CCPR/C/132/D/2615/2015 Advance unedited version initially focused on coping with her health problems and on overcoming the stigma and fear that she faced on a daily basis as a result of the attack. 2.8 After the author learned that she could file a criminal complaint to report the harm that she had endured, a lawyer went to the Kanchanpur District police office on 19 December 2014 to file a first information report on the author’s behalf. The District police office refused to register the report on the ground that it did not comply with the 35-day statutory period for reporting rape under section 11 of the Criminal Code of Nepal. The author maintains that the refusal to register first information reports for sex crimes is a common practice in Nepal. On 19 December 2014, the author also filed a complaint before the District Administration Office in Kanchanpur. The Chief District Officer also refused to register the complaint on the ground that it was time-barred. 2.9 On 18 December 2014, the author filed a claim for compensation before the Kanchanpur District Court. The Court refused to register the claim because it had not been filed within the 35-day statutory period. In any case, the Kanchanpur District Court may only provide compensation of approximately 1,266 USD but does not have the authority to establish criminal liability. The author did not even obtain compensation from the District Court. 2.10 On 22 January 2015, the author filed a writ of mandamus before the Supreme Court of Nepal. The writ of mandamus procedure is used to seek an order from the Supreme Court requesting relevant authorities to provide remedies for legal violations. In the writ, the author claimed that her right to reparation had been violated because the police and the District Court had refused to register her complaint, and because no alternative judicial remedy was available. The author requested that the Supreme Court nullify the decisions of the authorities and order those authorities to promptly investigate the alleged offences. The author’s chances of success were very small, given that the Supreme Court had never admitted requests concerning the non-application of the 35-day statutory period for filing criminal complaints for rape. In 2008, the Supreme Court did rule that there was a need to remove time limitations provisions from domestic legislation because they constituted a barrier to effective remedies and reparations for victims. The Supreme Court ordered the Government to amend relevant legislation and remove the 35-day statutory limitation in question. However, that ruling has not been implemented. 2.11 The sub-registrar of the Supreme Court initially refused to register the author’s writ of mandamus, on the ground that the claim should have been filed before an appellate court to challenge the decision of the District Court. The author argued that such an appeal would have been impossible, because the District Court had not issued a decision but had simply refused to register her claim. Eventually, the writ before the Supreme Court was registered on 29 January 2015. On the same date, the Court held an initial hearing. On 2 February 2015, the Supreme Court issued a “show cause” notice in which it requested the District Administration Office and the police of Kanchanpur to provide a reply within 15 days. The 15-day deadline has long since expired, and the authorities in question have not provided a reply. 2.12 No effective remedies are available to the author. Her attempts to file a criminal complaint and obtain compensation did not succeed. Under article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol and the Committee’s jurisprudence, domestic remedies may only be required insofar as domestic remedies appear to be effective and are de facto available to the author. Domestic remedies need not be exhausted when the author has objectively no prospect of success. Filing a complaint within 35 days from the date on which the author was subjected to sexual violence and torture was impossible because of the fear and physical impairment that the author suffered as a result of the rape. No victim of rape during the conflict has any prospect of redress under existing legislation. In its Views on Maharajan v. Nepal, the Committee considered that the 35-day statutory limitation period for filing complaints about torture is inconsistent with the gravity of the crime. 7 7 4 Maharajan v. Nepal (CCPR/C/105/D/1863/2009), para. 7.6.