CCPR/C/112/D/2051/2011 4.2 Regarding Top Bahadur Basnet, there are no records of violations of his rights by State agents during the armed conflict. The communication does not explicitly mention which of his rights were violated, in which circumstances, and what steps were undertaken by him in that regard. The State party maintains that an abstract communication cannot be considered by the Committee and that, therefore, the allegations concerning his rights should be declared inadmissible. 4.3 As for Jit Man Basnet, he was released unharmed from custody by the security forces on 18 October 2004. Further, his name appears in the records of the Ministry of Peace and Reconstruction as victim of enforced disappearance and, as per recommendation of the NHRC, he is entitled to receive a compensation of 50,000 rupees. The State party sanctioned a sum of 120 million rupees to provide compensation to victims of the armed conflict. Section 5 of the Procedures relating to Relief, Compensation and Financial Assistance, 2066 (2009) provides that a person who has been kidnapped or disappeared, or his or her heir, may obtain monetary relief of 25,000 rupees through the concerned District Administration Office. If the author has not yet received the 50,000 rupees as an interim compensation, he can still request it. 4.4 Article 33 (q) and (s) of the Interim Constitution of Nepal 2007 and section 5.2.5 of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement provide for the establishment of transitional justice mechanisms, such as a high-level truth and reconciliation commission, to investigate gross violations of human rights during the armed conflict and create an environment of reconciliation in the society. To that end, the Government submitted to the Parliament the Truth and Reconciliation Commission Bill and the Enforced Disappearance (Offence and Punishment) Bill. The main aim of those bills is to establish independent, impartial and autonomous commissions to carry out thorough and credible investigations into all allegations of disappearances and serious human rights violations that occurred between 13 February 1996 and 21 November 2006. At the moment the State party’s observations were submitted, the bills were pending approval by the Legislative Committee of the Parliament. The State party holds that, against that background and in the light of its sincere effort to establish those transitional justice mechanisms, it could not be concluded that domestic remedies have been unreasonably prolonged. Accordingly, the authors have not exhausted domestic remedies. 5. On 11 January 2012, the State party informed the Committee that the two bills were at the final stage of the Legislative Committee of the Parliament, and requested the Committee to refrain from considering the communication in the light of its sincere commitment and steps taken to establish transitional justice mechanisms to bring the perpetrators to justice. Author’s comments on the State party’s observations 6.1 On 9 March 2012, the authors rejected the State party’s observations. They uphold that their communication provides explicit allegations of violations of Top Bahadur Basnet’s rights under article 7, read in conjunction with article 2, paragraph 3, of the Covenant. It gives a detailed account of his efforts before private institutions and the authorities in order to find out Jit Man Basnet’s whereabouts and secure his release. In spite of the risk for his own personal safety, he took contact and met high-ranking members of the Army, including some who were involved in his cousin’s enforced disappearance and torture, such as Colonel R.B., commander of the Bhairavnath barracks, and Mr. S.K.B., the senior superintendent of the armed police force. The fact that the State party found no records about the human rights violations against Top Bahadur Basnet does not mean that his rights were not violated. He has duly substantiated his proximity with Jit Man Basnet, and explained in detailed his efforts to search for his cousin, the indifference of the 8