CCPR/C/123/D/2658/2015 6.3 The Committee notes the argument of the State party that the Kavre District Police Office registered a first information report in relation to the death of Mr. Bolakhe and that the case is under investigation. The Committee also notes the State party’s allegation that the author has not exhausted domestic remedies, since Mr. Bolakhe’s case should be addressed by the transitional justice mechanism created under the Enforced Disappearances Enquiry, Truth and Reconciliation Commission Act of 2014. 6.4 The Committee observes the steps taken by the author and her family in trying to locate Mr. Bolakhe. After his arrest on 27 December 2003, the author and her family visited various locations, including Kavre District Police Office, jails, barracks and the District Administration Office to establish his whereabouts. They also appealed to the Ministry of Home Affairs. Despite all these attempts, the author received no information from the State party regarding the whereabouts of her husband. The Committee also notes that a habeas corpus petition was filed in the Supreme Court soon after the author’s husband disappeared but this was dismissed. The Committee further notes that, following this, a complaint was lodged with the Commission, who investigated the case and found that Mr. Bolakhe was unlawfully killed by State forces and recommended prosecution of named individuals. The Committee observes that, after the final exhumation of the remains of Mr. Bolakhe, the author and her father-in-law attempted to file a first information report on 18 October 2006, but Kavre District Police Office refused to register it. Subsequently, they submitted a petition to the Chief District Officer of Kavre requesting an investigation. The Chief District Officer ordered Kavre District Police Office to register the case, but the latter failed to comply. Consequently, the family filed a petition with the Supreme Court demanding an order of mandamus against Kavre District Police Office, which informed the Court that a first information report had already been registered on 7 November 2006, urging the Court to squash the petition. The Committee observes that, since the registration of the first information report, the Police’s action on this case consists solely of sending correspondence to higher Police authorities and another district Police office requesting relevant individuals to present themselves for questioning. The legal proceedings have been drawn out and no real investigation has been undertaken. 6.5 The Committee recalls its jurisprudence according to which a judicial remedy is required in cases of serious violations. 31 In this respect, the Committee observes that the transitional justice bodies established by the Enforced Disappearances Enquiry, Truth and Reconciliation Commission Act of 2014 are not judicial organs capable of affording a judicial remedy.32 Accordingly, the Committee considers that the remedies identified by the State party have been ineffective and that there are no obstacles to the examination of the communication under article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol. 6.6 As all admissibility requirements have been met, the Committee declares the communication admissible and proceeds to its examination of the merits. 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 author’s allegation that the arrest and detention of Mr. Bolakhe from 1 May 2001 until 14 July 2002, when his family established his whereabouts, amounted to enforced disappearance. It further notes that the State party did not challenge these allegations. The Committee observes that the 2014 Malego Committee’s report, which made public the whereabouts of 126 involuntarily disappeared persons, contained Mr. Bolakhe’s name among those and confirmed that he had been released on 20 April 2003. 31 32 12 See Giri v. Nepal, para. 6.3; Chaulagain v. Nepal (CCPR/C/112/D/2018/2010), para. 6.3; Neupane and Neupane v. Nepal (CCPR/C/120/D/2170/2012), para. 9.3; and Tharu et al. v. Nepal (CCPR/C/114/D/2038/2011), para. 9.3. See Chaulagain v. Nepal, para. 6.3; Tharu et al. v. Nepal, para. 9.3; Basnet v. Nepal (CCPR/C/117/D/2164/2012), para. 9.3; Nakarmi and Nakarmi v. Nepal (CCPR/C/119/D/2184/2012), para. 10.3; and Dhakal et al. v. Nepal (CCPR/C/119/D/2185/2012), para. 10.3.