CCPR/C/113/D/2000/2010 Author’s comments on the State party’s observations 5.1 On 4 May 2011, the author commented on the State party’s observations on admissibility. With regard to the exhaustion of domestic remedies, the author refers to the jurisprudence of the Committee where it has considered that those remedies must not only be available but also effective.11 Such national remedies have to be exhausted to put the State in a position to redress its violation. The Committee has considered that whenever the highest domestic tribunal has decided the matter at issue, no other remedies must be exhausted.12 The Committee has further considered that domestic remedies must not be unduly prolonged13 and need not be exhausted without reasonable prospect of success.14 With regard to violations of the right to life and of the prohibition of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, an investigation is considered effective if it is prompt, thorough, independent and impartial.15 Furthermore, the investigation must be carried out ex officio, without the victims or their relatives having to submit a complaint. 5.2 In the present case, the author contests the State party’s assertion that the investigation is ongoing and therefore domestic remedies have not been exhausted. In this context, the author recalls that in a ruling dated 1 June 2007 regarding Mr. Katwal, the Supreme Court ordered an investigation in order to have those responsible for such violations prosecuted and punished. The State party gave no precise information, such as the date and concrete evidence, about the First Information Report allegedly lodged with the District Police Office of Okhaldhunga district. 5.3 Almost 10 years16 had elapsed since the disappearance and subsequent torture and death of the author’s husband. Were any serious investigation under way, the State party would have been in a position to explain the steps taken and the prospects of the investigation. The State party should have long ago framed charges against the perpetrators and brought them to justice, punished and jailed them. The author notes that the State party does not even allege that the culprits might soon be taken into custody, be charged with the crime and brought to trial. As enforced disappearance and torture are not codified in Nepalese law, the investigation certainly concerns other offences. The State party is under an obligation to provide victims and their relatives with information about the state of the investigation. The State party has not done so before the Committee and, on the contrary, has remained vague as to the nature of the steps taken. In March 2010, OHCHR-Nepal contacted the police and prosecution officials regarding the present case, and the latter replied that they were unaware of progress in the investigation. The prosecutor’s office reported that no recent update had been received from the police. The same observation was made by OHCHR-Nepal following a visit to Okhaldhunga district, which took place from 22 to 25 February 2011. The author was also informed that the report of the probe commission set up by the Supreme Court, on which the Court largely based its ruling of 1 June 2007, was not yet even in the hands of the Okhaldhunga police. Officials from the 11 12 13 14 15 16 The author refers to communication No. 220/1987, T. K. v. France, Views adopted on 8 November 1989, para. 8.2. The author refers to communication No. 1023/2001, Länsman et al. v. Finland, Views adopted on 17 March 2005, para. 6.3. The author refers to communication No. 1619/2007, Pestaño v. Philippines, Views adopted on 23 March 2010, para. 6.4. The author refers to communication No. 458/1991, Mukong v. Cameroon, Views adopted on 21 July 1994, para. 8.2. The author refers inter alia to general comment No. 31 (2004) on the nature of the general legal obligation imposed on States parties to the Covenant, para. 15. Almost 11 years at the time of consideration of the admissibility by the Committee. 9