CCPR/C/119/D/2245/2013 filing process to ensure sufficient safeguards against difficulties in relation to initiating investigations into crimes; (c) criminalize torture and remove the legal provisions allowing for impunity for this crime; (d) facilitate a national dialogue on sexual violence to improve the visibility of the issue and the status of victims in Nepalese society; and (e) adopt measures to guarantee access to justice for victims of rape, including by ensuring the confidentiality and protection of victims during the filing of a complaint, investigation and proceedings, increasing the number of female police officers and prosecutors, establishing policies for the confidential storage of medical records of victims of sexual violence in hospitals, and providing interim relief to victims of sexual violence that occurred during the conflict. State party’s observations on admissibility 4.1 In its observations dated 15 August 2013, the State party argued that the author failed to exhaust domestic remedies available both in the criminal justice system as well as the transitional justice mechanism, which is the appropriate avenue for truth-seeking for crimes committed during the armed conflict. 4.2 Regarding the ordinary criminal justice system, the State party notes that it is common to provide for certain time limitations within which to file a case and that the author failed to file her case within the given time limitation and to follow the prescribed procedure for filing a report concerning the crime of rape. The Compensation Relating to Torture Act (1996) also provides for torture victims to make a claim for compensation within 35 days of the commission of the act of torture or their release and that the author failed to avail herself of this remedy before the District Court. 4.3 As to the transitional justice system, the Interim Constitution of Nepal (2007) obliges the State to establish a transitional justice mechanism to address the human rights violations committed during the armed conflict. On 14 March 2013, the Government promulgated the Ordinance on Investigation of Disappeared Persons, Truth and Reconciliation Commission 2069 (2013) (the TRC Ordinance) with the mandate to investigate serious conflict-related violations, including rape. The Commission may, inter alia, make recommendations to the Attorney General to file cases. Therefore, once the Commission is constituted, the author could avail herself of this transitional justice mechanism to obtain redress. 4.4 The State party adds that the author’s allegations of her detention and torture are not supported by any evidence and that the case has not been recorded by any competent authority in Nepal. Author’s comments on the State party’s observations on admissibility 5.1 In her comments of 28 August 2013, the author notes that the State party has provided two contradictory arguments to support the non-exhaustion of domestic remedies: it states that the author did not avail herself of remedies within the time limit provided by law, while at the same time it indicates that, as it is a conflict-related violation, it must be dealt with by the transitional justice mechanism rather than the ordinary criminal justice system. 5.2 The author notes that the criminal justice system is ineffective because torture is not criminalized under the criminal law of Nepal and the Torture Compensation Act (1996), which provides for the possibility of filing a compensation request for up to Nr 100,000 (approximately $900) within 35 days of the torture or release from custody, is not an effective remedy for such violations. 15 The author reiterates that the 35-day statute of limitation for filing complaints of rape is contrary to the Covenant because it is discriminatory, impossible for the victim to meet, has been found to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of Nepal and is flagrantly inconsistent with the gravity of the crime. 5.3 As to the transitional justice mechanism established by the TRC Ordinance, the author notes that this remedy is unreasonably prolonged, since the Commission has not yet 15 See Maharjan v. Nepal, para. 7.5. 7