CCPR/C/125/D/2556/2015 Annex Individual opinion of Committee member José Manuel Santos Pais (partly concurring) 1. I fully concur with the Committee that the State party violated several articles of the Covenant, although not with the conclusion that Nepal is responsible for a disruption in the author’s family life and marriage (see paras. 7.8 and 8 of the Views above). 2. The author was born in the Kailali District in far-western Nepal. On 2 April 2002, when the author was 14 years old, members of the Royal Nepalese Army and the Armed Police Force entered her village and arrested her. She was dragged into a truck and was sexually assaulted by a group of soldiers, who touched various parts of her body, including her breast, thighs and bottom (para. 2.2). Later that day, the author was taken to the Army barracks in Teghari (para. 2.3). 3. During her detention, she was raped and subjected to other forms of sexual violence. Following the rape, she was not able to urinate and was bleeding profusely. However, she did not receive any medical assistance or treatment (para. 2.4). 4. In June 2002, the author returned to her village and found out that she had become a social outcast. Aware of the behaviour of security forces towards female detainees, villagers assumed that she had been raped and thus bore “impurities”. Her friends in the village avoided her. She was not able to leave her house for about a month due to the shame and humiliation and she stopped going to school (para. 2.7). 5. In February 2009, the author got married. A week after her marriage, her husband heard about the rape. When he asked her about it, she told him the truth. As a result, her husband and in-laws rejected her. The author was deeply humiliated and had to return to her maternal home. She stayed there for two years before her husband finally reconciled with her (para. 2.8). 6. The trauma provoked by the sexual violence endured and the subsequent stigmatization and rejection left the author with severe psychological sequelae. She suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder and has ongoing anxiety, nightmares and suicidal thoughts (para. 2.9). 7. Notwithstanding, for several years after the author had been subjected to rape, she did not complain about it to any authority, doctor or even her own family. Given the social stigma attached to sexual violence in Nepalese society, including within the indigenous community she belonged to, she found it impossible to seek support in the community as it would have led to further victimization rather than to a remedy, and she was too ashamed to ask for her parents’ support (para. 2.10). 8. The author alleges a violation of articles 17 and 23 (1) of the Covenant, due to the arbitrary interference with her privacy and her sexual life as a woman, the disruption of her family life, and the unlawful attacks on her honour and reputation (para. 3.3). 9. In this regard, due account should be given to the author’s uncontested allegations that, since 2 April 2002 and, for a period of over a month and a half, she was subjected to rape and other forms of sexual violence by members of the Royal Nepalese Army and of the Armed Police Force. I therefore concur with the Committee that these crimes, inflicted upon the author, an indigenous woman who was a 14-year-old girl at the time of the events, violated the author’s rights under articles 7 and 24 (1) of the Covenant (para. 7.2). 10. Regarding the author’s complaint under article 17 of the Covenant, I also concur with the Committee, that the rape of the author constitutes an arbitrary interference with her privacy and her sexual autonomy in that it forced her to enter into sexual intercourse against her will as a girl; all the more so because due to her rape she endured stigmatization, shame and marginalization from her community (para. 7.8). 12