CCPR/C/125/D/2556/2015 slow and plagued by delays, cancellation of hearings and lack of answers from some respondents.20 5.3 The author interprets that, when the State party notes that domestic legislation can provide specific statutes of limitation for filing a first information report, it claims that the author failed to comply with the 35-day statute of limitations to file her complaint. At the same time, the State party refers to an amendment to extend the 35-day statute of limitations to 6 months. The author claims, thus, that Nepal is aware of the overly restrictive nature of the 35-day statute of limitations as it is trying to modify it. She also notes that this amendment has not yet been signed into law. Hence, it is not yet applicable and, even if it becomes applicable law, it would not cover her case, as she was raped in 2002. 5.4 The author further claims that the registration of her case before the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, a non-judicial body, cannot be considered as an effective remedy she should have exhausted before submitting a communication before the Committee.21 5.5 The author claims that the mere fact that Nepalese authorities failed to record her arbitrary deprivation of liberty (arrest and detention) amounts per se to a violation of article 9 of the Covenant. She notes that making a record of an arrest is one of the legal safeguards that must be provided to detainees in accordance with article 9 of the Covenant. 22 The author adds that, as she was raped while in custody, the burden of the proof to rebut the author’s allegations falls on the State party and it is not enough to allege that the deprivation of liberty has not been formally recorded. 23 The author claims, therefore, that the State party failed to provide any evidence to rebut the author’s assertions concerning her arbitrary deprivation of liberty, rape, other forms of ill-treatment, sexual violence and subsequent forced labour. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 6.1 Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Committee must decide, in accordance with rule 93 of its rules of procedure, whether it is admissible under the Optional Protocol. 6.2 The Committee has ascertained, as required under article 5 (2) (a) of the Optional Protocol, that the same matter is not being examined under any other procedure of international investigation or settlement. 6.3 The Committee notes the State party’s claim that domestic remedies have not been exhausted because, on the one hand, the author’s writ of mandamus is still pending before the Supreme Court of Nepal and, on the other hand, she still has the possibility to file a complaint before the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. 6.4 The Committee notes, however, that the author: (a) filed two first information reports concerning the crime of rape and other inhumane and degrading acts with the District Police Office, which were rejected on the basis of the 35-day statute of limitations for the crime of rape; (b) filed a claim for compensation, pursuant to the torture compensation act of 1996, which was also rejected; and (c) filed a writ of mandamus before the Supreme Court of Nepal requesting the non-application of the 35-day statute of limitations for conflict-related individual claims, and that it is still pending. The Committee 20 21 22 23 The author refers to Katwal v. Nepal (CCPR/C/113/D/2000/2010), para. 6.3 and to, inter alia, Maharjan et al v. Nepal, para. 7.4. The author refers to Katwal v. Nepal, para. 6.3; Sedhai et al. v. Nepal (CCPR/C/108/D/1865/2009), para. 7.5; Tripathi et al. v. Nepal (CCPR/C/112/D/2111/2011), para. 6.3; and Basnet and Basnet v. Nepal (CCPR/C/112/D/2051/2011), para. 7.4. The author refers to the Committee’s general comment No. 35 (2014) on liberty and security of person, para. 23 and, inter alia, Kurbonov v. Tajikistan (CCPR/C/86/D/1208/2003), para. 6.5. The author refers to European Court of Human Rights, Aydin v. Turkey, judgment of 25 September 1997, para. 73. 7