CCPR/C/117/D/2164/2012 and their relatives, as the criminal justice system is the more appropriate avenue for immediate investigation into and punishment of criminal acts. Accordingly, transitional justice mechanisms cannot be considered an effective remedy to be exhausted by the author. State party’s observations on the merits 6.1 On 12 August 2013, the State party submitted its observations on the merits. It reiterates that the author’s allegations concerning the arrest of her husband on 21 May 1999 by the police in Sundhara, Kathmandu, and his subsequent disappearance are not supported by any direct and circumstantial evidence. According to the response of the Metropolitan Police in Kathmandu, there is no information on or record of Mr. Nepali’s case. Within the habeas corpus proceedings lodged by the author, the Supreme Court issued an order for a search warrant to the Riot Control Police battalion, in Pokhara, and to the Inspector-General of Police, but it could not be established that Mr. Nepali was in police detention. 6.2 In relation to the armed conflict, which took place between 1996 and 2006, the State party maintains that it is committed to carrying out thorough investigations, bringing perpetrators to justice and providing reparations to the victims of human rights violations. In that regard, the State party reiterates its observations on the transitional justice mechanisms and informs the Committee that an executive ordinance on the establishment of a commission on the investigation of disappeared persons and on truth and reconciliation has been promulgated. 6.3 The State party informed the Committee that it had granted the author Nr 275,0008 and that she would receive an additional amount of Nr 50,000 under the interim relief scheme. She may also receive another amount as reparation, following the future recommendations of the commission. 6.4 The author has failed to file a complaint or first investigative report, which would allow the police to initiate an investigation about her husband’s case. Author’s comments on the State party’s observations on the merits 7.1 On 1 October 2013, the author submitted her comments on the State party’s observations on the merits. She considers that it reiterates the observations already raised in its previous submission and does not provide any significant argument or matter for consideration. The State party’s attitude denotes an indifference towards her suffering. Inter alia, it failed to provide any information about the fate and whereabouts of her husband, leaving her to bear the brunt of the efforts to uncover any facts. 7.2 The author reiterates her allegations about first investigative reports and submits that this is not a remedy that has to be exhausted for the purpose of admissibility under article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol. First investigative reports rarely lead to any investigation being opened into the disappearance of the person concerned. 9 7.3 The author contends that she was only awarded Nr 100,000 in 2008 and that she has not received the amounts the State party says it has provided (see para. 6.3 above). It is a negligible amount in relation to the material and moral harm suffered by her and cannot be considered as an effective remedy within the meaning of article 2 (3) of the Covenant. 8 9 8 The Committee observes that the State party’s observations do not provide any documentation or proof that this amount was granted to the author. The author refers to communication No. 1469/2006, Views adopted on 28 October 2008, para. 6.3.