CCPR/C/105/D/1303/2004 4.2 In a note verbale dated 8 February 2005, the State party stated that neither Mr. Chiti nor the author or their children had exhausted domestic remedies fully available to them. The State party notes that Mr. Chiti’s case is defended by a counsel before national courts. 4.3 The State party denies that the author’s death was in any way a consequence of the alleged torture. It also denies having failed to implement court orders on compensation to any of the Chiti family. 4.4 With regard to the Commission of Inquiry, the State party notes that the rejection of the Commission’s findings by the Government resulted from a Cabinet decision based on the fact that those who had allegedly tortured Mr. Chiti were not heard by the Commission. However, this rejection does not ouster the jurisdiction of the Zambian courts to decide on all issues raised in the communication. 4.5 On 10 October 2005, the State party informed the Committee that it had entered into negotiations with the author and her family in order to resolve the matter. The State party adds that the author has entered into those negotiations willingly and that the outcome of the negotiations will be communicated to the Committee as soon as they reach a final conclusion. Further submissions from the parties 5.1 On 7 March 2006, the author, through her sister, informed the Committee that she lived outside the territory of the State party and has therefore entrusted her sister to receive the compensation ordered by the court 5. Despite several attempts, her sister was denied the payment of that compensation. Despite the fact that the compensation sought covered both the torture inflicted and the loss of property, the State has only agreed to pay compensation for property loss for a total amount of US$ 6,600. 5.2 The author submits a newspaper article stating that Mr. Chiti was released from prison on 21 June 2004 for medical reasons as he was suffering from cancer which confined him to a wheelchair. 6. On 8 February 2007, the State party informed the Committee that it had successfully concluded the negotiations with the author. On 22 September 2005, the author accepted in writing an offer of K 20 million in Zambian kwachas6 as final settlement from the State party to compensate the author and her family for their torture claim 7. The Ministry of Justice wrote to the Ministry of Finance and directed it to pay the said amount to the author as beneficiary and benefactor of the Chiti family.8 7. On 9 May 2008, the author informed the Committee that when the State party informed her of the final amount to which she was entitled as compensation for the torture inflicted to her husband, she did not agree to it and sent a fax to the Ministry of Justice to inform the State party of her decision. However, her decision was not accepted and she was instructed by a State representative to accept the amount proposed as final payment. The author considers that the amount proposed is too little compared to the suffering her husband went through as a result of torture. 5 6 7 8 See above, paras. 2.6 and 2.7. This amount corresponded to US$ 3,780.36 at the time of consideration of the communication. The State party refers to the author’s letter to the Ministry of Justice dated 22 September 2005. The State party provides a copy of the author’s letter to the Government of Zambia agreeing to the said amount as compensation. The State party also annexes to its observations the letter sent by the Ministry of Justice to the Ministry of Finance. 5