CCPR/C/112/D/2111/2011 3.10 The author also contends that her daughter is the victim of a violation of her rights under article 7, read in conjunction with articles 2, paragraph 3, and 24, paragraph 1, of the Covenant. She was one year and eight months old at the time of her father’s disappearance. As a child, she has been particularly affected, since she has had to grow up without being able to enjoy a family life and experiencing the ongoing anguish of not knowing where her father is and whether he will come back. 3.11 The author requests the Committee to recommend the State party to: (a) order an independent investigation, as a matter of urgency, concerning the fate and whereabouts of her husband and, in the event of his death, locate, exhume, identify and respect his mortal remains and return them to the family; (b) bring the perpetrators before the competent civilian authorities for prosecution, judgment and sanction, and disseminate publicly the results of that measure; (c) provisionally separate from service all army officials against whom there is prima facie evidence that they were involved in the crimes against her husband, pending the outcome of the investigation; (d) ensure that persons suspected of having committed those crimes are not in a position to influence the progress of the investigation by means of pressure, or acts of intimidation or reprisal against the complainant, witnesses, their families or their defence counsels, or other persons participating in the investigation; (e) ensure that the author and her daughter obtain integral reparation and prompt, fair and adequate compensation; and (f) ensure that the measures of reparation cover material and moral damages and measures of restitution, rehabilitation, satisfaction and guarantees of non-repetition. In particular, she requests that the State party acknowledge its international responsibility, on the occasion of a public ceremony, in the presence of the authorities and of Mr. Tripathi’s relatives, to whom official apologies shall be issued; and that the State party name a street, build a monument or place a commemorative plaque in memory of all the victims of enforced disappearance and torture during the internal armed conflict, including a specific reference to the case of Mr. Tripathi, whereby his reputation is fully restored. The State party should also provide the author with medical and psychological care immediately and free of charge, through its specialized institutions, and grant her access to free legal aid, where necessary, in order to ensure to her available, effective and sufficient remedies. Likewise, the author’s daughter should be provided with a scholarship for the remainder of her education. As a guarantee of nonrepetition, the State party should take the necessary measures to ensure that enforced disappearance and torture, and the different forms of participation in these 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 On 10 May 2012, the State party submitted its observations on admissibility and the merits. It maintains that the communication is not in conformity with rules 96 (b), (c) and (f) of the Committee’s rules of procedure.6 It argues that the author has not exhausted all domestic remedies, as she failed to register a first information report with the police for the alleged human rights violations raised in her communication. On the other hand, habeas corpus proceedings, such as the one instituted by the author, are limited to reviewing the legality of a detention and an order of habeas corpus is issued by a court only when it is proven that a detention has taken place. 6 The Committee observes that the State party has not substantiated its observations under rule 96 (c) of its rules of procedure (CCPR/C/3/Rev.10). 7