CCPR/C/119/D/2245/2013 3.6 The author argues that the 35-day statute of limitation for the crime of rape provided for in section 11 of the 1962 National Code violates the right to an effective remedy enshrined in article 2 (3) of the Covenant, read in conjunction with article 7. The period of limitation is unreasonably short considering the gravity and nature of the crime involved, the conflict setting and the vulnerable and disadvantaged position of victims of rape. In addition to the impossibility of filing an FIR during the conflict, there are invariably personal barriers, including feelings of shame and guilt, mistrust of the judicial system and the police, fear of retaliation and concerns for privacy or stigma, which prevent victims of rape from reporting the crime in general. Women in Nepal are faced with additional cultural barriers that are compounded by illiteracy and poverty, all of which make it extremely difficult to report rape, particularly within such a short period, as has been recognized by the Supreme Court of Nepal. 12 In the light of State obligations to combat impunity for serious crimes and their positive obligations to respond to gender-based violence and given the proven difficulties faced by rape victims in reporting the crime, the statute of limitations under Nepalese law is unduly short and must be considered a barrier that is contrary to the State’s obligation to investigate and prosecute gender-based violence. In order to fulfil its obligations under the Covenant and redress the violations in this case, the State party should remove any statute of limitation for torture complaints, including rape, in the light of the recognized nature of torture as a violation of jus cogens norms.13 3.7 The author claims that the 35-day statute of limitation also violates articles 3 and 26 of the Covenant because it limits access to justice for a crime that is predominantly committed against women, and it therefore has a disproportionate impact on women. Such a limitation does not apply to other crimes such as murder (which has a 20-year statute of limitation period), adultery (one year), arson (one year), assault causing serious bodily harm (three months), looting (three months), kidnapping (six months) and the killing of a cow (six months). There is no objective or reasonable ground for treating such a serious crime differently. In addition, the State party has a positive obligation under articles 3 and 26 to respond to violence against women, including rape, which impairs the enjoyment by women of their human rights and fundamental freedoms.14 3.8 With respect to reparation, the author requests that the Committee call on the State party to adopt the following specific measures: (a) undertake full and effective investigations into the crimes alleged by the author and bring the perpetrators to justice; (b) undertake full and effective investigations into the failure of the District Administration Office to respond to the complaint made by the author; (c) provide adequate compensation to the author for the pecuniary and non-pecuniary losses that she has experienced as a result of the torture, including medical expenses to treat the injuries sustained from torture (Nr 450,000 or approximately $5,300), and ongoing physical check-ups and psychotherapy for the damage suffered, which destroyed her chances of earning an adequate living for her and her daughter; (d) provide means of rehabilitation for the author; and (e) provide a public apology by the Government of Nepal for the violations inflicted on her. The author also requests that the Committee call upon the State party to implement the following general measures: (a) remove the statute of limitations for the crime of rape; (b) reform the FIR 12 13 14 6 The author cites the order of mandamus of the Supreme Court of 11 July 2008 to the Government of Nepal, Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs, Council of Ministers Secretariat, House of Representative, National Council, Writ No. 3393. The Supreme Court cited the lack of education and the exclusion of rape victims from society to explain the under-reporting of rape crimes. It further noted that an FIR exposed “victims in police station and court during the proceedings which require the victims to be present before the court and police for recording testimonies and examining of health and genitals. Victims are ignorant about the 35-day statute of limitations …. Because of this, many crimes of rape remain unreported and even in the cases which are reported, either the cases are annulled due to the delayed filing of the case after 35 days of the incident or the evidence is lost.” See, inter alia, the Convention on the Non-Applicability of Statutory Limitations to War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity; International Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law Committed in the Territory of the Former Yugoslavia since 1991 decision in Prosecutor v. Anto Furundzija, judgment of 10 December 1998; CCPR/C/PAN/CO/3; CAT/C/CR/30/4; CAT/C/TUR/CO/3; and CAT/C/MNE/CO/1. See Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, general recommendation No. 19 (1992) on violence against women, para. 7; and CEDAW/C/NPL/CO/4-5, para. 20.