CCPR/C/113/D/2000/2010 Okhaldhunga police refused to confirm this or transmit official information on the progress of the investigation in writing. 5.4 The author contests the State party’s argument that Truth and Reconciliation Commission and the Enforced Disappearance Commission will better address the issue of accountability. She notes that the State party is contradicting itself. While mentioning that a criminal investigation is ongoing, without providing details on progress made, the State party considers that future transitional justice will provide for better solutions. Its position is that due action shall be taken after a comprehensive investigation is carried out by the two commissions to be formed once the bills become law. This statement is a clear indication that there exists no reasonable prospect of success for a prompt and effective investigation and prosecution. The author contends that there is no certainty as to whether the bills will be passed, when they will be passed or their consequences on victims. The author therefore rejects the State party’s argument that such commissions constitute prompt, independent and effective investigation and prosecution. The author recalls that the commissions are not judicial bodies and it has not been established that they will have the power to impose the appropriate punishment for human rights offenders. 5.5 Should the State party’s argument be that transitional justice mechanisms are better suited to handle the author’s right to a prompt, independent and effective investigation and prosecution of the culprits than ordinary criminal proceedings, it should be rejected by the Committee. The long delays already suffered and which continue to affect the carrying out of an effective investigation must have had consequences on the collection of evidence and testimonies against alleged perpetrators. 5.6 The author therefore considers that the absence of an effective investigation into her husband’s enforced disappearance, torture and subsequent death more than 10 years after the facts, on the mere justification that transitional justice yet to come will better address the issue, is an undue prolongation of the domestic remedies.17 5.7 As for the other grounds invoked in the State party’s observations, the author considers that they are not related to admissibility but to the merits of the case. She specifically refers to the State party’s contention that some facts of the case are contradictory, as well as to the issues of interim relief and the death of the alleged perpetrator. These issues will therefore be addressed by the author on the merits should the Committee declare the communication admissible. 5.8 On 1 November 2011, the author further submitted that the constant postponement of effective criminal investigations is a tool designed to perpetuate impunity and blatantly deny any form of accountability for past human rights violations. In October 2008, the Government of Nepal took a decision to withdraw 349 criminal cases against numerous political party cadres, including two senior members of the Cabinet itself. The withdrawal was said to be necessary to promote the peace process and fully implement the Comprehensive Peace Agreement by enforcing a provision that called for the withdrawal of cases brought against individuals for political reasons.18 In reality, as opposed to political charges, the most frequent offences alleged in those cases were murder and attempted murder, along with other serious crimes such as rape and mutilation. 5.9 Several orders from the Supreme Court have recently suspended district court decisions to issue arrest warrants over murder charges against high-ranking political members, endorsing the Government position that these cases will be better dealt with by 17 18 10 The author refers to the jurisprudence of the Committee in Sharma v. Nepal, para. 6.3 and in communication No. 1250/2004, Rajapakse v. Sri Lanka, Views adopted on 14 July 2006, para. 6.2. Clause 5.2.7 of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement of 21 November 2006.