CCPR/C/119/D/2245/2013 9. On 7 July 2014 and 11 December 2014, the State party noted that it was in the process of establishing a transitional justice mechanism and that it was fully committed to carrying out a full investigation into the present case through such mechanism. The State party informed the Committee about a number of policies and programmes established to provide relief, rehabilitation and reintegration for conflict victims. The TRC Act was currently being examined by the Supreme Court of Nepal. The Act does not provide for blanket amnesties but rather establishes clear conditions for amnesties and the obligation of the Commission to hold close consultation with the victim before granting it. The Commissions established by the Act enjoy full structural and functional independence and autonomy and they cannot execute reconciliation without the victims’ consent. 10.1 On 17 March 2015, the author noted that, on 26 February 2015, the Supreme Court ruled that the TRC Act was contrary to the Interim Constitution and to international law. The court struck down section 26 on amnesties and clarified that reconciliation could only be granted with the consent of the victims. 10.2 The author notes that provision of relief through policies and programmes cannot be considered to amount to an effective remedy for serious human rights violations.21 Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 11.1 Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Committee must, in accordance with rule 93 of its rules of procedure, decide whether it is admissible under the Optional Protocol to the Covenant. 11.2 The Committee has ascertained, as required under article 5 (2) (a) of the Optional Protocol, that the same matter is not being examined under any other procedure of international investigation or settlement. 11.3 The Committee notes the State party’s claim that domestic remedies have not been exhausted because, on the one hand, the author failed to use the transitional justice mechanism established by the TRC Act and passed on 25 April 2014, and, on the other hand, she failed to file a criminal complaint for rape or a compensation claim for torture within the established legal time limit. 11.4 With regard to the transitional justice system mechanism, the Committee notes the author’s argument that such mechanism is not available, since the Truth and Reconciliation Commission has not been established to date, nor is the mechanism an effective remedy in light of its non-binding nature and the numerous flaws identified by reports and by the Supreme Court itself, which ruled that the TRC Act was unconstitutional and contrary to international law.22 The Committee also recalls its jurisprudence that it is not necessary to exhaust avenues before non-judicial bodies to fulfil the requirements of article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol.23 The Committee considers that the Commission established under the TRC Act would not constitute an effective remedy for the author. 11.5 As to remedies available within the Nepalese criminal justice system, the Committee notes that the author tried to file a First Information Report (FIR) concerning the crime of rape and other inhumane and degrading acts with the District Police Office, which was rejected based on the 35-day statute of limitations for the crime of rape, and that she appealed this decision all the way to the Supreme Court of Nepal. The Committee notes that the author explained both in her written FIR as well as in her communication before the Committee that she was unable to file a claim within the legally established time frame given the severe physical and psychological injuries sustained as a result of torture, and given the lack of legal assistance. In view of the legal and practical limitations on filing a 21 22 23 See communication No. 2018/2010, Chaulagain v. Nepal, Views adopted on 28 October 2014, paras. 6.3 and 11.6; and Committee against Torture, general comment No. 3 (2012) on implementation of article 14 by States parties, para. 37. Ibid. See communications No. 2000/2010, Katwal v. Nepal, Views adopted on 1 April 2015, para. 6.3; and No. 1761/2008, Giri v. Nepal, Views adopted 24 March 2011 and corrigendum, para. 6.3. 9