CCPR/C/119/D/2245/2013 level decisions refusing to register her complaint and to order them to start an investigation into the alleged offences. The registrar of the Supreme Court rejected the author’s application on the basis that she had failed to seek an “alternative remedy” from the Chief District Officer as required under Section 3 (5) of the State Cases Act (1992). On 22 January 2012, Supreme Court Justice Prakash Wasti issued an order endorsing the registrar’s refusal to file the author’s complaint. 2.11 The author notes that she has exhausted all available domestic remedies. She tried to file an FIR and appealed the district-level decision not to register her report before the Supreme Court of Nepal. The registrar of the Supreme Court refused to register her appeal on the grounds that it had not been first presented to the Chief District Officer, although it was clearly stated in the writ that this had been done. In any case, where a crime should be investigated ex officio, the State party must pursue the investigation from the moment it receives credible information pointing to the commission of the crime. The author informed the District Administration Office about her arbitrary detention and torture in the presence of the Chief District Officer and J.T., who did not contest her report. Yet no action was taken to investigate her allegations. Furthermore, domestic remedies are ineffective and unavailable given that torture is not specifically criminalized in Nepal 7 and the 35-day statute of limitation on rape bars access to justice, which is contrary to the Covenant 8 and should not be taken into account in determining whether the author had made normal use of the remedy. In addition, the FIR remedy was ineffective and unavailable to her as she had the status of an internally displaces person with serious physical and mental injuries caused by the torture she had endured. Finally, the culture of impunity for conflict-era crimes in Nepal makes any theoretical remedies ineffective. During the conflict, the Army and the police were under a unified command structure, so reporting a crime committed by the Army to the police was difficult for victims. 2.12 The author notes that acts of sexual violence, including rape, against women and girls, committed by both the Army and the Maoists during the conflict have been underreported owing to, inter alia, the prevailing climate of impunity for perpetrators, cultural stigmatization of victims, insecurity and fear of retaliation from perpetrators, all of which discourage victims from reporting. 9 The author notes that the State party has failed to respond to any human rights violations committed during the conflict, in general, and sexual violence, in particular. The National Police consistently refused to register FIRs during the conflict, arguing that they were a political matter. Although some FIRs have been filed since the conflict and investigations have been opened for crimes of homicide committed during the conflict, only one person has been convicted to date. As to the crime of rape, no FIRs have been filed owing to the 35-day statute of limitation imposed by national law. Therefore, since no FIRs of rape were registered during the conflict, no victim of rape has any prospect of having the crime prosecuted under the current law. Although the Supreme Court of Nepal has twice ordered the revision of the statute of limitation for the crime of rape on the basis of its unreasonable and unrealistic nature, the provision 7 8 9 4 necessary and appropriate orders to enforce or provide remedies for constitutional or other legal violations. Article 32 guarantees the right to a constitutional remedy for constitutional violations in accordance with article 107 (2). Although torture is recognized as a crime in the Interim Constitution of Nepal, there is no specific provision criminalizing this offence in domestic law. The author cites communication No. 1863/2009, Maharjan v Nepal, Views adopted on 19 July 2012, in which the Committee noted that torture was not criminalized in domestic law and that in the absence of legal provisions making torture a crime, the State could not provide the appropriate remedy of investigation and punishment. An effective remedy was therefore not available. See Maharjan v Nepal, para. 7.6. The author cites a number of reports, including Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), Nepal Conflict Report (October 2012), United Nations Population Fund and United Nations Children’s Fund, Evaluation Report, “Ensuring recognition of sexual violence as a tool of conflict in the Nepal peace building process through documentation and provision of comprehensive services to women and girl survivors” (November 2012) and Amnesty International, “Nepal: human rights violations in the context of a Maoist ‘peoples’ war’” (March 1997), which documents incidents of sexual violence against women and girls during the conflict period as a tool of war.