CCPR/C/126/D/2773/2016 compensation for the torture and child and forced labour that he endured, Nepalese authorities plainly refused to even register his complaints. 6.5 In particular, the Committee notes the author’s claim that he could not appeal the decision of the Kathmandu District Court of 10 June 2014, in which the Court found that he should not be further detained or pay a fine, and that he did not request an investigation into his torture allegations, because he could not afford either the necessary legal counsel or the costs associated with the proceedings. The Committee recalls that ordinary financial considerations and unsubstantiated doubts about the effectiveness of domestic remedies would not automatically absolve authors from exhausting them. 19 However, the Committee notes that, in the present case, the author and his family were unable to pay the bail established by the Kathmandu District Court in its decision of 30 September 2012 and that for that reason he was sent to a juvenile correction home; therefore, the Committee does not consider the inability to file an appeal in his case as a matter of an ordinary financial consideration. The Committee considers that the author has proven that appealing the decision of 10 June 2014 would have represented a financial burden that he could not afford, due to his economic status, and that he was not provided with free legal services 20 through which to acquire access to and exhaust that remedy, therefore rendering it unavailable, especially considering that he was a child at the time and deserved special protection from the State party. 6.6 The Committee also notes that the author: (a) reported his torture allegations before the Kathmandu District Court and no investigation was triggered; (b) filed a complaint, due to the torture endured, before the police in Naxal and no response or action was taken; (c) filed a claim for compensation, pursuant to the Torture Compensation Act, which was rejected, due to the 35-day statute of limitations; (d) attempted to file before the Metropolitan Police Range, Kathmandu, a first information report of the child and forced labour that he had endured, whose registration was refused, and appealed that refusal before the Office of the Chief District Officer, an appeal that was also rejected; (e) attempted to file a claim for compensation, pursuant to the Child Labour Act, before the Labour Office in Kathmandu, which was rejected, due to the one-year statute of limitations; and (f) attempted to register two writ petitions before the Supreme Court, both of which were verbally rejected, with no refusal in writing, on the basis that they were time-barred. The Committee recalls its jurisprudence according to which 35 days is an unreasonably short statutory period for bringing compensation claims for torture and is flagrantly inconsistent with the gravity and nature of the crime. 21 The Committee notes that the author does not contest that he was unable to file a child and forced labour complaint within the prescribed one-year period, given that, during that time period, in addition to being a child, after suffering physical and psychological abuse and escaping those circumstances, he was arbitrarily detained and, by the time he was released, one year had already passed. The author has also argued that he lived for many years in fear, indigency and without the possibility of acquiring qualified and free legal assistance. Those factors precluded him from seeking support. The Committee notes that the author provided copies of the writ petitions submitted before the Supreme Court and also notes that the State party has not substantially contested the fact that the author did not receive a decision in writing from the Supreme Court on the non-registration of his writ petitions. Therefore, after the author’s several attempts to acquire access to and seek justice and, in view of the legal and practical limitations on filing complaints for the investigation of the torture and child and forced labour allegations, and for compensation therefor, he faced in the State party, and the obstacles encountered with registration proceedings before the Supreme Court, the 19 20 21 See the Committee’s Views in Kadirić and Kadirić v. Bosnia and Herzegovina (CCPR/C/115/D/2048/2011), para. 8.3, and decision of inadmissibility in P.S. v. Denmark (A/47/40, chap. X, sect. R), para. 5.4. See the Views of the Committee in Quelch v. Jamaica (A/48/40, part two, annex XII, sect. F), para. 8.2. Committee’s concluding observations on the second periodic report of Nepal (CCPR/C/NPL/CO/2), para. 13; its Views in Nyaya v. Nepal (CCPR/C/125/D/2556/2015), para. 7.9; and Committee against Torture, general comment No. 3 (2012) on the implementation of article 14, para. 40. 11