CCPR/C/122/D/2364/2014 2.15 On 11 February 2005, the findings of a committee headed by the Joint-Secretary of the Ministry of Home Affairs (the so-called “Malego Committee”) became public and specifically mentioned Ms. Sharma as a victim of enforced disappearance. 2.16 On 12 April 2005, with the help of the National Human Rights Commission, Mr. Paudel and his eldest son were allowed to visit Ms. Sharma. On 8 June 2005 Mr. Paudel filed a new petition for habeas corpus to the Supreme Court of Nepal. On 28 June 2005, the Court ordered the immediate release of Ms. Sharma, ruling her detention as illegal. She was finally released on 30 June 2005, following the Court’s order. 2.17 On the day of her release, Ms. Sharma was ordered to report to the Army barracks personally once a week on her activities. The soldiers threatened that she and her relatives would be re-arrested if she sought justice. Mr. Paudel was also warned not to mention anything about Ms. Sharma’s detention. Because of those threats, neither Ms. Sharma nor her relatives undertook any steps to seek justice in the months after her release. 2.18 On 24 April 2006, the Comprehensive Peace Agreement was signed by the Government of Nepal and the Maoist Communist Party of Nepal. The Agreement bound the parties to create a truth and reconciliation commission, and the Interim Constitution, enacted in 2007, also reaffirmed that commitment and the need to provide a remedy to the victims and their families. 2.19 On 1 June 2007, the Supreme Court issued an order directing the Government to form an independent commission to investigate the status of disappeared persons and to prosecute those responsible. However, no investigations have been initiated, and no criminal or disciplinary measures have been taken against anyone identified as responsible for the alleged acts of arbitrary arrest, enforced disappearance and torture. On the contrary, from October 2008, the Government has adopted a policy of withdrawing criminal cases, leading to a large number of cases being withdrawn before the completion of criminal proceedings. 2.20 In 2008, the Ministry of Peace and Reconstruction put into place an Interim Relief Programme. On 4 June 2009, Ms. Sharma filed an application to be considered a victim of the conflict, and three days later the Chief District Officer confirmed that her application — in which she indicated that she had been disappeared from 20 October 2003 until 2005 — was correct. On 20 July 2009, the Kathmandu District Administration Office ordered the police to conduct a field enquiry into whether the applicant had been a victim of disappearance. Her disappearance was recognized and she received interim relief of 25,000 Nepalese rupees (approximately $250). She was also listed as a victim of “injuries and wounds” by a task force established by the Ministry of Peace and Reconstruction, and awarded 50,000 rupees (approximately $500). 2.21 On 14 March 2013, an executive ordinance (the Commission on Investigation of Disappeared Persons, Truth and Reconciliation Ordinance, 2069 (2012)) was adopted providing for the establishment of a single commission of investigation into disappeared persons, although several flaws in that measure came to light, such as the lack of definition of torture or enforced disappearance and the discretion to grant amnesty. On 31 March 2013 the Supreme Court issued a stay on the implementation of the ordinance. Since then, the commission has not been established. 2.22 Seeing no prospects for justice through the establishment of a commission, Ms. Sharma tried to lodge a first information report at the Metropolitan Police Range in Kathmandu on 11 June 2013, against the perpetrators involved in her arrest, disappearance and torture. However, her report was rejected by the superior officer of the Metropolitan Police Range, on the grounds that the case related to a crime committed during the conflict, which should be resolved by the higher-level political leadership. At the insistence of her legal counsel, the police also clarified that they could not act on crimes that were not listed under annex 1 of the State Cases Act (1992), and torture was not listed as such a crime. The police refused to release any documents attesting to the rejection of the report. 2.23 On 21 July 2013, Ms. Sharma filed a complaint under the Compensation Relating to Torture Act in order to obtain compensation for the torture she had suffered. However, her 4