CCPR/C/126/D/2773/2016 article 24 of the Covenant, the State has a special duty to protect children’s rights, a duty justified by the extreme vulnerability of children, especially, as in the present case, when they live in situations of extreme poverty. The second factor of gravity rests upon the failure of the State authorities to open any investigation or punish those responsible for the violations of absolute rights protected by articles 7 and 8 of the Covenant. As described in the communication, and as stated by the Committee, despite the attempt of the family of the author to lodge complaints against the acts of torture by police officers and forced labor by private persons, the judicial authorities consistently resisted conducting any investigation of the facts. The third element of gravity is that the statute of limitations for seeking redress for these crimes is contrary to the State’s obligation to fight against impunity, especially in relation to such grave violations, as recognized by the Committee (see paras. 7.5–7.6 ).4 5. As to the other criterion identified in the guidelines on measures of reparation, there are several factors which indicate that the violations suffered by the author constitute a systematic problem in the State party. Both the Human Rights Committee (CCPR/C/NPL/CO/2, paras. 10–11) and the Committee against Torture (A/67/44, annex XIII) have expressed serious concerns in their concluding observations on the periodic reports of the State party, regarding allegations of the widespread use of torture, the prevailing climate of impunity for acts of torture and the lack of a legal provision in domestic law to make torture a criminal offence. The Human Rights Committee has also expressed concern that child labour and traditional practices of bonded labour are still prevalent in some regions of the State party (CCPR/C/NPL/CO/2, para. 18). Despite these repeated exhortations by various treaty bodies, and even though expressly raised in the communication (see para. 2.1), the State party has not provided any information to show that legislative and other measures have been taken by it to address these deep-seated problems. It is therefore the widespread nature of these problems, together with the context of impunity, which satisfies the other criterion of a systematic problem and provides a compelling reason to recommend that the State party publicly apologize to the author for the extremely grave violations that he suffered as a child. 6. In conclusion, we recall that one factor justifying public apologies is the inadequacy of compensation in addressing certain types of injustices. Into that category surely falls the acute suffering faced by the author for a significant part of his childhood. We doubt that any amount of money can compensate for the many years of forced labour he endured or for the loss of his childhood or repair the severe psychological damage that is likely to result from such prolonged trauma. In those circumstances, we are of the view that this is an eminently fit case for the State party to acknowledge its failure to protect the author, by providing him with a public apology. 4 16 See also Nyaya v. Nepal (CCPR/C/125/D/2556/2015), para 7.9.