CCPR/C/122/D/2364/2014 to work and search for his mother, and he was forced to live at his school during the first month of his mother’s disappearance, without knowing why. Once he learned about his mother’s disappearance, he experienced anguish and distress, which deeply affected his mood and behaviour. The common presence of soldiers at his apartment represented a constant threat. Those circumstances reveal a violation of articles 7, 17, 23 (1) and 24 (1), read alone and in conjunction with article 2(3), with regard to Basanta Sharma Paudel. 3.17 The authors further contend that no judicial remedies are available to them for the offences they suffered and that, in any case, existing procedures are ineffective. Ms. Sharma’s enforced disappearance was on several occasions brought to the attention of the authorities, which never initiated any investigation in that regard. After her release, Ms. Sharma was overwhelmed by her fear of State authorities. 11 When the conflict finally ended on 26 November 2006, it was too late to submit a complaint under the 1996 Compensation Relating to Torture Act, since the 35-day statutory limitation had elapsed. In addition, the consistent police practice of rejecting complaints discouraged Ms. Sharma from submitting one. 3.18 Ms. Sharma submitted an application for interim relief and was recognized as a victim of “abduction” and afforded 25,000 rupees. She was also granted 50,000 rupees as a victim of “injuries”. However, these were social assistance measures that did not cover all the aspects of reparation. Under the interim relief programme, a prima facie investigation was conducted, which confirmed the crimes reported by Ms. Sharma. However, the authorities avoided further investigations and no one was charged. 3.19 On 14 March 2013, the President of Nepal adopted the Commission on Investigation of Disappeared Persons, Truth and Reconciliation Ordinance, 2069 (2012). However, such a commission does not exist yet, and the authors contend that it cannot be considered a remedy, since the Supreme Court issued a stay on the implementation of the Ordinance. 3.20 On 11 June 2013, the police refused to register the first information report that Ms. Sharma attempted to file because, according to the police, such report could only be submitted when the facts amounted to one of the crimes listed in Schedule 1 of the 1992 State Cases Act, which included neither torture nor enforced disappearance. As requested by law, Ms. Sharma and her counsel addressed the higher ranking officer at the Metropolitan Police Range without success and, since they were not given a formal rejection notice, they could not appeal to the Chief District Officer. Considering that the Committee had already noticed the ineffectiveness of first information reports in the past,12 and noting that no perpetrators of gross human rights violations during the conflict period have been brought to justice, the authors contend that this remedy offers no prospects of success. 3.21 On 21 July 2013 Ms. Sharma tried to lodge a complaint under the 1996 Compensation Relating to Torture Act, which was rejected on 23 July 2013 as time-barred. The authors argue that it would have been impossible for Ms. Sharma to comply with the 35-day statutory limitation, due to the serious threats she had received upon her release. They also argue that statutes of limitations should not apply to gross violations of international human rights law13 and that the failure to exhaust domestic remedies due to the expiration of statutory limitations that are attributable to flawed domestic legislation should not render a communication inadmissible. 14 In any event, such complaint is civil in nature and cannot lead to the prosecution of those responsible for the crimes. 15 3.22 The authors contend that the date of rejection of the complaint under the 1996 Compensation Relating to Torture Act, that is, 23 July 2013, should be considered as the 11 12 13 14 15 The authors refer to Phillip v. Trinidad and Tobago (CCPR/C/64/D/594/1992). The authors refer to Sharma v. Nepal. The authors refer to the Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Gross Violations of International Human Rights Law and Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law. The authors refer to JRT and the WG Party v. Canada (CCPR/C/OP/2). The authors refer to Benaziza v. Algeria. 7