CCPR/C/130/D/2777/2016 2.21 On 18 September 2008, the Kathmandu District Court found that the author was tortured in March 2006 and ordered the Government to pay 21,000 Nepalese rupees 13 to him as compensation. However, the Court denied the author’s request for departmental action against the policemen. In August 2009, the author filed an appeal before the Appellate Court of Patan. He argued that the amount of compensation was not enough for his rehabilitation and that the physical, mental, social and economic harm and impact of torture should have been analysed. He also alleged that the perpetrators should be subjected to departmental action. 2.22 On 10 June 2012, the Appellate Court of Patan upheld the decision of the Kathmandu District Court, stating that the author had not demonstrated the mental harm he claimed to have suffered as a result of the torture inflicted upon him. The author filed a petition for revision with the Supreme Court. On 1 September 2014, the Supreme Court refused to revise the previous decisions and upheld them. 2.23 The author did not file an application to receive the compensation accorded by the court, as he thought that 21,000 Nepalese rupees was not adequate and fair compensation. 14 2.24 The author continues to suffer from psychological consequences of the ill-treatment he was subjected to, including depression, anxiety, paranoia and personality disorders. 15 Complaint 3.1 The author claims that the State party has violated his rights under articles 7 and 10 (l) of the Covenant, read alone and in conjunction with article 2 (3), article 2 (2), read in conjunction with article 7, article 9 (1), (2), (3) and (5), read alone and in conjunction with article 2 (3), and article 17, read alone and in conjunction with article 2 (3). 3.2 The author submits that the State party violated articles 7 and 10 (1) of the Covenant, read alone and in conjunction with article 2 (3) of the Covenant, with regard to the torture, ill-treatment and inhumane conditions of detention he was subjected to in November– December 2002 and March 2006, 16 as well as the subsequent failure of the Nepalese authorities to carry out an effective investigation into his allegations, to prosecute and sanction those responsible and to provide the author with full reparation for the harm suffered.17 3.3 The author also claims that the lack of effective legislative measures to protect against torture and ill-treatment constitutes a violation of article 2 (2), read in conjunction with article 13 14 15 16 17 Equivalent to approximate $210 at the time of the submission of the initial complaint by the author. Pursuant to section 9 (3) of the Compensation for Torture Act, the victim should file an application to the relevant district administration office within one year of the final decision on the case to claim the compensation. The author submits a medical certificate dated 17 November 2015 concerning his mental condition. The author also alleges that he suffers from physical difficulties, including dizziness and aches in both his knees, while a medical examination report dated 15 November 2015 concerning the author’s physical condition indicates that the injuries have healed without any noticeable consequences. See the Committee’s general comment No. 20 (1992). The author also refers to the Committee’s jurisprudence that states that due weight must be given to the author’s allegations in similar cases, such as Adrakhim Usaev v. Russian Federation (CCPR/C/99/D/1577/2007), para. 9.3; and Pustovalov v. Russian Federation (CCPR/C/98/D/1232/2003), para. 8.2. The author also refers to Views of the Committee which acknowledge that certain conduct amounts to ill-treatment, including Human Rights Committee, Berterretche Acosta v. Uruguay, communication No. 162/1983, para. 11; Human Rights Committee, Terán Jijón v. Ecuador, communication No. 277/1988, para. 5.2; Butevenko v. Ukraine (CCPR/C/102/D/1412/2005), para. 7.2; Human Rights Committee, Grille Motta v. Uruguay, communication No. 11/1977, para. 16; Shanta Sedhai v. Nepal (CCPR/C/108/D/1865/2009), para. 8.3; Human Rights Committee, El-Megreisi v. Libya, communication No. 440/1990, para. 5.4; Kulov v. Kyrgystan (CCPR/C/99/D/1369/2005), para. 8.2; Medjoune v. Algeria (CCPR/C/87/D/1297/2004), para. 8.4; and Giri v. Nepal (CCPR/C/101/D/1761/2008 and Corr.1), paras. 7.3, 7.6 and 7.9. See the Committee’s general comment No. 31 (2004); the first Optional Protocol to the Covenant, para. 4 (2); Zheikov v. Russian Federation (CCPR/C/86/D/889/1999), para. 7.2; Zyuskin v. Russian Federation (CCPR/C/102/D/1605/2007), para. 11.4; Giri v. Nepal, para. 7.10; and Maharjan v. Nepal (CCPR/C/105/D/1863/2009), para. 8.8. 5