CCPR/C/112/D/2018/2010 right of victims to reparation, which may consist of restitution, compensation, rehabilitation, measures of satisfaction and guarantees of non-recurrence. 10. On 11 August 2014, the State party informed the Committee about the adoption of the Act by its Parliament; reiterated its observations on the merits (see paras. 7.3 and 7.4 above); and maintained that it would be inappropriate for the Committee to continue considering the present communication. It further held that it had established programmes in order to provide rehabilitation and financial and non-financial support to victims of the armed conflict and their families. Consideration of the merits 11.1 The Human Rights Committee has considered the present communication in the light of all the information received, in accordance with article 5, paragraph 1, of the Optional Protocol. 11.2 The Committee takes note of the author’s allegations that on 12 February 2004, his daughter was arbitrarily executed by members of the RNA, after being illegally arrested in the middle of the night, without an arrest warrant, tortured, severely ill-treated and humiliated by a group of soldiers; that on the following days he lodged a complaint with the Chief District Officer; that on 29 February 2004, he also made an application before the National Human Rights Commission, and on 8 June 2006, he filed a First Information Report for murder with the District Police Office. As the police did not carry out any investigation, he submitted a writ petition to the Supreme Court. He further claims that, despite the recommendation made by the NHCR on 14 June 2005 and the Supreme Court mandamus order of 14 December 2009, to date, no investigation has been carried out into his daughter’s killing. The Committee also takes note of the author’s allegations that he was not aware of the proceedings carried out by the court martial concerning the events that took place in Pokhari Chauri on 12 and 13 February 2004; that the decision of the court martial of 28 August 2005 was not made public; that the documents and evidence listed in the decision have not been provided to the Kavre DPO or to him; and that the court did not punish the perpetrators of the crimes committed against his daughter. The Committee also takes note of the State party’s statement that further investigations regarding the circumstances of the death of the author’s daughter are still ongoing; and that the case would fall under the jurisdiction of the Commissions on Investigation of Disappeared Persons and Truth and Reconciliation, established by the Act. 11.3 The Committee recalls that States parties should take measures not only to prevent and punish deprivation of life by criminal acts, but also to prevent arbitrary killing by their own security forces.20 The Committee also recalls that, under article 2, paragraph 3, of the Covenant, States parties must ensure that all persons have accessible, effective and enforceable remedies in order to claim the rights enshrined in the Covenant. The Committee further recalls its general comment No. 31 (2004) on the nature of the general legal obligation imposed on States parties to the Covenant, particularly the fact that, when investigations reveal violations of certain Covenant rights, States parties must ensure that those responsible are brought to justice. As with failure to investigate, failure to bring to justice perpetrators of such violations could in and of itself give rise to a separate breach of the Covenant. Those obligations arise notably in respect of violations recognized as criminal under either domestic or international law, such as torture and similar cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, and summary and arbitrary killing (para. 18). 11.4 In the present case, there is no dispute about the fact that the author’s daughter was arrested by soldiers of the Royal Nepal Army without an arrest warrant and that she died as 20 See the Committee’s general comment No. 6 (1982) on the right to life, para. 3. 15