CCPR/C/125/D/2556/2015 to gender discrimination under articles 2 (1) and 3 of the Covenant, read alone in conjunction with articles 7, 24 (1) and 26 of the Covenant. 7.4 The Committee notes the author’s allegations that, while in detention, Armed Police Force officers forced her to work in the barracks, carrying bricks and sand, making cement for the construction of a temple and watering the garden, while also verbally abusing her. The State party has not contested these allegations. Therefore, considering the author’s description and the fact that forced labour has been found as a factor in the cruel treatment of detainees during the internal conflict in Nepal, 29 due weight must be given to the author’s allegations in this regard. 7.5 The Committee has considered that for labour not to be forced or compulsory, it must, at a minimum, not be an exceptional measure; it must not possess a punitive purpose or effect; and it must be provided for by law in order to serve a legitimate purpose under the Covenant.30 In light of these considerations, the Committee is of the view that forcing the author to work, while exercising authority over her as a child in arbitrary detention, includes a degrading and discriminatory purpose in that specific context, falls within the scope of the proscriptions set out in article 8 of the Covenant and, therefore, constitutes a violation of article 8 (3), read alone and in conjunction with articles 7 and 24 (1) of the Covenant. 7.6 In light of the foregoing, the Committee decides not to examine separately the author’s claims under article 10 (1) of the Covenant. 7.7 The Committee notes the author’s claims under article 9 of the Covenant that she was arrested by a large military and police contingent without a warrant and without being informed of any charges against her, that she was detained in military and police barracks for more than one and a half months, and that she was never compensated for that detention despite the numerous avenues that she pursued in that regard. The State party refers to the lack of records of the author’s detention; however, it has not provided any explanations to the contrary nor conducted the necessary investigations into the author’s allegations. The Committee is of the view that the author has presented a credible case as to her detention and requiring victims of arbitrary and illegal arrest and detention to provide records thereof would amount to a probatio diabolica.31 It considers that the burden of proof to rebut the author’s evidence clearly lies with the State party. Therefore, the Committee considers that the author’s arrest and detention by members of the Royal Nepalese Army and the Armed Police Force in the context of the internal conflict constitutes a violation of her rights under article 9 of the Covenant. 7.8 Regarding the author’s complaint related to article 17 of the Covenant, the Committee considers that the rape of the author constitutes an arbitrary interference with her privacy and her sexual autonomy as 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 and marginalization and the State party did not adopt measures to protect the author in any regard. The Committee considers, moreover, that the stigmatization, marginalization and shame endured by the author as a victim of sexual violence 32 from her community, family and husband amounts to a disruption of her family life and marriage. In view of the above, the Committee finds a violation of articles 17 and 23 (1) of the Covenant. 7.9 The Committee notes the author’s allegations concerning the lack of investigation of the violations sustained during her arrest and detention, despite the numerous avenues pursued. It further notes that the grounds alleged by the Nepalese authorities for refusing to register the author’s complaints were based on the 35-day statute of limitations applicable to the crime of rape under domestic legislation. The Committee recalls its jurisprudence according to which such an unreasonably short statutory period for bringing complaints for rape is flagrantly inconsistent with the gravity and nature of the crime and that it has a 29 30 31 32 See Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), Nepal Conflict Report (2012), p. 131. Faure v. Australia, para. 7.5. Maya v. Nepal, para. 12.7. See, for instance, OHCHR, Nepal Conflict Report, p. 165. 9