CCPR/C/115/D/2077/2011 enforced in the end. Furthermore, the author argues that the minimal amount of 20,000 rupees afforded by the courts as compensation cannot be deemed an effective remedy. Referring to the Committee’s jurisprudence, he recalls that a judicial remedy must not be available just in theory but must also be effective, that is, have a reasonable prospect of success.4 The author also evokes the Committee’s view 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) of the Optional Protocol.5 The author concludes that the lack of provisions under Nepalese legislation allowing for criminal prosecution for those found responsible for acts of torture renders domestic remedies for the author unavailable. The failure to implement decisions related to administrative sanctions for the perpetrators of torture and to award satisfactory and proportionate compensation and integral reparation, including rehabilitation, to the victims renders the existing, albeit inadequate, remedies ineffective. He thus submits that the requirement of exhaustion of domestic remedies should be considered fulfilled and the communication deemed admissible. The complaint 3.1 The author submits that the State party violated articles 7, 9 (1), (2) and (5), 10 (1) and 17, read in conjunction with article 2 (3), of the Covenant with regard to himself, owing to his arbitrary arrest, detention in inhumane conditions, torture and continuous intimidation and harassment by the police, and in the light of the State party’s ongoing failure to conduct an ex officio prompt, impartial, independent and thorough investigation in order to establish the facts, prosecute and punish those responsible for these crimes and provide him with an effective remedy. 3.2 The author first cites article 7 of the Covenant, claiming that he was subjected to acts of torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment while in detention on the evening of 18 July 2007. He was severely beaten, to the point of losing consciousness, denied medical treatment for his injuries despite the recommendations of a doctor to whom he had been brought to ascertain whether he was drunk, and detained in a small overcrowded and unhealthy cell for 20 hours without food, drink or the chance to go to the bathroom. Before being placed in police custody, he was completely healthy and able to perform the physically demanding job of a trekking porter. At the time of his release he had bruises and abrasions all over his body and was in a state of enormous shock and confusion. At the time of the submission of the complaint in 2011, he was going through a rehabilitation process. He has been forced to leave his job, which he is no longer able to perform, and is affected by chronic fear. 3.3 The author argues that the facts he has submitted have already been verified and accepted as supported by sufficient evidence at the domestic level by the courts of all instances. The fact that the Supreme Court accepted the evidence provided by Mr. S. and afforded him compensation for the offences suffered, even if the compensation was not sufficient, should be deemed as evidence that the State itself recognizes the facts as submitted. Moreover, the author argues that the chronological sequence of the events and the marks on the author’s body leave no doubt that the injuries he suffered could not have been caused by anything but beatings by the police while he was in custody. Consequently, the author believes that the facts as submitted, and that torture was inflicted on him, should be deemed as proved. 4 5 6 The author refers to communication No. 1469/2006, Sharma v. Nepal, Views adopted on 28 October 2008. The author cites communication No. 1761/2008, Giri v. Nepal, Views adopted on 24 March 2011, para. 6.3.