CCPR/C/119/D/2185/2012 State party’s observations on the merits 6.1 On 4 April 2013, the State party submitted its observations on the merits and reiterated that the authors had not exhausted domestic remedies and that steps had been taken to establish a transitional justice mechanism. 6.2 The State party informed the Committee that, on 13 March 2013, an executive ordinance on a commission for the investigation into disappeared persons and truth and reconciliation had been promulgated by the President and that it intended to establish a high-level commission for that purpose. Against that background, it would not be appropriate for the Committee to consider cases pertaining to the conflict period in Nepal, given that the transitional justice mechanism was about to take up its functions. Authors’ comments on the State party’s observations on the merits 7.1 On 24 June 2013, the authors submitted their comments on the State party’s observations on the merits. They regret that the State party has failed to address the merits of the communication, as that denotes indifference towards their suffering. The State party, inter alia, failed to provide any information about the fate and whereabouts of Rajendra Dhakal, leaving them to bear the brunt of the efforts to uncover any facts. 7.2 The authors reiterate their submission that the first information report is not a remedy that has to be exhausted for the purpose of admissibility under article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol. Moreover, although the Supreme Court decision of 1 June 2007 found that Rajendra Dhakal was forcibly disappeared by the police and ordered an investigation, his fate and whereabouts remain unknown. 7.3 The authors also reiterate that the first author received interim relief of Nr 150,000 on 3 August 2007 and Nr 100,000 on 14 April 2008 for Rajendra Dhakal’s enforced disappearance. 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. 7.4 At the time that the authors’ comments were submitted to the Committee, the prospect of establishing a commission for the investigation into disappeared persons, and truth and reconciliation did not yet exist. Notwithstanding the fact that the executive ordinance immediately came into force, its legal effects had been suspended by the Supreme Court of Nepal. Additional submissions from the parties 8.1 On 10 October 2013, the State party reiterated its observations about the transitional justice mechanism and maintained that the authors had not exhausted domestic remedies. 8.2 The State party submitted that it had granted Nr 300,000 to Rajendra Dhakal’s family as interim relief. That amount was part of an initial package and was not compensation for the violations suffered. Victims had the right to receive adequate reparation after the investigation of cases. 8.3 The authors have not lodged a complaint with the relevant authorities in connection with the allegations of Rajendra Dhakal’s enforced disappearance, notwithstanding the fact that a chapter on kidnapping and hostage-taking is in force under the General Code (Muluki Ain). 9. On 6 November 2013 and 10 January 2014, the authors informed the Committee that, on 2 January 2014, the Supreme Court of Nepal had declared that the executive ordinance of 14 March 2013 establishing the commission for investigation into disappeared persons and truth and reconciliation was unconstitutional and inconsistent with international standards. The Supreme Court had ordered the authorities to establish a new commission, but no precise deadline had been provided. 8