CCPR/C/125/D/2556/2015 notes the author’s uncontested allegations that she was unable to file a first information report within the legally established 35-day period, given that, during that time, she was still being arbitrarily detained with no access to legal assistance. The author has also argued that, even after her release, she was precluded from seeking support in her community and family due to the social stigma attached to victims of sexual violence. The Committee considers that the proceedings before the Supreme Court regarding the author’s writ of mandamus filed in April 2014 are unduly prolonged, particularly considering the gravity of the crimes alleged. It further notes the author’s statement that such proceedings are unlikely to bring relief given the long-standing jurisprudence of the Supreme Court on this issue. Therefore, in view of the legal and practical limitations on filing a complaint for rape in the State party, and the unduly prolonged proceedings before the Supreme Court and the unlikelihood of a successful outcome, the Committee considers that the remedies in the criminal justice system were both ineffective and unavailable to the author. 24 6.5 With regard to the transitional justice system, the Committee notes the author’s argument that the registration of her case before the Truth and Reconciliation Commission is not an effective remedy, considering the Commission’s non-judicial nature. In this vein, the Committee recalls its jurisprudence that it is not necessary to exhaust avenues before non-judicial bodies to fulfil the requirements of article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol,25 and that transitional justice mechanisms cannot serve to dispense with the criminal prosecution of serious human rights violations. 26 The Committee therefore considers that resorting to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission would not constitute an effective remedy for the author. 6.6 In light of the foregoing, the Committee concludes that it is not precluded by article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol from examining the present communication. 6.7 As all other admissibility criteria have been met, the Committee declares the communication admissible and proceeds with its consideration of the merits. Consideration of the merits 7.1 The Committee has considered the communication in the light of all the information made available to it by the parties, as required under article 5 (1) of the Optional Protocol. 7.2 The Committee notes 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 and torture by members of the Royal Nepalese Army and of the Armed Police Force, in order to extract information about her alleged support for the Maoists. The Committee considers that the rape and other acts of sexual violence inflicted by the Royal Nepalese Army and the Armed Police Force upon the author, who is indigenous and 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. 7.3 The Committee also notes the author’s uncontested argument that the rape and other acts of sexual violence to which she was subjected to had a discriminatory effect, as demonstrated by the fashion in which she was treated, and also notes the generalized use of rape against girls and women during the conflict, owing to the particularly serious discriminatory consequences for girls and women victims of rape in the Nepalese society. The Committee recalls that women are particularly vulnerable in times of internal or international armed conflict and considers that this applies equally to girls. States must take all measures to protect girls and women from rape, abduction and other forms of genderbased violence. 27 In light of the context surrounding the rape and other forms of sexual violence to which the author was subjected to (see paras. 2.2–2.5 above),28 as well as the State party’s general failure to investigate and establish accountability for such crimes, the Committee considers that the State party has violated the author’s right not to be subjected 24 25 26 27 28 8 Maya v. Nepal (CCPR/C/119/D/2245/2013), para. 11.5. Katwal v. Nepal, para. 6.3. See CCPR/C/NPL/CO/2, recommendation (b) in paragraph 5. See general comment No. 28, para. 8. L.N.P. v. Argentina, para. 13.3; M.T. v. Uzbekistan, para. 7.6; and Maya v. Nepal, para. 12.4.