CCPR/C/119/D/2245/2013 remains unchanged. The author states that the prevalence of rape crimes continues to be justified by State acquiescence and tolerance of the crime, with most cases still being unreported, complaints often being rejected by the police, or victims forced to settle their cases with perpetrators. 2.13 The author notes that the Government has provided for ad hoc ex gratia payments to victims of human rights violations committed during the conflict. However, those policies excluded victims of rape and other forms of sexual violence. The complaint 3.1 The author claims to be a victim of physical and psychological torture, in violation of article 7 of the Covenant, as a result of the acts she was subjected to on 23 November 2004, including blindfolding, beating, kicking, punching and gang rape, which were inflicted on her for a number of reasons, including to extract information, to punish her for something that her husband had allegedly done, to intimidate others in the community and to humiliate and degrade her. The rape in itself unequivocally amounted to torture. In her case, these events have had a major impact on her life, both physically and mentally. She still suffers from pain in her back and abdomen and from frequent vaginal discharge and has to go for medical check-ups twice a month. She has been diagnosed with both severe depressive disorder and post-traumatic stress disorder and has been forced to become an internally displaced person. She is also rejected by part of the society because she is a rape victim and faces financial constraints as her husband has stop providing the food allowances for her and their daughter as a result of the rape. 3.2 The author claims to be a victim of discrimination on the grounds of gender, contrary to article 2 (1), in conjunction with article 7, of the Covenant. She claims that the facts amounted to a breach of the obligation to ensure equal rights for men and women as guaranteed by article 3 of the Covenant. The rape had an underlying discriminatory purpose on the basis of gender. From the very beginning, the perpetrators addressed her in sexually demeaning terms (whore, prostitute, fatherfucker). The author notes that rape is a form of gender-specific violence, aimed, in its form or purpose, at, inter alia, asserting or perpetuating male domination over women.10 Gang rape is also a form of torture that was used predominantly against women and girls during the armed conflict, since the perpetrators knew that in the Nepalese social context, rape would have particularly serious consequences for a woman or girl because of her gender. 3.3 The author claims that the violations of article 7 that she endured while in detention also qualify as violations under article 10 (1) of the Covenant. Being blindfolded for two and a half hours, tortured and repeatedly raped by at least four different individuals is clearly outside the boundary of humane treatment of persons deprived of their liberty. 3.4 The author holds that the series of threats to which she was subjected by State agents over the months prior to her arrest amounted to a violation of her right to security of person under Article 9 (1) of the Covenant. 11 Also, her arrest and detention on 23 November 2004 was arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of article 9 (1), 2 and 3, given that she was arrested without warrant, she was not informed of any charges against her and she was released shortly afterwards. Moreover, bringing 40 to 60 armed soldiers to arrest her without specifying any crime constitutes elements of injustice and inappropriateness. The author alleges that the failure of the Government to provide her with compensation despite the numerous avenues that she pursued in that regard amount to a violation of article 9 (5) of the Covenant. 3.5 The author notes that, despite the State party’s authorities being aware of the reported crime, no investigation has yet been initiated into her allegations of torture and she has been repeatedly denied a remedy before a competent judicial authority, in violation of article 2 (3) of the Covenant. 10 11 See A/HRC/7/3. See communications No. 542/1993, Tshishimbi v. Zaire, Views adopted on 25 March 1996; and No. 1250/2004, Rajapakse v. Sri Lanka, Views adopted on 14 July 2006. 5