CCPR/C/112/D/2018/2010 certainly have fulfilled its legal duties, such as preparing a charge-sheet and putting it before the Court. However, since the Office had not received any documents, it had not violated the constitutional and legal rights of the applicant. 2.16 On 14 December 2009, the Supreme Court made a mandamus order stating, inter alia under the States Cases Act 1992, that the applicant had fulfilled his duties by making both an oral complaint that the crime had occurred and filing an official FIR. However, the DPO had failed in its duties under the States Cases Act. As to the role of the District Attorney’s Office, the Order indicates that, whilst the police office bears the main responsibility for investigating a case, the States Cases Act gives the district attorney the right to give directions. The court ordered that: “a mandamus has been issued … to conduct prompt investigation as per the FIR. Similarly, a judicial stricture has been issued against Police Headquarters, Midregional Police Office and ZPO, Bagmati to become serious and proactive and alert to take necessary and appropriate steps as they have continuously shown indifference to fulfilling the duty of investigation. Likewise, the judicial stricture has also been issued against the Attorney General’s Office of Nepal to direct the district attorney of the related district attorney’s office to become serious in investigation and take prompt, appropriate and substantial step to it. The district attorney also should be asked to play a directive and coordinating role with the police personnel. It was found that the district attorney was passive in fulfilling his legal duties by failing to give necessary directions to the relating police personnel”.2 2.17 While the author has never received any compensation as a result of the findings and recommendations of the NHRC, in February 2010 the Government provided 100,000 rupees as “interim relief” from the Interim Relief Fund for “conflict victims”, including the families of victims of extrajudicial killings. The author collected that money from the Kavre Chief District Officer in Dhulikhel. 2.18 The author refers to article 5, paragraph 2 (b), of the Optional Protocol and submits that the application of domestic remedies is unreasonably prolonged. He recalls that the incident occurred on 12 February 2004 and thus far, there has been no official investigation into it, despite the recommendation from the NHRC of 14 June 2005 and the mandamus order issued by the Supreme Court on 14 December 2009. Although the Supreme Court found that the police had deliberately delayed proceedings, not only in his case but also on a number of occasions in similar cases, almost nothing has happened. 2.19 The author notes that the acts he complains about occurred on 12 and 13 February 2004, when the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Control and Punishment) Ordinance of 2001 was in force. Section 5 of the Ordinance grants the security forces special powers to prevent terrorist and disruptive activities, including the power to arrest without a warrant any person who is “suspected” of being involved in a terrorist or disruptive activity,3 and the power to use arms against anyone who resists arrest on those grounds.4 2.20 The author submits that impunity towards suspects of crimes allegedly perpetrated by State actors exists both de jure and de facto.5 The Police Act (1955) provides immunity for Chief District Officers or for any police personnel “for action taken … in good faith while discharging … duties”.6 The Police Act also contains a long list of crimes for which 2 3 4 5 6 Unofficial translation provided by the author. Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Control and Punishment) Ordinance, sect. 5 (a). Ibid., sect. 5 (d). The author refers to the report of Advocacy Forum and Human Rights Watch, “Waiting for Justice: Unpunished Crimes from Nepal’s Armed Conflict” (2008), p. 16. Available from www.hrw.org/reports/2008/09/11/waiting-justice-0. Police Act, sect. 37. 5