CCPR/C/119/D/2185/2012 4.5 The State party has provided Nr 300,000 to the family of each victim of the armed conflict whose whereabouts remain unknown, as interim relief. Victims may obtain further relief or reparation from the State after the establishment of a transitional justice system. 4.6 The State party contends that the existing criminal justice system is functioning well. Under the State Cases Act of 1992, the Nepalese police have conducted investigations in relation to some offences committed during the period of armed conflict. Authors’ comments on the State party’s observations on admissibility 5.1 On 14 December 2012, the authors submitted their comments on the State party’s observations and reiterated the allegations contained in their communication. 5.2 The authors allege that within the habeas corpus proceedings, the authorities replied to the Supreme Court’s show cause order simply by denying that Rajendra Dhakal had been arrested or detained, without providing any evidence that an investigation had been conducted into his whereabouts, before submitting their replies to the Court. Moreover, they did not refute the Detainee Investigation Task Force’s findings concerning his detention and disappearance by policemen, on which the Supreme Court based its decision. In that connection, they note that the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances stated that the success of the writs of habeas corpus in Nepal was entirely dependent upon the admission of the security forces; that the security force personnel were not constrained by any legal provision to tell the whole truth; and that impunity remained. 8 5.3 The authors submit that they have not received interim relief of Nr 300,000 from the State party. It was only the first author who received relief, as indicated in the communication (see paragraph 2.12 above). The other authors and Rajendra Dhakal have not received any compensation. In any event, monetary compensation for violations of such a grave nature does not amount to an effective remedy within the meaning of article 2 (3) of the Covenant. 5.4 At the time the authors submitted their comments, the establishment of the future truth and reconciliation commission and the commission of inquiry into disappearances was uncertain. Fact-finding processes by non-judicial bodies, although crucial for the establishment of the truth, could never replace access to justice and redress for victims of gross human rights violations and their relatives, as the criminal justice system is the more appropriate avenue for immediate investigation into and punishment of perpetrators of criminal acts. Accordingly, transitional justice mechanisms cannot be considered an effective remedy to be exhausted by the authors. 5.5 As to the State party’s contention that the authors have failed to file a first information report, the authors reiterate their previous allegations (see paragraph 2.13 above). Since enforced disappearance, torture and extrajudicial executions have not been criminalized in the State party, no first information reports can be filed for those crimes. There are thus no remedies available in practice. The authors highlight the fact that they made several inquiries with the police in 1999. The ineffectiveness of their inquiries led them to lodge a writ of habeas corpus on 21 January 1999. Moreover, they argue that the effectiveness of the first information report as a remedy is questionable, since according to a Supreme Court decision rendered in 2008, a first information report related to a case of homicide is to be rejected since it falls within the jurisdiction of the future truth and reconciliation commission. The authors point out that, while the 1992 State Cases Act establishes procedures related to murder and kidnapping, those procedures are inappropriate in Rajendra Dhakal’s case since he was not kidnapped, but illegally detained and subsequently forcibly disappeared. 8 The authors refer to the report of the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances on its mission to Nepal in December 2004 (E/CN.4/2005/65/Add.1), paras. 41-42, and the Working Group’s 2012 report on follow-up to those recommendations (A/HRC/19/58/Add.4), pp. 100-101. 7