CCPR/C/126/D/2773/2016 incorporating measures aimed at providing restitution, rehabilitation, satisfaction, including restoration of dignity and reputation, and guarantees of non-repetition. 3.9 The author also requests that the Committee call upon the State party to adopt the following specific measures: (a) investigate the facts of the case, with a view to prosecuting all those responsible for the violations committed against the author, in a manner commensurate with the gravity of the crimes, and suspend or remove the suspected police officers while the investigation is ongoing; (b) ensure that the author receives medical and psychological care free of charge; (c) award an education grant to the author should he wish to pursue technical or university studies; (d) acknowledge the international responsibility of Nepal and provide and official apology to the author on the occasion of a public ceremony; (e) ensure that the author obtains prompt, fair and adequate compensation proportional to the gravity of the violations suffered, including the physical, mental and moral damage and his loss of opportunity in terms of employment and education; (f) indicate the specific domestic authorities that are in charge of implementing each measure of reparation; and (g) translate the Views of the Committee into Nepalese and publish them in the Official Gazette. 3.10 The author further requests that the Committee call upon the State party to implement the following general measures as guarantees of non-repetition: (a) criminalize torture in accordance with the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment; (b) amend the legislation establishing the unduly restrictive 35-day statute of limitations to submit complaints concerning torture; (c) make it mandatory to provide, at the time of the arrest, an arrest warrant stating the grounds for the arrest; (d) establish education programmes on international human rights and international humanitarian law for all members of the Nepalese police, the judiciary and all persons that may be involved in the custody and/or treatment of persons deprived of their liberty; and (e) take the measures necessary to ensure that the inmates of all detention facilities across Nepal have adequate food, medical care and sanitary conditions according to international standards. State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 4.1 In its observations dated 18 September 2017, the State party claimed that the author’s allegations were “not based on facts and reality”. 4.2 The State party notes that the daughter of the author’s landlord filed a first information report against the author for the theft of several of her valuables. The author was legally arrested by the police in Ratnapark, Kathmandu. The State party claims that the author confessed his guilt and that he had received 2,000 Nepalese rupees (approximately $17.20) from his neighbour for the stolen goods, in his statements before the Government Attorney (the prosecutor). 4.3 The State party denies any allegations that torture took place during the police investigation of the author’s case. The State party notes that, after the author reported that he had been tortured and requested a medical examination, the Kathmandu District Court, in the context of the adjudication of the theft case against the author, immediately ordered a medical examination, which was conducted by the Forensic Medicine Department of the Tribhuvan University Teaching Hospital. The forensic report of 13 September 2012 did not show that there had been any kind of physical assault or indication suggestive of injury and did not reveal any significant psychiatric morbidity. Given that the medical report presented before the District Court did not contain evidence of any act of torture committed against the author, the Court did not make any order regarding the author’s claim of torture. The State party claims that, if the author was not satisfied with the District Court’s decision, he should have filed an appeal before the Appellate Court in Patan, which he did not do. The State party claims that the communication is inadmissible, given that the author failed to exhaust available domestic remedies. 4.4 The State party notes that the author was placed in a “juvenile reform home” on the basis of the order of the Kathmandu District Court and later released by order of the Supreme Court of Nepal, which based its decision on the provisions of the Convention on the Rights of the Child and general comment No. 10 (2007) on children’s rights in juvenile 6