CCPR/C/119/D/2245/2013 author’s rights under article 7, read alone and in conjunction with article 2 (3) of the Covenant. 12.4 The Committee also notes the author’s uncontested argument that the gang rape to which she was subjected had a discriminatory purpose, as demonstrated by the terms in which she was addressed and the fashion in which she was treated, as well as the generalized use of gang rape against women during the conflict, owing to the particularly serious discriminatory consequences for female rape victims in Nepalese society (see paras. 2.12-2.13 and 3.2 above). The Committee recalls that women are particularly vulnerable in times of internal or international armed conflict and that, during such situations, States must take all measures to protect women from rape, abduction and other forms of gender-based violence.28 In the light of the context surrounding the gang rape to which the author was subjected (see para. 2.4),29 as well as the State party’s general failure to investigate and establish accountability for such crimes, the Committee considers that the State party has violated the author’s right not to be subjected to gender discrimination under articles 2 (1) and 3, read in conjunction with article 7, and article 26 of the Covenant. 12.5 The Committee further notes that the grounds alleged by the Nepalese authorities for refusing to register the author’s complaint are based on the 35-day statute of limitation applicable to the crime of rape under domestic legislation. The Committee considers that such an unreasonably short statutory period for bringing complaints for rape is flagrantly inconsistent with the gravity and nature of the crime and that it has a disproportionately negative effect on women, who are predominantly the victims of rape. 30 Accordingly, the Committee concludes that the 35-day statute of limitation for the crime of rape under Nepalese law prevented the author from accessing justice and constitutes a violation of article 2 (3), read in conjunction with articles 7 and 26, of the Covenant. 12.6 In the light of the foregoing, the Committee decides not to examine separately the author’s claims under article 10 (1) of the Covenant. 12.7 The Committee notes the author’s claims under article 9 (1), (2), (3) and (5), that she was continuously threatened and harassed by members of the Royal Nepalese Army and detained by a large military contingent without a warrant and without being informed of any charges against her, that she was detained in the military barracks for several hours and later released, and that she was never compensated for that detention despite the numerous avenues that she pursued in that regard. The State party has signalled the lack of records of the author’s detention but it has not provided any explanations to the contrary nor conducted the necessary investigations into the author’s allegations. The Committee is of the view that the author has presented a credible case as to her detention, and requiring victims of arbitrary and illegal detention to provide records thereof would amount to a probatio diabolica. It considers that the burden of proof to rebut the author’s evidence clearly lies with the State party. Therefore, the Committee considers that the author’s detention by members of the Royal Nepalese Army in the context of the internal conflict and the State party’s failure to provide her with compensation constitutes a violation of her rights under article 9 of the Covenant. 13. The Committee, acting under article 5 (4) of the Optional Protocol, is of the view that the facts before it disclose a violation by the State party of article 7, read alone and in conjunction with article 2 (3); of articles 2 (1) and 3, read in conjunction with article 7; of article 26; of article 2 (3), read in conjunction with articles 7 and 26; and of article 9 of the Covenant. 14. In accordance with article 2 (3) (a) of the Covenant, the State party is under an obligation to provide the author with an effective remedy. This requires it to make full 28 29 30 See the Committee’s general comment No. 28 (2000) on equality of rights between men and women, para. 8. See communications No. 1610/2007, L.N.P. v. Argentina, Views adopted on 18 July 2011, para. 13.3; and No. 2234/2013, M.T. v. Uzbekistan, Views adopted on 23 July 2015, para. 7.6. See CCPR/C/NPL/CO/2, para. 13, in which the Committee expressed concern at the lack of progress in abolishing the 35-day limitation period for filing complaints of rape; and Maharjan v. Nepal, para. 7.6. 11