CCPR/C/112/D/2031/2011 where necessary, in order to ensure that he has available, effective and sufficient remedies. As a guarantee of non-repetition, the State party should take the necessary measures to ensure that enforced disappearance and torture, and the various forms of participation in those crimes, constitute autonomous offences under its criminal law, punishable by appropriate penalties, which take into account their extreme seriousness. Finally, the State party should establish as soon as possible educational programmes on international human rights law and international humanitarian law for all members of the army, the security forces and the judiciary. State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 4.1 By note verbale of 4 May 2011, the State party submitted its observations, challenging the admissibility of the communication on the grounds of failure to exhaust domestic remedies. 4.2 As to the facts of the case, the State party maintains that the author’s father was involved in violent activities. On 31 December 2001, he was taken to the forest area at the border of Simpani village by the security forces, where he had said that weapons were being kept hidden. As he tried to break the security cordon and run away, the security forces had to intervene, which resulted in his accidental death. 4.3 Pursuant to the Government Cases Act, 1992, the police carried out an investigation and a report was submitted to the Office of the District Government Attorney of Lamjung. As a result of the introduction of a first information report on the accidental death, an investigation was carried out, including an examination of the remains. In the light of this, the State party submits that the case does not constitute an enforced disappearance. 4.4 With regard to the author’s claim that the Supreme Court several times postponed hearings of his writ of mandamus, the State party maintains that the procedure of hearings at the Supreme Court is regulated by its regulation2049 BS. The author’s application requesting the registration of the first information report was lodged on 12 May 2008. On the next day, the Supreme Court held hearings on the writ and issued a “show cause” notice in the name of the defendants – the Chief District Officer and the Deputy Superintendent of Police. As ordered by the Supreme Court, the defendants submitted their written responses within the stipulated time frame. By the time the State party submitted its observations to the Committee, the proceedings were at the final stage. The author’s case was awaiting the final hearing and the verdict of the Court was expected in the next hearing schedule. That shows that effective and adequate remedies are still ongoing. It cannot, therefore, be concluded that the author has exhausted domestic remedies in accordance with article 5, paragraph 2 (b), of the Optional Protocol. 5.1 By note verbale of 13 September 2011, the State party submitted its observations on the merits and reiterated that the author had not exhausted domestic remedies. 5.2 As to the merits of the communication, the State party points out that it has repeatedly refuted the reports of the Special Rapporteur on Torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment and the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances, in which they stated that torture was systematically practised by the police, armed police and the Army. 5.3 The Supreme Court decision of 5 April 2002 stated that the author’s father was dead. Since there is no doubt about his fate, the State party reiterates that it is not appropriate to consider the case as an enforced disappearance. 5.4 The State party is aware of its obligation to carry out a thorough investigation, exhume the body and return the mortal remains. It also has serious concerns as to the existence of excessive use of force, torture or inhuman and degrading treatment against 8