CCPR/C/123/D/2658/2015 3.8 The author contends that she, her children and parents-in-law have experienced severe pain and suffering since the disappearance of her husband and the State’s refusal to provide information. They could not establish his whereabouts until the Commission’s investigation revealed that her husband had been killed. Mr. Bolakhe’s family faces continuing uncertainty about why he was killed and by whom, because of the failure of the Police to investigate.18 His death had a negative financial and mental impact on the family and hampered the children’s education and other general needs of the family, especially given that he was the sole breadwinner. The author notes that the “interim relief” received by the author has been made available to all victims of enforced disappearance and cannot substitute for the effective remedy required by the Covenant. It is a temporary measure intended to support families until proper compensation is provided. The author submits that the State party violated article 7, read alone and in conjunction with article 2 (3) of the Covenant in respect of the author and the family members on whose behalf she submits the current communication. 3.9 Regarding the exhaustion of available domestic remedies, the author indicated that she and her family made several attempts to locate her husband, including by visiting the Kavre District Police Office, other detention centres and jails, as well as the District Administration Office. They also appealed to the Ministry of Home Affairs and the Commission and to national and international non-governmental organizations. They filed two petitions at the Supreme Court; a habeas corpus petition, and a writ for a mandamus order for the Police to register the first information report and initiate the investigation. Both petitions were quashed by the Supreme Court, which is the court of last resort in the Nepalese judicial system. 3.10 Alternatively, the author submits that she is not expected to exhaust all domestic remedies in situations in which the State has an ex officio obligation to investigate and prosecute crimes of which it is aware and in which there is an unreasonably long delay in doing so. 19 She claims that the State party did not meet its obligation to promptly, thoroughly and effectively investigate the allegations of violations through independent and impartial bodies. There has been little correspondence by criminal justice authorities in relation to the case. The author concludes that the interlude of almost 11 years since the violations were brought to the State party’s attention constitutes an unreasonably long delay in pursuing the investigation.20 3.11 The author claims that available remedies are neither effective nor available in relation to the violations suffered.21 Although the Interim Constitution acknowledges torture as a crime, domestic legislation fails to criminalize it and thus does not set the necessary grounds for the State to provide the appropriate remedy. 22 Referring to the jurisprudence of the Committee, the author notes that the remedy provided by the Compensation for Torture Act, 2053 (1996), which only provides for the possibility of suing for limited damages and pursing administrative sanctions against perpetrators, is not an effective remedy. 23 3.12 The author submits that, even for crimes that do exist under Nepalese law, immunities for military officials are a bar to prosecutions. 24 In addition, the culture of impunity in Nepal shows that domestic remedies are ineffective. 25 3.13 The author argues that the Enforced Disappearances Enquiry, Truth and Reconciliation Commission Act, 2071 (2014) is incompatible with international human 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 8 The author refers to Quinteros v. Uruguay (CCPR/C/19/D/107/1981); and Giri v. Nepal (CCPR/C/101/D/1761/2008). The author refers to Giri v. Nepal, para. 6.3. Ibid. The author refers to Marcellana and Gumanoy v. the Philippines (CCPR/C/94/D/1560/2007), para. 6.3. The author refers to Maharjan et al. v. Nepal (CCPR/C/105/D/1863/2009), para. 7.5. Ibid., para 7.6. The author refers to immunity provisions that protect State officials and allow them to evade criminal accountability for the crimes they committed, specifically Army Act, 2063 (2006), sect. 22; the Police Act, 2012 (1955), sect. 37; and the Public Security Act, 2046 (1989), sect. 22. The author refers to Advocacy Forum-Nepal and REDRESS, Held to Account (December 2011).