CCPR/C/123/D/2658/2015 2.25 On 8 November 2006, the family filed a writ petition before the Supreme Court demanding a mandamus order for Kavre District Police Office to register the report. On 5 December 2006, in a written response, Kavre District Police Office informed the Court that it had registered the report on 7 November 2006 on the basis of a homicide having been committed and, as such, the investigation had already begun. Subsequently, the family and the lawyers made regular follow-up visits to Kavre District Police Office. When asked about progress in the case, Kavre District Police Office would refer to certain correspondence with criminal justice authorities noting that they remained unanswered. That included a letter Kavre District Police Office said it had sent to Police Headquarters and the Zonal Police Office on 8 December 2006, asking the Office for an order in the name of the perpetrators. 2.26 On 17 June 2008, the District Attorney’s Office wrote to Kavre District Police Office instructing it to immediately arrest the perpetrators identified in the report and proceed with the necessary actions. Kavre District Police Office failed to act upon those instructions. 2.27 On 9 November 2009, and after repeated postponement of the hearings, the Supreme Court quashed the petition on the basis that the report had been registered, despite the fact that Kavre District Police Office had not submitted to the Court a case file describing the developments of the case as requested by the Court. 2.28 Since then, and despite various efforts by the family to urge Kavre District Police Office to arrest the perpetrators and take the necessary actions, no developments in the case have been reported. Their latest visit to Kavre District Police Office was on 24 September 2014, when the Police informed the author and her lawyer that they had not worked on the case since 20 October 2013. The Police officer at Kavre District Police Office told the author that the case would need to be dealt with by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, hence the Police would not do anything further on it. 2.29 The family has been undergoing severe challenges and difficulties after the disappearance and subsequent killing of Mr. Bolakhe, who was the family’s sole breadwinner. The author has faced extreme economic hardship and adversity to feed and educate her children. Her son was forced to discontinue his studies and go to work. The family has suffered mental anguish and continuing psychological damage. The complaint 3.1 The author claims that the two separate arrests and detentions of Mr. Bolakhe, on 1 May 2001 until 14 July 2002 (until the family established his whereabouts and fate) and on 27 December 2003 (until his whereabouts and fate became known), amount to enforced disappearance, constituting by itself, and in conjunction with the facts outlined below, a violation of his rights under articles 6, 7, 9, 10 (1) and 16.12 3.2 The author submits that Mr. Bolakhe was extrajudicially executed during an Army patrol. The evidence, supported by two witnesses, is inconsistent with Mr. Bolakhe’s death having occurred during crossfire. Both R.P. and T.T. heard the shooting coming from one direction and from one type of gun. This was supported by the findings of the Commission and the evidence of B.T. himself to the Commission, who had stated that there had been no crossfire incident during that time. The author also submits that there is no possible argument that Mr. Bolakhe’s execution was the result of the use of reasonable force and self-defence, and was not subjected to any judicial process. 13 No investigation into his death was carried out at the time and his body was buried in secret. The author submits that this amounts to a violation by the State party of article 6 of the Covenant. 3.3 The author argues that her husband was subjected to violations of articles 7 and 10 in a number of ways during his two periods of detention. The author considers that his 12 13 6 The author refers to El Hassy v. Libyan Arab Jamahiriya (CCPR/C/91/D/1422/2005); Kimouche et al. v. Algeria (CCPR/C/90/D/1328/2004); and Celis Laureano v. Peru (CCPR/C/56/D/540/1993). The author refers to the Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials adopted by the Eighth United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders (1990).