CCPR/C/115/D/2077/2011 dimensions” visible all over Mr. S.’s body were severe enough to cause acute renal failure and a state of toxaemia, if not timely managed. In the report, it was also stated that the injuries had been produced by repeated impacts of blunt force objects, were consistent with the story provided by the examinee, could not be produced by an accident and could not be self-inflicted. 2.4 As a consequence of his arrest and the injuries suffered, the author lost his job, which was very demanding physically. He developed post-traumatic stress disorder and has been receiving therapy from a local organization (Centre for Victims of Torture, Nepal) since the arrest. Before his arrest, he was the sole breadwinner of his family (he has two daughters). After his arrest, his wife had to spend her time caring for the author and only recently was able to open a tea shop to earn some income for the family. The family has exhausted all their savings and went into debt to pay for the author’s medical treatment, rent and food. 2.5 On 20 July 2007, the Metropolitan Police Circle took ex officio disciplinary action against one of the police officers, a subinspector, who had beaten the author. However, the decision was quashed by the Metropolitan Police Range 2 on the basis of lack of evidence. 2.6 The author notes that torture is not criminalized under Nepalese law. Redress can be sought only in the form of compensation and disciplinary action as provided in the Compensation relating to Torture Act of 1996. On 15 August 2007, the author filed a complaint with the Kathmandu District Court against the subinspector. A decision was rendered on 7 July 2008, which recognized that torture had been inflicted on the author and provided for compensation of 20,000 rupees (about $280). The author received this amount from the Home Ministry in August 2010. The Court considered, however, that “further [disciplinary] action against the sub-intendant was unnecessary”. 2.7 On 24 September 2008, the author filed an appeal with the Patan Appellate Court claiming that no effective disciplinary action had been taken against the perpetrator and that the compensation was not proportionate to the seriousness of the acts and the damage suffered. On 19 June 2009, the Appellate Court upheld the decision of the District Court. 2.8 On 17 September 2009, the author filed a complaint before the Supreme Court for a re-evaluation of the case, arguing that the two decisions were not in line with international standards. The Supreme Court upheld the decision from the Appellate Court on 12 October 2009. 2.9 The author adds that, since the events took place, and especially following the legal proceedings he undertook against the police officer who beat him, he and his family have been harassed by the police on several occasions. He notes that on 9 February 2011, around 8.30 p.m., eight police officers entered the family’s tea shop asking for a bribe and, when the author and his wife refused to provide it, the officers beat them in front of their daughter and put them into a police van. In the meantime, police officers entered their house and took a significant sum of money. The author and his wife were brought to a police station, where a subinspector accused them of having previously filed a case against the police. They were forced to sign a blank piece of paper and were kept in detention until 11.30 p.m. During their detention, they were continuously insulted and threatened. The author returned to the police station following his release, asking for the return of the money that had been confiscated by the police. The police refused to return the money and, instead, told him to leave his rented premises within two to three days or face further problems. The author adds that, after this incident, the police parked their van in front of the tea shop every day in order to intimidate the family. This generated distrust among the neighbours towards the 2 4 Higher police structure.