CCPR/C/112/D/2018/2010 a result of the use of firearms by those soldiers, although the parties disagree as to the circumstances of her death. In any case, the Committee considers that the killing of the author’s daughter by the Army warranted a speedy and independent investigation. Deprivation of life by State authorities is a matter of utmost gravity;21 it requires a prompt and adequate investigation, with all the guarantees set forth in the Covenant, and the appropriate punishment of the perpetrators. The Committee observes that, shortly after the death of his daughter, the author filed a complaint with the Chief District Officer, and on 8 June 2006, he filed a First Information Report for murder with the District Police Office, but to no avail. In June 2005, the NHRC found that his daughter had been unlawfully killed and recommended that the Government identify and take legal action against the perpetrators. Likewise, on 14 December 2009, the Supreme Court issued a mandamus order for a prompt investigation, but no progress was achieved. Despite the author’s efforts, more than ten years after his daughter was killed, no investigation has been concluded by the State party in order to elucidate the circumstances surrounding her arrest and death and no perpetrator has been tried and punished. The State party refers to ongoing investigations, but the status of such investigations and the reasons for their delay remain unclear. 11.5 The Committee considers that the State party has failed to conduct a prompt, thorough and effective investigation into the circumstances of the arrest, treatment and killing of the author’s daughter. Accordingly, the Committee concludes that the lack of an effective investigation to establish responsibility for the arrest, treatment and killing of the author’s daughter amounts to a denial of justice and a violation of her rights, under articles 6, paragraph 1, 7, 9 and 10, all read in conjunction with article 2, paragraph 3, of the Covenant. 11.6 The Committee takes note of the author’s allegation that the treatment to which he was subjected by the Royal Nepal Army forces, including being forced to watch the execution of his daughter, the ensuing absence of proper investigation and the impunity of the perpetrators, amount to treatment contrary to article 7, read in conjunction with article 2, paragraph 3, with respect to himself. The Committee observes that all the author’s efforts to obtain justice from the authorities led to nothing and that he and his family have only received 100,000 rupees and 200,000 rupees as interim relief in 2008 and 2010, respectively. The Committee considers that the interim relief granted does not constitute an adequate remedy commensurate with the serious violations inflicted. Accordingly, the Committee considers that the experiences that the author was forced to go through, including those resulting from the State party’s failure to provide a prompt, thorough and effective investigation, constitute treatment contrary to article 7, read in conjunction with article 2, paragraph 3, of the Covenant. 12. The Human Rights Committee, acting under article 5, paragraph 4, of the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, is of the view that the State party violated the rights of the author’s daughter under articles 6, paragraph 1, 7, 9 and 10, all read in conjunction with article 2, paragraph 3; as well as the author’s rights under article 7, read in conjunction with article 2, paragraph 3, of the Covenant. 13. In accordance with article 2, paragraph 3 (a), of the Covenant, the State party is under an obligation to provide the author with an effective remedy, which includes an effective and complete investigation of the facts, the prosecution and punishment of the perpetrators, full reparation and appropriate measures of satisfaction. The State party is also under an obligation to take steps to prevent similar violations in the future. 21 16 See communication No. 1275/2004, Umetaliev and Tashtanbekova v. Kyrgyzstan, Views adopted on 30 October 2008, para. 9.5.