CCPR/C/112/D/2031/2011 could not get involved. On 15 June 2007, the author sent the first information report through the post to the police. One week later, a more senior police officer replied to the author, stating that the police did not accept such cases and that they would be considered by the National Human Rights Commission. On 22 June 2007, the author wrote a letter to the Chief District Officer and asked him to register his first information report, but the Chief District Officer refused to do so. 2.15 On 30 October 2007, representatives of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and the International Commission of Jurists visited the District Police Office and enquired about the status of report. They were informed that the report had not been registered following an order by a more senior officer. That was also confirmed by the the Deputy Superintendent of Police. On 23 November 2007, the International Commission of Jurists wrote to the Inspector-General of Police to inquire about the refusal to register the first information report. No answer was ever forthcoming. 2.16 On 12 May 2008, the author filed a writ of mandamus before the Supreme Court and requested the registration of the first information report. On 24 June 2008, the Chief District Officer and the the Deputy Superintendent of Police informed the Supreme Court that the author’s father had tried to break the cordon of security forces as they were patrolling the Simpani village development committee; that terrorists opened fire to which the security forces replied; and that Mr Bhandari had died in the crossfire. They also held that, as the shooting had occurred during the night, it was unclear whether the bullet that killed him was from the terrorist group or the security forces. The the Deputy Superintendent of Police further held that the uncertainty concerning the provenance of the bullet should make it impossible for the author to submit such a petition to the Supreme Court. At the time the communication was submitted, hearings regarding the writ of mandamus had been postponed five times and the case had been pending for three years. 2.17 In June 2009, the author received Nr. 100,000 as interim relief granted to the families of victims of enforced disappearance. At some point, the author asked the Chief District Officer and the Deputy Superintendent of Police for his father’s personal belongings to be returned. However, new police agents, appointed after the peace agreement, told him that they were not aware of his father’s case and that they could not do anything about the return of his belongings. The author claims that his father’s disappearance caused him a high degree of suffering and that he has been subjected to harassment from the authorities. His mother suffers from social stigma, as it is difficult to live without a husband in Nepalese society. The disappearance also caused an important economic loss to his family, since his father was the family’s main source of income. 2.18 The author claims that the National Human Rights Commission cannot be considered an effective remedy. As regards the first information report, it is limited to the crimes listed in schedule 1 of the State Cases Act of 1992, which does not include enforced disappearance and torture. In 2007, the Supreme Court ordered the Government to criminalize enforced disappearance, but no action has been taken in this respect. The filing of first information reports in cases of disappearance does not constitute an appropriate remedy, as the authorities usually argue that the person’s death cannot be proved in the absence of a body. The author submits that domestic remedies have been unreasonably prolonged and that there is no other domestic remedy to exhaust.2 2 The author refers to the Committee’s jurisprudence concerning communication No. 1469/2006, Sharma v. Nepal, Views adopted on 28 October 2008, para. 6.3. 5