CCPR/C/119/D/2185/2012 policemen from the Police Office in Bel Chautara, Tanahun, under the command of Inspector K.B.R, brought to the Area Police Office, Bel Chautara, and made to disappear. The Task Force recommended that criminal charges be brought against the perpetrators and that relief be granted to the family members who had been affected. 2.11 On 1 June 2007, the Supreme Court ruled on the habeas corpus petition of 83 disappeared persons. The Court took note of the findings of the Task Force and concluded that Rajendra Dhakal had been arrested and his disappearance brought about by members of the security forces; and that there was no information about his fate and whereabouts. 7 The Court ordered the Government, inter alia, to enact legislation in order to define and criminalize enforced disappearances, prosecute the perpetrators of those crimes, and provide compensation to the victims and their families. 2.12 On 3 August 2007, the first author received Nr 150,000 from the Chief District Office, Ghorka, as interim relief, in the framework of the Interim Relief Plan set up by the Government. On 14 April 2008, she received Nr 100,000 from the Ministry of Peace and Reconstruction. However, the judgment’s additional orders were not implemented by the Government. The authors claim that they did not take further action since there was no point in bringing the case before the police or judicial authorities given the impunity prevailing in the country, as indicated by the lack of implementation of the decisions of the Supreme Court. 2.13 The authors affirm that they have taken all possible steps to exhaust domestic remedies. Nevertheless, the remedies are ineffective and unreasonably prolonged. The proceedings after filing the habeas corpus writ lasted more than seven years, and the Supreme Court’s final decision of 1 June 2007 has not been implemented to date, which constitutes an unreasonable delay, rendering the prospect of any further complaint futile. Despite that decision, the Nepalese authorities have failed to conduct an investigation into the circumstances of Rajendra Dhakal’s disappearance, and his fate and whereabouts remain unknown. The authors submit that they did not file a first information report application before the police because it would not have been an effective remedy. That is because a criminal investigation can only start after registration of such a report, but such reports can be lodged only when they relate to a crime listed in schedule 1 of the 1992 State Cases Act. Since enforced disappearance has not been codified in the State party’s national legislation to date, it is impossible for relatives of victims of enforced disappearance to file a first information report for those acts. It is also questionable whether such reports can be considered an effective remedy, as they have often been discretionarily refused by the police. Furthermore, a potential fact-finding process in the context of a transitional justice mechanism does not replace access to justice and redress for victims of gross human rights violations and their relatives and therefore cannot be deemed a remedy within the meaning of article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol. The complaint 3.1 The authors claim that Rajendra Dhakal was a victim of enforced disappearance and that the State party has violated his rights under articles 6, 7, 9, 10 and 16, separately and in conjunction with article 2 (3) of the Covenant; the first and second authors’ rights under article 7, read alone and in conjunction with article 2 (3); and the third author’s (Manjima Dhakal) rights under article 7, read in conjunction with articles 2 (3) and 24 (1) of the Covenant. 3.2 Rajendra Dhakal was arbitrarily deprived of his liberty by Nepalese police on 8 January 1999 and was last seen alive in life-threatening circumstances in the hands of agents of the State. His arbitrary arrest, ill-treatment and subsequent enforced disappearance were perpetrated in a context in which those practices were widespread and systematic. Although the Supreme Court’s decision of 1 June 2007 endorsed the Detainee Investigation Task Force’s findings and concluded that Rajendra Dhakal had been taken to Bel Chautara Area Police Office and subsequently forcibly disappeared by the police, the 7 4 The communication includes a copy of the decision of the Supreme Court of Nepal of 1 June 2007 and a translation of the decision into English.