CCPR/C/115/D/2077/2011 harassment to which the S. family has been subjected since their decision to seek redress for the events of 18 and 19 July 2007. 6.11 The author challenges the facts regarding the incident of 9 February 2011 as presented by the State party and reiterates the version of the events as submitted in his initial communication. Refuting the argument that after that incident the police did not engage in any further incidents of harassment of, threats against or intimidation of him and his wife, he refers to the subsequent events of July 2011. 6.12 As to the argument submitted by the State party that it is incumbent upon all to respect the judgements of the judiciary, the author points out that since the State party has recognized the competence of the Committee to receive communications from individuals, he has the right to bring his complaint before the Committee. 6.13 The author further submits that the State party did not provide details about the kind of action that has been taken against the police inspectors involved in the ill-treatment to which he was subjected on 9 February 2011. He also rejects the manner in which the State party refers to beatings and death threats as “minor errors”. He reiterates that none of the State agents responsible for his torture and ill-treatment and for his wife’s ill-treatment have been subject to a thorough investigation; no criminal proceedings have been initiated, and no disciplinary action has been implemented. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 7.1 Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Committee must decide, in accordance with rule 93 of its rules of procedure, whether the case is admissible under the Optional Protocol. 7.2 As required under article 5 (2) (a) of the Optional Protocol, the Committee has ascertained that the same matter is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 7.3 With regard to the exhaustion of domestic remedies, and in particular the potential recourse to the National Human Rights Commission, the Committee recalls that it is generally not necessary to exhaust recourse to non-judicial bodies in order to fulfil the requirements of article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol.18 It also recalls that national human rights institutions such as the National Human Rights Commission in Nepal are not considered a judicial remedy within the meaning of article 5 (2) (b).19 The Committee notes that the State party did not identify other available remedies, and the author claims that he has availed himself of all available domestic remedies. The Committee therefore considers that the requirements of article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol have been met. 7.4 The Committee has noted the State party’s argument that the communication should be considered inadmissible because the author has intentionally misinterpreted the law and misrepresented his position and has failed to substantiate his claims. The Committee also notes, however, that the claim of torture and ill-treatment made in 2007 was confirmed by three medical reports and the judgement of three courts, that the ill-treatment Mr. S. was subjected to while in detention was not challenged by the State party, that the Committee itself has found the practice and legislation of the State party to be in need of reform 20 and 18 19 20 See Giri v. Nepal, para. 6.3. Ibid. In March 2014, when it considered the second periodic report of Nepal, the Committee expressed concern at the widespread use of torture and the failure of the State party to adopt legislation defining 13