CCPR/C/126/D/2560/2015 therefore hold that the remedies offered by the Act in terms of reparations cannot be considered effective in their case. The authors highlight that, as in cases of gross human rights violations such as those to which they and Amrit Kandel have been subjected, they are entitled to integral redress for the harm suffered and this must be interpreted in accordance with the Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Gross Violations of International Human Rights Law and Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law. In particular, the authors call on the Human Rights Committee to spell out in detail the measures of reparation to which they are entitled. 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 97 of its rules of procedure, whether the claim 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 another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 6.3 With respect to the requirement of exhaustion of domestic remedies, the Committee notes the State party’s argument that the authors should have filed their case before the Commission of Investigation on Enforced Disappeared Persons as part of the transitional justice process, to seek redress for violations committed during the armed conflict. The Committee also notes the authors’ argument that the Supreme Court of Nepal, on 1 June 2007, issued a judgment based on its consideration of a writ filed on behalf of 34 disappeared persons, including Amrit Kandel, and ordered the Government to investigate the status of those disappeared. The Committee further notes the authors’ submission that Amrit Kandel’s family was awarded monetary compensation in 2009 and 2011 in an indirect recognition of Amrit Kandel’s enforced disappearance, that the transitional justice mechanisms have been established only in 2015 and that they have made slow progress in the conduct of their investigations, and that it has not been necessary to resort to the Commission, as a non-judicial body, given the Attorney General’s obligation to carry out an effective investigation ex officio. Additionally, the State party has not taken any concrete action to investigate the whereabouts of Amrit Kandel or to bring those responsible to justice since his disappearance was reported to the authorities, despite the directives from the Supreme Court to do so. Instead, the State party has admitted that the fate and whereabouts of Amrit Kandel remain unknown. The Committee considers that, in the present circumstances, the authors have exhausted all available domestic remedies and that article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol does not preclude it from considering the communication. In addition, it recalls that recourse to non-judicial bodies does not have to be exhausted to fulfil the requirements of the article, in particular when the transitional justice mechanisms, which are meant to reinforce the regular justice system, have not been effective in cases of enforced disappearance, as evidenced in the present case. 6.4 As all admissibility requirements have been met, the Committee declares the communication admissible and proceeds to the examination of the authors’ allegations under articles 6 (1), 7, 9, 10 and 16, read alone and in conjunction with article 2 (3) of the Covenant, in respect of Amrit Kandel, and article 7, read alone and in conjunction with article 2 (3), in respect of Tikanath Kandel and Ramhari Kandel. Consideration of the merits 7.1 The Committee has considered the communication in the light of all the information submitted to it by the parties, in accordance with article 5 (1) of the Optional Protocol. 7.2 The Committee takes note of the authors’ allegation that Amrit Kandel has been arbitrarily arrested, detained and subjected to enforced disappearance since 10 October 2003, and that his fate and whereabouts have not been effectively investigated. It further notes that the State party has not challenged these allegations. The Committee observes that the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights has included Amrit 9