CCPR/C/132/D/2615/2015 Advance unedited version the perpetrators of serious human rights violation may be initiated in court of law, upon the submission of the report by the truth commission. 4.6 Thus, the author should file a complaint before the Commission in order to record the violation of her rights and in order to be eligible for reparation, restitution and other possible services and benefits. The Commission is empowered to promptly and effectively investigate the effects, with the aim of identifying and trying those responsible for the violations committed against the author. After completion of the process, the author will be eligible for reparation, restitution and other services or benefits as provided for under the law. Author’s comments on the State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 5.1 In comments dated 6 October 2015, the author provided an update on the status of her writ of mandamus. The deadline for the State party’s response to the writ, initially set for 17 February 2015, was repeatedly postponed, and to the author’s knowledge, no response has been filed. A hearing before the Supreme Court was scheduled for 16 August 2015; however, the hearing did not take place, and no new hearing date has been scheduled. The writ is thus not likely to produce any meaningful result and is not an effective remedy. The Supreme Court has never declared inapplicable the 35-day statute of limitations period in an individual case. Even if she were to obtain a positive decision, it is unlikely that the decision would be implemented. 5.2 The author reiterates that the District Officer refused to register the first information report that she attempted to file in December 2014. Any legislative amendment that may be enacted to extend the 35-day statute of limitations period for reporting rape would not apply to the author, because she was subjected to rape in 2002. Furthermore, a six-month reporting period would still be inadequate. 5.3 Transitional justice mechanisms, including the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, are not yet fully operational. The State party has also sought from the Supreme Court review of the Act pursuant to which the Commission was created. Because that decision is pending, it is not clear which powers the Commission will have. The author is considering requesting registration of her case once the Commission becomes operational and once its powers and methods of work become clear. However, the Commission, which is not a judicial body, is currently not an effective remedy. It is not mandated with the power to provide guarantees of non-repetition, such as legislative reform or measures of satisfaction. 5.4 The State party’s position regarding recourse to the Commission is incorrect. In a decision issued on 26 February 2015, the Supreme Court stated that cases that are pending before judicial courts, including the Supreme Court, may not be transferred to the Commission. Under this principle, the author is barred from seeking relief from the Commission, since her writ of mandamus is pending before the Supreme Court. 5.5 On 3 May 2021, the author informed the Committee that on 29 May 2019, the Supreme Court had dismissed her writ of mandamus, on the ground that the refusal of the police to register her first information report was justified because of the 35-day filing statute. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 6.1 Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Committee must decide, in accordance with rule 97 of its rules of procedure, whether the communication is admissible under the Optional Protocol. 6.2 The Committee has ascertained, as required under article 5 (2) (a) of the Optional Protocol, that the same matter is not being examined under any other procedure of international investigation or settlement. 6.3 The Committee notes the State party’s claim that the author has not exhausted domestic remedies, as required by article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol, because her writ of mandamus is still pending before the Supreme Court of Nepal, and because she has not filed a complaint before the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. 8