CCPR/C/126/D/2773/2016 Nepal only challenged the author’s allegation that he had been subjected to torture, and therefore all other facts are uncontested and should be regarded by the Committee as such. 5.10 The author claims that the information provided by the State party about his torture allegations is not accurate. He notes that the contents of the report from the medical examination conducted by the Forensic Medicine Department of the Tribhuvan University Teaching Hospital differ from what the State party claims when stating that the medical report did not “reveal any significant psychiatric morbidity” and “did not contain evidence of any act of torture committed against the author”. He argues that the medical report attested that the author had an abrasion on his right forearm and a fever and was in a general state of depression.18 5.11 The author notes that the State party does not dispute that the authorities that were informed of the author’s torture allegations failed to launch an investigation. Nepal thus admits that no investigation was ever carried out into his allegations of torture and requests the Committee to declare a violation of article 7, read alone and in conjunction with articles 2 (3) and 24 (1), of the Covenant. 5.12 The author welcomes the information that a new national Penal Code, in which torture is criminalized and defined as a punishable crime, has been passed by the Legislature Parliament of Nepal. Nevertheless, he notes that, as at the time of submission of the present comments, the new Penal Code has not yet entered into force, does not have retroactive effect and is therefore not relevant to his case. The author argues that the fact that Nepal is in the process of enforcing a new Penal Code only proves the author’s allegation that Nepal lacks an adequate legislative framework to address torture, thereby incurring a violation of article 7, read alone and in conjunction with article 2 (2), of the Covenant. The author also argues that a sentence of a maximum of five years’ imprisonment or a fine equivalent to $500, or both, for a person held responsible for torture, as envisaged in the new national Penal Code, can hardly be considered to be commensurate with the gravity of the crime and therefore remains at odds with international law and standards. 5.13 The author reiterates his allegations on the admissibility and the merits of the communication, as well as the measures of reparation that he requested, which would serve as guidance for the State party and would enhance the level of implementation of the recommendations in the Committee’s views on the present case. 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 it 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 domestic remedies have not been exhausted because: (a) the author did not appeal the decision of the Kathmandu District Court; (b) he did not respect the legal statutes of limitations regarding his complaints of torture and child and forced labour; and (c) his allegation of the outright refusal of the authorities to register his writ petitions before the Supreme Court is “unbelievable” and “not based on facts or reality”. 6.4 The Committee notes, however, that the author submits that remedies offered by the State party’s legislation were not effective or available to him and had no prospect of success, given that, despite his repeated attempts to acquire access to justice and 18 10 The author provides a copy of a certificate dated 13 September 2012 concerning the medical examination conducted to assess his general physical condition.