CCPR/C/115/D/2077/2011 found the distillery of the couple open at midnight, with people shouting inside. The police asked them to close the distillery, but the couple started to quarrel with the police. When the police tried to get Mr. S. under control, the couple pushed and assaulted the police, who then had to arrest Mr. S. He was placed in the police van, alone. His wife was not arrested but refused to let the police take away her husband alone and climbed into the van of her own will. At the police station, Mr. and Ms. S. were reminded of their obligation to abide by the law and not open the distillery late at night. They were freed the same night in the care of Mingma Sherpa, the owner of the premises that housed the distillery. The State party indicates that after that incident, Mr. and Ms. S. were neither harassed nor threatened. At no point was a bribe demanded from them, and no money or telephone was taken from them. The State party claims that these are false allegations, which the author must prove beyond reasonable doubt. 5.2 With respect to the alleged events in 2007, the State party disputes the claim that under Nepalese legislation torture is not a criminal offence. It indicates that torture and illtreatment are completely prohibited by the Constitution of 2007, which provides that acts of torture shall be punishable by law. It also notes that there is special legislation dealing with torture, namely, the Compensation relating to Torture Act, and that a comprehensive bill on torture is pending in the parliament. 5.3 As regards the various judgements made by successive domestic courts, including the Supreme Court, which denied a review of the case on the ground that there was no legal error in the previous judgements, the State party argues that the case of Mr. S. has already been settled by the highest court of Nepal. The legal system of Nepal, it notes, has incorporated the values and norms of an independent and competent judiciary, which all must respect. 5.4 Regarding the demand made by the author for action against the police personnel involved in the alleged mistreatment, the State party notes that two officers were warned as per the police rules of 1992. The investigation found that they had made some minor errors while arresting Mr. S. on 9 February 2011. The officer involved in the first arrest on 18 July 2007 was reprimanded in a departmental action. 5.5 The State party further submits that it is committed to protecting the life, safety and personal integrity of its citizens, and to taking action consistent with due process against persons involved in human rights violations. It states that no harassment, intimidation, threat or torture has been reported in connection with Mr. and Ms. S., who are enjoying their constitutional and legal rights. There is no doubt, in the State party’s opinion, that they have obtained justice. 5.6 The allegation that the State party has violated its obligations under articles 7, 9 (1), (2) and (5), 10 (1) and 17 of the Covenant is baseless and false, according to the State party. It notes that Mr. S. was arrested by the police as per the authority of the law, and that he has obtained justice. Departmental action has been taken against some police personnel for these incidents and the State will enact new laws on torture in the future. The State party concludes that there is no need for further investigation or enquiry and asks the Committee to reject the submission made by the author, as there are no justifiable and substantive grounds for entering into the merits of the case. Author’s comments on the State party’s observations Admissibility 6.1 In a letter dated 16 July 2012, the author commented on the State party’s observations on admissibility. 10