CCPR/C/112/D/2031/2011 Covenant have been violated. The Committee attaches importance to the establishment by States parties of appropriate judicial and administrative mechanisms for addressing claims of rights violations. It refers to its general comment No. 31 (2004) on the nature of the general legal obligation imposed on States parties to the Covenant, which provides, inter alia, that a failure by a State party to investigate allegations of violations could, in and of itself, give rise to a separate breach of the Covenant. In the present case, the Committee observes that, shortly after the detention of the author’s father, the author and his mother approached the Chief District Officer and the Deputy Superintendent of Police seeking information and later complained to the National Human Rights Commission, the Supreme Court and the police (see para. 7.3 above). Despite the author’s efforts, almost 12 years after the disappearance of his father, no thorough and effective investigation has been concluded by the State party, in order to elucidate the circumstances surrounding his detention and alleged death, and no criminal investigation has even been started to bring the perpetrators to justice. The State party refers in a general fashion to ongoing investigations within the author’s writ of mandamus proceedings, but it has failed to explain the effectiveness and adequacy of such investigations and the concrete steps taken to clarify the circumstances of the detention of the author’s father and the cause of his alleged death, or to locate his mortal remains and return them to the author’s family. Therefore, the Committee considers that the State party has failed to conduct a thorough and effective investigation into the disappearance of the author’s father. . Additionally, the Nr. 100,000 received by the author as interim relief does not constitute an adequate remedy commensurate with the serious violations inflicted. Accordingly, the Committee concludes that the facts before it reveal a violation of articles 2, paragraph 3, read in conjunction with article 6, paragraph 1; 7; 9 and 16 of the Covenant, with regard to Tej Bahadur Bhandari; and article 2, paragraph 3, read in conjunction with article 7 of the Covenant, with respect to the author. 8.10 Having concluded to violation of the above provisions, the Committee decides not to examine separately the author’s claims under article10 of the Covenant. 9 9. The Human Rights Committee, acting under article 5, paragraph 4, of the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, is of the view that the information before it discloses violations by the State party of articles 6, paragraph 1; 7; 9 and 16; and of article 2, paragraph 3, read in conjunction with articles 6, paragraph 1; 7; 9 and 16 of the Covenant with regard to Tej Bahadur Bhandari; and of article 7 and article 2, paragraph 3, read in conjunction with article 7, with respect to the author. 10. In accordance with article 2, paragraph 3, of the Covenant, the State party is under an obligation to provide the author with an effective remedy, including by: (a) conducting a thorough and effective investigation into the disappearance of Tej Bahadur Bhandari and providing the author with detailed information about the results of its investigation; (b) locating the remains of Mr. Bhandari and handing them over to his family; (c) prosecuting, trying and punishing those responsible for the violations committed; (d) providing adequate compensation to the author for the violations suffered; and (e) ensuring that the necessary and adequate psychological rehabilitation and medical treatment is provided to the author. The State party is also under an obligation to take steps to prevent similar violations in the future. In that connection, the State party should ensure that its legislation allows for the criminal prosecution of the facts that constitute a violation of the Covenant. 11. Bearing in mind that, by becoming a party to the Optional Protocol, the State party has recognized the competence of the Committee to determine whether or not there has 9 See communication No. 1900/2009, Mehalli v. Algeria, Views adopted on 21 March 2014, para. 7.11. 13