CCPR/C/113/D/2000/2010 been unreasonably prolonged and concluded that it was not precluded from considering the communication under article 5 (2 (b)) of the Optional Protocol. 6.4 The Committee declared the communication admissible with respect to the claims under articles 6 (1), 7, 9, 10 and 16, alone and read in conjunction with article 2 (3), in relation to the author’s husband, as well as with respect to article 7, read in conjunction with article 2 (3) of the Covenant, in respect of the author. State party’s observations on the merits 7.1 By note verbale of 16 April 2013, the State party submitted its observations on the merits and reiterated that the author had not exhausted domestic remedies. 7.2 The State party submits that, following the directives of the Supreme Court, the First Information Report has been lodged at the District Police Office, Okhaldhunga, on the charge of the culpable homicide of Mr. Katwal, and the criminal investigation is ongoing. In the course of investigation, the District Police Office had recorded statements made by Usak Katwal, the son of Mr. Katwal, and by Bir Bahadur Adhikari, and Nepal Police Headquarters issued a directive to the District Police Office for a prompt investigation. These actions support the State party’s argumentation with respect to the non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. Because the author’s claims can be addressed under the existing criminal justice system and with further supplementary action by the transitional justice mechanisms, the State party asks the Committee not to consider the communication on the merits. 7.3 The State party confirms its commitment to separate the conflict-related cases and conflict-era criminal cases, which fall under the criminal jurisdiction, and investigate them under the regular judicial mechanisms, apart from supplementary envisioned transitional justice mechanisms. It refers to the Supreme Court decision in Govinda Prasad Sharma “Bandi” v. Attorney General et al. of 2 April 2014, according to which the prosecution of cases involving serious human rights violations during the armed conflict should not be halted because transitional justice mechanisms have not been put in place, but should be investigated and prosecuted under the regular criminal justice system. The State party claims that the law enforcement agencies would abide by the decision of the competent court and reiterates that the bills on the formation of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and the Enforced Disappearance Commission have been tabled in the Parliament and are in line with the Supreme Court’s decision. At the same time, it expresses its commitment to ensure that enforced disappearance is a crime punishable by law. 7.4 The State party mentions that although the author did not file a petition in the District Court, she received Nr 300,000 as interim relief, and that the author and her children would be entitled to reparation following the investigation and recommendation of the competent court and the transitional justice mechanisms. Author’s comments on the State party’s observations 8.1 On 12 June 2014, the author provided her comments on the State party’s observations, stating that the State party does not add new arguments to those already raised in its submission on admissibility and that it continues to challenge the admissibility of her communication. At the same time, the State party fails to explain exactly which effective and available remedies the author should have exhausted and to provide justification for the decision not to institute criminal proceedings in her husband’s case. The author submits that in the absence of an investigation leading to the criminal prosecution of the perpetrators, the State party has not discharged its obligations under the Covenant and is responsible for a continuing violation of articles 6, 7, 9, 19 and 16, alone and in conjunction with article 2 (3) of the Covenant. 12