CCPR/C/112/D/2018/2010 5.2 With regard to the first contention, the author notes that, in its observations, the State party gives the misleading impression that military personnel have been punished by court martial and are currently being prosecuted in the civilian courts in relation to the present case. He argues that that is not, however, correct. While it appears that the circumstances of Subhadra’s killing were examined by a court martial in 2005, the punishments arising out of that court martial and the later prosecutions referred to relate not to the murder and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment of the author’s daughter, but to human rights abuses committed against other individuals from the same village on the same date, namely Ms. R.R. and Mr. T.L. The State party relies on two “Courts of Inquiry”, which it admits were based on fabricated facts, and a court martial carried out in relation to the “incident”, that is, the events in the village that night as a whole, as showing that it is committed to investigating and prosecuting perpetrators in the present case. Not only were those military tribunals highly irregular and completely unsatisfactory as a remedy, but they did not in any event result in punishment for the murder and ill-treatment of the author’s daughter. The irrelevance of those so-called “investigations” and court martial as a remedy in the present communication are demonstrated by the fact that he was not even aware of their existence when filing his communication to the Committee. 5.3 The author’s legal representatives only became aware of those proceedings in late March or early April of 2011, when they informally received an English translation of the court martial decision dated 28 August 2005. The copy of the decision shows that the court martial found, inter alia, that Subhadra was killed in action when trying to escape from a security cordon. The court martial did not find any person responsible for the killings of any of the three victims. It found, however, that the circumstances of arrest and killing of the author’s daughter could be seen as “normal”. It considered that the killing of Ms. R.R. and Mr. T.L. resulted from the use of excessive force and that the “irresponsible act” of leaving behind the bodies of those victims “inflicted a negative impact on the image of the Army”. For those acts, it found twelve army personnel guilty of offences under sections 54 and 60 of the Military Act 1960 (2016BS) (violation of order and discipline and crimes under other laws), but imposed punishment on only three — the three personnel officially before the court martial. It also found that the commander of the battalion had knowingly prepared and submitted a false report about the incident in a “cover-up” attempt and that the second in command had not conducted the first court of inquiry properly, taking the facts presented to him at face value. 5.4 No punishments were handed out by the court martial in relation to Subhadra’s killing. Even if they had been, the punishments would be entirely inadequate as they were imposed for disciplinary offences and unspecified “other crimes”, rather than for unlawful arrest, ill-treatment and killing. Moreover, the penalty pronounced was extremely low. 5.5 The case of homicide filed in the Kavre District Court against the alleged perpetrators, including lieutenant S.B, as well as the arrest and prosecution of a corporal for the killing of Ms. R.R., do not relate to the ill-treatment and killing the author’s daughter, but only to the murder of Ms. R.R. committed on the night of 12 to 13 February 2004 by lieutenant S.B. and corporal K.K. The author’s legal representatives have made enquiries of the Kavre DPO and have been informed that no prosecutions have been filed in relation to Subhadra’s ill-treatment and killing. 5.6 The only person to have been arrested since the issue of the arrest warrants for the murder of Ms. R.R. is corporal K.K., who was detained on 27 September 2010. His prosecution had not yet proceeded and he had a pending petition for habeas corpus before the Supreme Court. His petition had been supported by the Nepal Army, on the basis that he should be tried by a military court and should be handed over by the police to the Army. The arrest warrant for lieutenant S.B. for the murder of Ms. R.R. had not been executed, despite the fact that he was still a serving officer in the Nepal Army. In fact, the Army returned the arrest warrant to the Kavre District Court in February 2011 with a letter attached that stated that, as lieutenant S.B had already been tried and convicted before a 9