CCPR/C/112/D/2018/2010 years ago is, in the author’s opinion, compelling evidence that the application of the remedy in the present case has been unreasonably prolonged.15 5.10 The author submits that any remedies which appear to be available in law are not effective and available in practice. In particular, torture and ill-treatment have not been criminalized under domestic law, and so cannot be prosecuted in domestic courts.16 In the circumstances outlined above, and in the light of the fact that not one person has yet been brought to justice for the crimes committed during the armed conflict, it is clear that any potential remedy under domestic procedures is illusory, and cannot be seen to be available or effective. 5.11 The author notes the State party’s commitment to conducting an inquiry and investigation into the cases of alleged human rights violations during the conflict and the fact that it has taken steps to find appropriate transitional justice mechanisms. With regard to that argument, the author holds that, at the time that he submitted his comments, the potential to establish transitional justice mechanisms in the future did not affect the fact that the application of remedies in the present case had been unreasonably prolonged. Furthermore, such mechanisms were not yet available and, if available in the future, would not be able to provide an adequate remedy in respect of the violations alleged. 5.12 Moreover, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission to be established would not be a judicial body. It would not provide an adequate remedy for those serious violations, and its potential creation was irrelevant to the question of whether or not remedies had been exhausted. Committee’s decision on admissibility 6.1 At its 104th session, held on 8 March 2012, the Committee examined the admissibility of the communication. 6.2 The Committee ascertained, as required under article 5, paragraph 2 (a), of the Optional Protocol, that the same matter was not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. Regarding the author’s claim under article 26, the Committee considered that the author had failed to substantiate, for purposes of admissibility, that he had been a victim of discrimination and declared the claim inadmissible pursuant to article 2 of the Optional Protocol. 6.3 With respect to the requirement of exhaustion of domestic remedies, the Committee considered that the future transitional justice mechanisms, such as the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, would not be able to provide an adequate remedy in respect of the violations alleged in the present communication and recalled its jurisprudence 17 that in cases of serious violations a judicial remedy was required. As to whether there existed ongoing proceedings regarding the issues related to the communication, the Committee noted the author’s attempts to obtain a domestic remedy through the Kavre DPO, the NHRC and the Supreme Court since 2004 and considered that the State party had not demonstrated that the continuing investigation carried out by its authorities, more than eight 15 16 17 The author refers to communications No. 687/1996, Rojas García v. Colombia, Views adopted on 3 April 2001, paras. 7.1 and 10.2; No. 778/1997, Coronel et al. v. Colombia, Views adopted on 24 October 2002, paras. 6.2, 7.4, 8.2 and 9.1; and No. 1432/2005, Gunaratna v. Sri Lanka, Views adopted 17 March 2009, para. 7.5. The 1990 Constitution of Nepal and the 2007 Interim Constitution of Nepal both address crimes of torture and inhuman treatment. The 1990 Constitution did not define torture as a crime. The Interim Constitution of Nepal established torture as a criminal offence, but to date no bill providing criminal penalties for torture has been passed by the Nepalese legislature. Therefore, torture functionally remains only a civil offence. See communication No. 1761/2008, Giri v. Nepal, Views adopted on 24 March 2011, para. 6.3. 11