CCPR/C/112/D/2051/2011 authorities to his requests for information on his fate and whereabouts and the consequences on his mental health. 6.2 The State party did not provide relevant information to challenge the admissibility of the claims related to Jit Man Basnet’s rights. The fact that he was released in no way absolves the State party from its responsibility for the violations of his rights. 6.3 The amount of 50,000.00 rupees recommended by the NHRC as compensation for the violations suffered by Jit Man Basnet is a negligible amount to cover the material and moral harm suffered by him and cannot be considered as an effective domestic remedy within the meaning of article 2, paragraph 3, of the Covenant. Furthermore, mere pecuniary compensation for human rights violations of that nature is not a sufficient remedy. Reparations in cases of gross human rights violations shall include restitution, rehabilitation, satisfaction and guarantees of non-repetition. 6.4 At the time that the authors’ comments were submitted, the establishment of the future Truth and Reconciliation Commission and the Commission on Disappearance was uncertain. Furthermore, the draft bills included a general amnesty clause for perpetrators of serious violations of international human rights law and international humanitarian law, including enforced disappearances. Fact-finding processes by non-judicial bodies, though crucial for the establishment of the truth, could never replace access to justice and redress for victims of gross human rights violations, the criminal justice system being the more appropriate avenue for immediate criminal investigation and punishment. In that regard, the authors point out that the commissions would not be judicial bodies and would only have the power to make recommendations to relevant organs, including the Office of the Attorney General. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 7.1 Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Human Rights Committee must, in accordance with rule 93 of its rules of procedure, decide whether or not the case is admissible under the Optional Protocol to the Covenant. 7.2 The Committee has ascertained, as required under article 5, paragraph 2 (a), of the Optional Protocol, that the same matter is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 7.3 The Committee takes note of the State party’s argument that the claims of violations of Top Bahadur Basnet’s rights are formulated in an abstract fashion as they do not explicitly mention which of his rights were violated and in which circumstances. The Committee, however, observes that Top Bahadur Basnet alleges violations of his rights under article 7, read in conjunction with article 2, paragraph 3, owing to the events he had to go through in connection with the alleged illegal detention, enforced disappearance and torture of his cousin, Jit Man Basnet. The Committee considers that Top Bahadur Basnet has sufficiently substantiated his claims for purposes of admissibility. 7.4 With respect to the requirement of exhaustion of domestic remedies, the Committee notes the State party’s argument that the authors have not exhausted domestic remedies; that Jit Man Basnet’s case should be addressed within the transitional justice mechanisms to be established in conformity with the 2007 Interim Constitution and the 2006 Comprehensive Peace Agreement; and that Jit Man Basnet can request compensation of 50,000 rupees for his illegal detention and torture, as a victim of the armed conflict, in the light of the NHRC recommendations. The Committee also takes note of the authors’ allegation that, on 8 March 2002, Top Bahadur Basnet filed a request for investigation into his cousin’s disappearance to the NHRC; that Jit Man Basnet himself filed requests for 9