CCPR/C/122/D/2265/2013 constitute autonomous offences in its criminal law and that they are punishable by penalties that take into account their extreme seriousness. Finally, the State party should establish as soon as possible educational programmes on international human rights law and international humanitarian law for all members of the army, the security forces and the judiciary. State party’s observations on admissibility 4.1 In a note verbale dated 10 September 2013, the State party submitted its observations, challenging the admissibility of the communication on the grounds that the alleged violations had not been substantiated and that domestic remedies had not been exhausted. 4.2 The State party maintains that the authors’ allegations concerning the circumstances in which the alleged arrest and detention of Mr. Sharma took place are not supported by any direct or circumstantial evidence. Mr. Sharma was arrested under section 9 of the 2004 Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Control and Punishment) Ordinance following a detention order duly delivered to him. This order was extended for another six months on 17 August 2005. Mr. Sharma was detained in army barracks, where he was treated humanely. He was provided with medical care at Birendra Military Hospital. He was visited by his parents and relatives and by a representative of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), whose visit was recorded officially. Allegations that Mr. Sharma was subjected to enforced disappearance are thus unsubstantiated and false. The State party notes that the state of emergency was in force at the time of Mr. Sharma’s arrest and detention. 4.3 Arbitrary detention and torture are criminalized and prohibited by the Interim Constitution of 2007. The 1996 Compensation Relating to Torture Act provides a mechanism for claiming compensation in the event of torture. This is an effective remedy that the authors chose not to avail themselves of within the required time frame (no more than 35 days after having suffered torture). Neither have the authors filed a first information report with the police regarding the injuries Mr. Sharma claims he has suffered. Ms. Sharma was never arrested, detained, harassed or tortured by public officials. 4.4 Nepal is committed to addressing the human rights violations that were committed during the armed conflict. To address that situation, it has decided to establish a commission to investigate cases of disappearances and to establish a truth and reconciliation commission, in compliance with the Interim Constitution. To this end, the Government of Nepal has promulgated the Commission on Investigation of Disappeared Persons, Truth and Reconciliation Ordinance, 2069 (2012). The commission may recommend that the Attorney General bring proceedings against a perpetrator or that the Government formulate necessary laws to ensure prosecutions. The commission can recommend reparations. Once the commission is constituted, conflict-era cases will be effectively addressed by the transitional justice mechanism, and once the commission submits a report, it will be possible to institute judicial proceedings against the perpetrators of serious human rights violations in a court of law. 4.5 Mr. Sharma has already received 100,000 rupees as interim relief. The authors could be entitled to reparation, depending on the outcome of the investigation, once the transitional justice mechanism is established. Accordingly, the authors have not exhausted domestic remedies. Authors’ comments on the State party’s observations on admissibility 5.1 On 14 October 2013 and 10 January 2014, the authors submitted their comments on the State party’s observations. The authors note the State party’s contention that their allegations are false and stress that the State does not substantiate these accusations. 5.2 The authors argue that, while torture and ill-treatment are prohibited by the Interim Constitution, these acts are not appropriately defined by the law, and there is no criminal sanction attached to them. Furthermore, the Compensation Relating to Torture Act does not constitute an effective remedy for the authors because Mr. Sharma, who had been subjected to enforced disappearance starting on 21 October 2003 and had been rearrested on 19 December 2005, could not have met its 35-day statutory limitation for filing a complaint. The authors add that this time limitation is not in line with international 7