CCPR/C/122/D/2364/2014 the establishment by States parties of appropriate judicial and administrative mechanisms for addressing claims of human rights violations. 36 The Committee 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 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 Ms. Sharma did not have access to an effective remedy while in detention and after her release. During her detention, Bijaya Paudel submitted an application to the National Human Rights Commission and filed a writ of habeas corpus before the Supreme Court, which quashed his petition on 25 June 2004. On 8 June 2005 Mr. Paudel submitted another habeas corpus petition to the Supreme Court, which ordered the release of Ms. Sharma on 28 June 2005. Despite the authors’ efforts, and the recognition by the National Human Rights Commission and the Kathmandu District Administrative Office that Ms. Sharma had been subjected to enforced disappearance, as well as the Supreme Court mandamus order directing the Government to investigate and provide appropriate reparations to victims of disappearances, no thorough and effective investigation has been concluded by the State party in order to elucidate the circumstances surrounding Ms. Sharma’s detention and enforced disappearance, and no criminal investigation has even been started to bring the perpetrators to justice. In addition, the 246,000 Nepalese rupees received by Ms. Sharma as interim relief does not constitute an adequate remedy commensurate to the serious violations inflicted. Messrs Bijaya and Basanta Sharma Paudel never received any form of redress nor interim relief. Accordingly, the Committee concludes that the facts before it reveal a violation of article 2 (3), in conjunction with articles 6, 7, 9 (1–4) and 16, with regard to Ms. Sharma; and article 2 (3), read in conjunction with article 7 of the Covenant, with respect to Messrs Bijaya and Basanta Sharma Paudel. 10. The Committee, acting under article 5(4), of the Optional Protocol, is of the view that the information before it discloses a violation by the State party of articles 6, 7, 9 (1–4) and 16, read alone and in conjunction with article 2 (3) of the Covenant, with regard to Ms. Sharma; and a violation of article 7, read alone and in conjunction with article 2 (3), with respect to Messrs Bijaya and Basanta Sharma Paudel. 37 11. In accordance with article 2 (3) (a) of the Covenant, the State party is under an obligation to provide individuals whose Covenant rights have been violated with an effective remedy. Accordingly, the State party is obligated to, inter alia: (a) conduct a thorough and effective investigation into the facts surrounding the detention of Ms. Sharma and the treatment she suffered in detention; (b) prosecute, try and punish those responsible for the violations committed and make the results of such measures public; (c) provide the authors with detailed information about the results of the investigation; (d) ensure that any necessary and adequate psychological rehabilitation and medical treatment is provided to the authors; and (e) provide effective reparation, including adequate compensation and appropriate measures of satisfaction to the authors for the violations suffered. The State party is also under an obligation to take steps to prevent the occurrence of similar violations in the future. In particular, the State party should ensure that its legislation: (a) criminalizes torture and enforced disappearance and provides for appropriate sanctions and remedies commensurate with the gravity of the crimes; (b) guarantees that such cases give rise to a prompt, impartial and effective investigation;38 (c) allows for the criminal prosecution of those found responsible for such crimes; and (d) amends the 35-day statutory limit for claiming compensation for torture, in accordance with international standards. 12. 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 there has been a violation of the Covenant and that, pursuant to article 2 of the Covenant, the State party has undertaken to ensure for all individuals within its territory or subject to its jurisdiction the rights recognized in the Covenant and to provide an effective and enforceable remedy when a violation has been established, the Committee wishes to receive from the State party, within 180 days, information about the measures taken to give effect to the Committee’s 36 37 38 See Neupane and Neupane v. Nepal, para. 10.11. See El-Abani et al v. Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, para. 7.5; and Emina Kožljak and Sinan Kožljak v. Bosnia and Herzegovina (CCPR/C/112/D/1970/2010), para. 9.6. See Neupane and Neupane v. Nepal (CCPR/C/120/D/2170/2012), para 11. 15