CCPR/C/112/D/2111/2011 4.2 The legislation in force at the moment that the State party’s observations were submitted, allowed victims of torture to seek compensation. In addition, the State party stated that amendments to the Penal Code and other legislation aimed at criminalizing enforced disappearance, as well as two bills on the establishment of a truth and reconciliation commission and a disappearance commission were awaiting approval by Parliament. The establishment of the commissions was agreed by the Government and the Communist Party of Nepal-Maoist in the Comprehensive Peace Agreement of 21 November 2006 and is also provided for in article 33 (q) and (s) of the Interim Constitution of Nepal of 2007. The commissions will be competent to carry out investigations concerning offences committed during the armed conflict, for the period from 13 February 1996 to 21 November 2006. 4.3 As regards the merits of the communication, the State party maintains that the author’s allegations are not based on reliable facts and proof, but on mere suspicion. The author argues that there are reasons to believe that her husband was arbitrarily executed by State agents at the Maharajgunj barracks. Nevertheless, her writ of habeas corpus filed before the Supreme Court failed to indicate Mr. Tripathi’s whereabouts and to prove that in fact he had been arrested and detained by State agents. 4.4 The State party states that in May 2005, a committee was set up to inquire into the status of disappeared persons. At the moment that the State party’s observations were submitted, the committee had carried out investigations into the status of 174 disappeared persons. Against that background, and in the light of its sincere efforts to establish transitional justice mechanisms, the State party requests the Committee not to examine the author’s communication. It points out that the alleged arbitrary detention and enforced disappearance of Mr. Tripathi have not yet been proven and that only an independent investigation can establish his fate and whereabouts, and sanction those responsible for violations of his rights. 4.5 The Supreme Court issued an order to provide Nr. 100,000 to close relatives of a disappeared person whose status had not been clarified. In that framework, the author was granted Nr. 300,000 as interim compensation. Author’s comments on the State party’s observations 5.1 On 23 June 2012, the author rejected the State party’s observations. She argues that her claims are sufficiently substantiated and reiterates that substantial and concurring evidence, from different reliable sources, indicates that her husband was arbitrarily detained and subsequently subjected to enforced disappearance. In light of that evidence and in the context of systematic repression of Maoist sympathizers, it is reasonable to conclude that he was placed in a grave situation of suffering irreparable damage to his integrity and life. In that regard, the author emphasizes that her husband was not only a member of ANNISU-R, but head of its education division and a member of the Central Committee in Kathmandu. Therefore, her husband was arbitrarily deprived of his liberty, subsequently forcibly disappeared, and presumably killed by members of the Army.7 5.2 The communication does not constitute an abuse of the right of submission. Since 2003, the author has addressed the authorities and requested them to establish her husband’s fate and whereabouts. Her hopes of progress in the clarification of her husband’s case were particularly encouraged after the ruling by the Supreme Court of 1 June 2007. Afterwards, she was reluctant to request its implementation, because she feared for her life 7 8 The author refers to communication No. 44971991, Mojica v. Dominican Republic, Views adopted on 15 July 1994, para. 5.7.