CCPR/C/114/D/2038/2011 Affairs, the Bardiya District Administrative Office and the Bardiya District Police Office, among other authorities, informed the Supreme Court that the authors’ relatives had not been arrested or detained by them. 2.8 On 24, 25, 26, and 27 August 2004, and 7 January, 11 February, and 29 March 2005, the Supreme Court quashed the writs of habeas corpus submitted by the authors. It stated that the authors had failed to identify where and by whom their relatives had been detained and that, in order to obtain a search warrant, the applicants must help the Court by identifying the place where the alleged victims were being kept. The authors claim that the Court did not proactively enquire about the fate and whereabouts of their relatives or about the measures undertaken by other authorities to search for their relatives or investigate their disappearance. 2.9 On 12 February 2006, Thagani Tharu (Prem Prakash’s mother) reported the disappearance of Prem Prakash, Kamala, Lauti and Chillu to the National Human Rights Commission. Parmeshwari Tharu (Mohan’s mother) also reported Mohan’s disappearance to the Commission. The authors claim that officers from the Commission visited them twice and that the Commission transmitted their complaints to the Royal Nepalese Army’s Human Rights Cell. 2.10 Their eight relatives were registered as missing persons in the International Committee of the Red Cross database. 2.11 On 25 May 2006, the Government established the Ministry of Home Affairs Disappearances Committee, composed of the Joint Secretary of the Ministry of Home Affairs (also known as the Neupane Committee), for the purpose of investigating the fate of allegedly disappeared persons, preparing a report establishing the truth of their status and recommending the necessary measures to be taken with respect to those whose status remains unknown. Subsequently, the National Human Rights Commission transmitted the cases of the authors’ relatives to this Committee. 2.12 On 25 July 2006, the Disappearances Committee published its report, which concluded that it had resolved 174 out of 776 cases of disappearance. Among these cases, the report considered “clarified” the cases of Dhaniram, Chillu, Mohan, Kamala, Lauti, Soniram and Radhulal, as the Human Rights Cell of the Royal Nepalese Army had provided information that they had been killed on 11 April 2002 in crossfire with the security forces in the nursery area of Manau. The authors claim that the Committee did not undertake a thorough investigation, and gave full credence to the responses from the security agencies, without any consultation with the relatives, request for further clarification or examination of the information submitted. Moreover, they say the Human Rights Cell has never explained how it concluded that seven of their relatives had been killed in crossfire. 2.13 On 12 December 2006, the cases of Dhaniram, Radhulal (registered as “Raghulal”), Kamala, Chillu, Lauti (registered as “Lauti Chaudhari”), Mohan, Prem Prakash (registered as “Prem Tharu”) and Soniram were reported to the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances.7 2.14 On 1 June 2007, the Supreme Court issued a judgement concerning 83 cases of enforced disappearance. Among other findings, the Court ordered the Government to provide all families of disappeared persons listed in the petition with 100,000 Nepalese rupees,8 to establish a commission of inquiry, to criminalize enforced disappearance and to 7 8 See A/HRC/4/41, annex IV. According to the authors, this amount was the equivalent of $1,420 at the time the communication was submitted. 5