to avoid possible departmental actions. Though the Court issued the interim order as requested by the author, it quashed his writ petition, including the interim order, in its final verdict on 25 February 2003. 4.3 The State party claims that, after the verdict of the Appellate Court, police officers tried to deliver a letter to the author to request him to provide clarification on the issue. However, the author refused to receive the letter, left his assigned duties and could not be contacted. Five police officers made a report stating the circumstances and requesting that further action be taken against the author in line with the police rules. It is on this ground that, on 19 March 2006, the police headquarters authorities started departmental action against the author and took action to dismiss him from his post in line with the police rules. He submitted an appeal against the decision to the Ministry of Home Affairs, but the appeal was annulled by the Home Minister. The author filed a writ of certiorari in the Supreme Court, intending to nullify the departmental action against him. On 1 September 2014, the Supreme Court decided there was no ground to nullify the decision concerning departmental action, as the author had been given the opportunity to be heard in that connection many times, but had refused to take receipt of the letter. 4.4 The State party also adds that a habeas corpus writ that the author’s wife lodged on 3 December 2002 was rejected as the author was following his normal work schedule in the office and it was thus not necessary to issue the order as claimed by the petitioner. 4.5 As for the author’s alleged torture during the period between 28 November and 5 December 2002, the State party emphasizes that the District Court rejected his allegation on 13 July 2004 on the ground that the author’s claim could not be substantiated because the alleged torturer had not been identified, there were no detention records proving the author’s deprivation of liberty and the injury report of the Department of Forensic Medicine of the Maharajgunj Campus was irrelevant because the examination took place too late to substantiate the alleged torture. That ruling has been upheld by the higher courts. 4.6 With regard to the allegation that the author was arrested without a warrant, the State party claims that the arrest of the author was conducted according to the law. Under the 1970 Some Public (Crime and Punishment) Act, the police have the authority to arrest persons without warrant in the case of specific crimes. The author was arrested on 20 March 2006 without a warrant as he was found to be engaged in activities undermining public peace and order, as indicated in the Act. The Act stipulates that the arrested person shall be presented before the competent authorities and shall not be kept in custody without an order for such custody; it provides furthermore for the person to be held in custody for investigation for a maximum period of seven days. Accordingly, the author was kept in custody with the 23 24 Katwal v. Nepal (CCPR/C/113/D/2000/2010), para. 6.4; Sobhraj v. Nepal (CCPR/C/99/D/1870/2009), para. 6.3; Giri v. Nepal, para. 6.3; and Maharjan v. Nepal, para. 7.4. See also Zdenek and Milada Ondracka v. Czech Republic (CCPR/C/91/D/1533/2006), para. 6.3; Human Rights Committee, Baboeram et al. v. Suriname, communications Nos. 146/1983 and 148-154/1983, para. 9.2; P.L. v. Germany (CCPR/C/79/D/1003/2001), para. 6.5; Human Rights Committee, A.P.A. v. Spain, communication No. 433/1989, para. 6.2; and Benaziza v. Algeria (CCPR/C/99/D/1588/2007), para. 8.3. CCPR/C/3/Rev.11, rule 99 (c). 7