CCPR/C/117/D/2164/2012 2.11 On 6 September 1999, the author informed the Supreme Court that according to the Mahanagar Daily, Mr. Nepali had been moved from police headquarters in Kathmandu, to the premises of the Riot Control Police Force in Pokhara. 2.12 On 10 and 20 September 1999, members of the Families of Victims of State Disappearance Association requested the Prime Minister to make public the information concerning the fate of their relatives, including that of Mr. Nepali, and to bring those responsible for the disappearances to court. 2.13 At the author’s request, on 1 October 1999 the Supreme Court issued an order for a search warrant to the Riot Control Police in Pokhara. On 24 January 2000, the Deputy Inspector of the Pokhara police battalion denied that Mr. Nepali had been held by them. On 11 February 2000, the Supreme Court ordered the Inspector-General of Police to provide a written response concerning Mr. Nepali’s whereabouts within 15 days. In the absence of a response, on 20 March 2000, the Court reiterated its order to the Inspector-General. On 9 June 2000, police headquarters stated before the Court that it had been unable to locate Mr. Nepali and that he was not in police detention. On 5 July 2000, the Supreme Court decided on the writ of habeas corpus submitted by the author and stated that after exhausting all possible means to find the applicant, it could not be held that Mr. Nepali was in police detention and the court could not issue an order without strong evidence and based merely on “hunch and guesswork”. 2.14 The author points out that the National Human Rights Commission was established in 2000 and that she registered a complaint with it concerning her husband’s disappearance. His name was included on the list of conflict-related disappearances; 3 however an investigation was never carried out. The offices of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) and the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) in Nepal were set up several years after Mr. Nepali’s disappearance. His name is also listed in the ICRC missing persons database.4 2.15 In addition, the author claims that approximately a year after her husband’s disappearance, the case received a lot of publicity; that as a result her employer fired her alleging that she was a Maoist; that since the job was not a permanent one, she was unable to take any legal action against the employer; and that it became very difficult to provide for herself and her children. Moreover, she became fully occupied by the public campaign to locate her husband and did not undertake salaried work again until 2007. 2.16 In 2008, the author was awarded Nr 100,0005 as an interim relief provided to the relatives of a victim of enforced disappearance. That interim relief cannot be considered adequate compensation or a substitute for an integral reparation. 2.17 The author claims that she has exhausted all domestic remedies. The writs of habeas corpus submitted by her and A.M. were quashed by the Supreme Court, the highest domestic tribunal, and there is no other domestic remedy to exhaust. 6 Furthermore, no remedies are available in practice to obtain a prosecution for those responsible for enforced disappearance and torture. The National Human Rights Commission cannot be considered an effective remedy. As regards a complaint to the police, the first investigative report, it is 3 4 5 6 4 The author provides a copy of the list that includes her husband’s name. The author provides a copy of a document issued by ICRC on 14 February 2012, “Nepal — missing: the right to know. Information on the person”, that indicates that Mr. Nepali is on the list of missing persons, having as a date and place of the last news of him 21 May 1999 in Sundhara, Kathmandu (see also “Missing persons in Nepal. Updated list 2012”). According to the author, this was approximately $1,200 at the time the communication was submitted to the Committee. The author refers to the Committee’s jurisprudence concerning communication No. 1469/2006, Sharma v. Nepal, Views adopted on 28 October 2008, para. 6.3.