CCPR/C/112/D/2018/2010 Author’s comments on the State party’s observations 8.1 On 7 July 2013, the author provided his comments on the State party’s observations. He held that those observations do not provide information which would alter the Committee’s decision on admissibility. 8.2 The author reiterates his allegations regarding the proceedings held by the court martial and argues that gross violations of human rights must be investigated and prosecuted by the civilian legal system, and that in any event, the court martial fell far short of the standards of an investigation and prosecution required to fulfil the right to an effective remedy under the Covenant. 8.3 At the time he submitted his comments, the Ordinance was on hold, as the Supreme Court had issued an injunction against its implementation on 1 April 2013. However, even if the Ordinance were operational, it should not change the Committee’s findings regarding admissibility. 8.4 The five-member Commission provided for under the Ordinance is not a judicial body. It cannot hold perpetrators criminally responsible and impose sentences on them. Nor can it order binding reparation awards to victims. Accordingly, even if established, it cannot provide an adequate remedy. 8.5 In practice, the Ordinance blocks access to judicial remedies for serious violations of human rights, as the process for investigating crimes and initiating prosecutions is not clearly established and the Ordinance allows for abusive delays and impunity. It is also unclear whether the Ordinance allows amnesties for serious violations of human rights. 8.6 The Ordinance does not specify reparation as a right of the victim, or set out the basis on which it should be awarded in a manner that is in line with international human rights law. Its implementation would therefore leave the provision of reparation entirely to the discretion of a non-judicial body, and close access to normal judicial remedies, in violation of the rights of victims to an effective remedy under article 2, paragraph 3, of the Covenant. 8.7 The author rejects the State party’s statements about his daughter and the events of 12 February 2004, in particular her characterization as a “terrorist”; that she was carrying a pistol and five rounds of bullets; that she immediately admitted that she was a terrorist and indicated that many terrorists were hiding in the village, when questioned; and that she attempted to run away. In the face of the credible and detailed evidence provided in his communication, and in the absence of documentation, evidence or satisfactory explanations by the State party, the author submits that his allegations have been substantiated. 8.8 The author submits that the Committee should not give weight to the findings of the court martial because of its clear flaws as a fact-finding mechanism. If the findings were accepted, the Committee should take into account the following statement issued after the court martial: “…security forces took [Subhadra] along in the house shown by her and were interrogating people there when they saw [her] doing suspicious activities after which they tied up her hands with a shawl and a piece of cloth and kept her in the front yard of the house where she untied her hands and pushed the sentry who was nearby and fled after which sentry Corporal K.K. hit her with an INSAS rifle whereby she fell down in the garden and Sergeant I.K.S. opened fire two rounds of bullets on her and soon after that Sergeant S.B.R. shot one round of bullet from a pistol in her temple, and as she had not died even after all that warrant officer 2 D.T.M. made nearby sentry to hit her with a rifle butt and she died after being hit by the rifle butt in her temple and the team under the command of warrant officer 2 returned to Lieutenant S. as per his orders”. 13