CCPR/C/126/D/2560/2015 Government of Nepal filed a petition with the Supreme Court seeking a review of the decision of 26 February 2015 on the Enforced Disappearances Enquiry, Truth and Reconciliation Commission Act, 2071 (2014). The petition was registered on 21 May 2015 and is currently pending, thus making it impossible to determine with certainty which powers the Commission of Investigation on Enforced Disappeared Persons will eventually be entrusted with. As soon as the Commission becomes operative and its powers and methods of work become clear, the authors will consider attempting to have their case duly registered, even though, after meeting some of the commissioners during local consultations, the authors are not persuaded that the Commission will provide them with a concrete answer. 5.9 In any case, the registration of their case before the Commission of Investigation on Enforced Disappeared Persons cannot be considered an effective remedy that they should have exhausted before submitting their communication to the Human Rights Committee pursuant to article 5 of the Optional Protocol to the Covenant. The Committee has already made it clear, precisely referring to the Commission and other transitional justice mechanisms in Nepal, that it is not necessary to exhaust avenues before non-judicial bodies to fulfil the requirements of article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol. 8 The Commission is a non-judicial body and Tikanath and Ramhari Kandel are therefore not required to wait until it starts gathering reports, registering and evaluating them and, eventually, assessing whether to refer them to domestic authorities for criminal investigation. 5.10 Regarding the State party’s contention that the ordinary criminal justice system cannot be used effectively for truth-seeking, prosecuting perpetrators, providing reparations or rehabilitation to victims, shaping collective memory to facilitate the reconciliation process and reforming institutions so that they can deal with violations of human rights committed in times of armed conflict, the authors highlight that in 2014 the Human Rights Committee concluded that transitional justice mechanisms cannot serve to dispense with the criminal prosecution of serious violations of human rights (CCPR/C/NPL/CO/2, para. 5 (b)). Moreover, the Committee clarified that the fact-finding and truth-seeking objectives of the transitional justice mechanisms, though crucial for reconciliation purposes, cannot replace the criminal justice system in providing access to justice and redress to victims of gross human rights violations and their relatives. 5.11 Furthermore, at present, the transitional justice mechanisms would only have the power to recommend prosecution to the Government of Nepal, which holds the final authority to undertake criminal prosecutions through the Office of the General Attorney. Hence, there is no reason to refer the authors to the transitional justice mechanisms, when the outcome of such mechanisms will be a simple recommendation for criminal prosecution to the Office of the General Attorney. The latter is already under an obligation to conduct an independent, impartial, thorough and effective investigation into the crimes committed against Amrit Kandel. This obligation must be carried out ex officio, without the need for further referral by transitional justice mechanisms. 5.12 Finally, the authors of the communication welcome the State party’s affirmation that a bill to criminalize torture and a bill to criminalize enforced disappearance has been presented to Parliament. However, such bills have not yet been signed into law and are therefore not applicable. Even if such bills were to become law, they would not cover their case, as the enforced disappearance of Amrit Kandel occurred in 2003. 5.13 In conclusion, the authors stress that they do not have to resort to the transitional justice mechanisms to comply with the requirement of exhaustion of domestic remedies. Even if their case were dealt with by the transitional justice mechanisms, the provisions of the Enforced Disappearances Enquiry, Truth and Reconciliation Commission Act, 2071 (2014), referring to reparation are at odds with international standards, as no right to obtain reparation is guaranteed by the law, since the Act does not provide for guarantees of nonrepetition, such as through legislative reforms, and measures of satisfaction. The authors 8 8 See, e.g., Katwal v. Nepal (CCPR/C/113/D/2000/2010), paras. 6.3 and 6.4; Sedhai v. Nepal (CCPR/C/108/D/1865/2009), para. 7.5; Tripathi v. Nepal (CCPR/C/112/D/2111/2011), para. 6.3; and Basnet v. Nepal (CCPR/C/112/D/2051/2011), para.7.4.