CCPR/C/123/D/2658/2015 two months, regarding the enforced disappearances and human rights violations committed during the armed conflict. 4.4 The State party claimed that the two Commissions had adequate mandates and competency to conduct impartial and independent investigations into human rights violations and crimes against humanity. On the basis of an investigation, the Commissions have the power to: (a) recommend prosecuting the perpetrators of serious human rights violations; (b) recommend making reparations to the victims; (c) conciliate between the victim and the perpetrators; and (d) recommend amnesties in cases in which sufficient grounds exist as set forth in the Act. 4.5 The State party submits that the rules of the Commissions, which were approved by the Council of Ministers in accordance with the Supreme Court’s ruling of 26 February 2015, provide stronger measures for effective implementation of the transitional mechanisms. According to these rules, reconciliation or recommendations for amnesty can only be made with the prior consent of the victim. The Commissions are also empowered to forward cases directly to the Office of the Attorney General with a view to prosecuting those involved in serious violations of human rights. 4.6 The State party argues that the allegations made by the author would fall under the jurisdiction of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, and that the author did not register the complaint regarding the death of Mr. Bolakhe with that Commission. 4.7 The State party claims that the author cannot obtain full justice or a remedy from only the regular criminal justice mechanisms; it argues that she should have registered the complaint regarding the death of her husband with the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. On the basis of a duly completed investigation of the case and further to a recommendation of the Commission, the Government takes legal action against those involved in an offence. The State party therefore alleges that the author has not exhausted the effective and accessible domestic remedies available and therefore the complaint is not admissible. 4.8 Regarding the merits, the State party notes that the Army stated that there was no record of the arrest and detention of Mr. Bolakhe at Dhulikhel barracks. The State party recalled the autopsy and forensic investigation, which confirmed that he had died as a result of gunfire injuries in the pelvis and that they were “SG (grain) size lead pellets of 12 bore shotgun cartridge and a wad (plastic cup) of 12 bore shotgun carriage”. The State party contends that the Nepalese Army has never used such arms so it can be concluded that Mr. Bolakhe was not killed by the gun of an Army officer. 4.9 The State party notes that it has already provided the sum of Nrs 500,000 to the author as “interim relief” under the guidelines and standards adopted to provide such relief and other benefits to victims and survivors of the conflict. The State party further notes that the author would be entitled to the benefits and reparation provided under section 23 of the Act. Author’s comments on the State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 5.1 On 25 August 2016, the author submitted her comments on the State party’s observations on admissibility and merits. 5.2 With regard to the exhaustion of domestic remedies, the author argues that she and her family have availed themselves of every possible remedy and that those remedies have been exhausted. The author reiterates that the Committee has repeatedly stressed that the newly established transitional justice mechanisms referred to by the State party are not an effective judicial remedy, as required in cases of violations as serious as those alleged in the communication. 5.3 The author argues that the Act is deeply flawed and is incompatible with the Covenant. She notes that, since the submission of the communication on 26 February 2015, the Supreme Court has declared the Act to be unconstitutional and ordered the Government to amend or repeal certain of its provisions. The Supreme Court held that the provisions of the Act that serve to compromise the central role of the courts in delivering justice are invalid, including the power to grant amnesties, powers to divert such cases away from the 10