CCPR/C/112/D/2018/2010 Appendix [Original: Spanish] Partly dissenting opinion of Committee members Víctor Manuel Rodríguez-Rescia and Fabián Omar Salvioli 1. In the case of communication No. 2018/2010, we agree with the decision of the Human Rights Committee to find violations of the rights defined in articles 6, paragraph 1, 7, 9 and 10, all read in conjunction with article 2, paragraph 3, in respect of the author’s daughter (Subhadra Chaulagain) and article 7, read in conjunction with article 2, paragraph 3, in respect of the author (Kedar Chaulagain). 2. However, we believe that the Committee should also have found a violation of those same rights independently rather than solely by reason of the lack of an effective investigation (which is unfortunately what the Committee concluded by reading articles 6, 7, 9 and 10 in conjunction with article 2, paragraph 3, of the Covenant). We are of the view that the decision on the admissibility of this case, as adopted by the Committee at its 104th meeting on 8 March 2012, was unnecessarily restrictive and legally flawed. Nor do we see why the Committee decided to analyse the merits of the case separately from the question of its admissibility. 3. In its decision on the merits, the Committee could have correctly applied the Covenant and reached the conclusion that there had been a direct violation of the rights in question. The problem frequently faced by the Committee is more structural in nature and has to do with the incomprehensible — and, we believe, misguided — practice of refraining from applying the principle of iura novit curia in the consideration of communications. 4. The Committee should analyse the cases it has before it based on the established facts and, on that basis, should determine which Covenant rights have been violated, regardless of whether that coincides with what has been claimed by the authors of the communication. 5. It leads to unreasonable outcomes if, as in this case, the Committee devotes more attention to the numbers of the articles invoked in the communication than to an examination of the alleged and proven facts and of how the violations have been substantiated. The terrible events described by the author speak for themselves, and the complaint leaves no room for doubt either.a 6. Furthermore, the fact that in the present case, the author’s daughter was 17 years old when the events occurred means that the Committee could have sought to determine whether there had been a violation of article 24 of the Covenant, which requires States parties to provide special measures of protection for all children and adolescents. The acts committed against the victim by members of the Royal Nepal Army engage the international responsibility of the State in the light of its obligations under article 24. In addition to its responsibility for the reprehensible arrest, torture and extrajudicial killing of Subhadra Chaulagain, the State had a duty to conduct a detailed, thorough investigation into the facts of the case. We therefore believe that there was a separate violation of article 24 of the Covenant and a violation of article 2, paragraph 3, read in conjunction with article 24. a 18 See paragraphs 2.1 to 2.21 and 3.1 to 3.8 of the present communication.