CCPR/C/119/D/2245/2013 complaint for rape in the State party and taking into consideration the efforts made by the author to file such a complaint, the Committee considers that this remedy was both ineffective and unavailable to the author. 11.6 With regard to the remedy under the Torture Compensation Act (1996), the Committee recalls that compensation for offences as serious as those alleged in the present communication does not substitute for the obligation of State authorities to investigate and bring charges against alleged perpetrators. 24 The Committee notes that such claims for compensation are limited to a maximum compensation of Nr 100,000 and are subject to a 35-day statute of limitations. The Committee recalls its previous jurisprudence in which it stated that the 35-day statutory limit for bringing claims under the Torture Compensation Act is in itself flagrantly inconsistent with the gravity of the crime. 25 The Committee therefore considers that this remedy was also ineffective and unavailable to the author. Accordingly, the Committee concludes that it is not precluded by article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol from examining the present communication. 11.7 As all other admissibility criteria have been met, the Committee declares the communication admissible and proceeds with its consideration of the merits. Consideration of the merits 12.1 The Committee has considered the communication in the light of all the information made available to it by the parties, as required under article 5 (1) of the Optional Protocol. 12.2 The Committee notes the author’s allegations that, on 23 November 2004, while she was held in military barracks, she was subjected to gang rape and other forms of torture by members of the Royal Nepalese Army, in order to extract information about her husband’s alleged support to the Maoists, to punish and intimidate her and others in the community, and to humiliate and degrade her. The State party has not contested these allegations, but merely stated that they are not supported by any evidence. The Committee recalls that the burden of proof cannot rest on the author of the communication alone, especially since the author and the State party do not always have equal access to the evidence and it is frequently the case that the State party alone has the relevant information. 26 It is implicit in article 4 (2) of the Optional Protocol that the State party has the duty to investigate in good faith all allegations of violations of the Covenant made against it and its representatives and to provide the Committee with the information available to it. In cases where the allegations are corroborated by credible evidence submitted by the author and where further clarification depends on information that is solely in the hands of the State party, the Committee may consider the author’s allegations as substantiated in the absence of satisfactory evidence or explanations to the contrary by the State party. In the light of the author’s detailed and consistent description of the gang rape and other acts of torture endured, which are corroborated by medical and psychological reports provided by her and coinciding with the general pattern of violations committed by Nepalese security forces during the internal conflict as documented in various intergovernmental and nongovernmental reports — including, in particular, sexual violence against women suspected of being Maoists or Maoist supporters, in the context of interrogations 27 — and in the absence of any explanation from the State party in this respect, due weight must be given to the author’s allegations. The Committee also notes the State party’s failure to initiate any investigations into the author’s allegations of torture, despite the numerous avenues she pursued. 12.3 The Committee considers that gang rape and other acts of torture inflicted by the Army upon the author while in detention and the subsequent lack of investigation of her allegations, prosecution of those responsible and reparation to the victim violated the 24 25 26 27 10 See for example, Mahrajan v. Nepal, para. 7.6; and communication No. 1588/2007, Benaziza v. Algeria, Views adopted on 26 July 2010, para. 8.3. See Mahrajan v. Nepal, para. 7.6. See, inter alia, communications No. 1422/2005, El Hassy v. Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Views adopted on 24 October 2007, para. 6.7; and No. 1297/2004, Medjnoune v. Algeria, Views adopted on 14 July 2006, para. 8.3. See, inter alia, OHCHR, Nepal Conflict Report (2012), p. 158.