CCPR/C/130/D/2777/2016 suffered.30 The Committee considers that the remedy provided for under the Compensation for Torture Act is not sufficient in the light of its standard of effective remedy, particularly given that the information before the Committee indicates that the State party has not conducted an adequate investigation into the torture suffered by the author in March 2006. In addition, the above-mentioned compensation was only intended to cover the torture the author was subjected to in March 2006, not the act of torture, his arbitrary arrest and detention in inhumane conditions and the infringement of his own and his family’s rights to privacy that the author alleges to have been subjected to in November–December 2002, in respect of which claims the State party has provided no information indicating that it has undertaken sufficient investigation. Thus, the Committee considers that the author has sufficiently substantiated his claim under articles 7, 9 (1), (2), (3) and (5), 10 (1) and 17, read alone and in conjunction with article 2 (3), regarding the above allegations, for the purposes of admissibility. 6.6 In the absence of any other challenges to the admissibility of the communication, the Committee declares the communication admissible insofar as it concerns the author’s claims under articles 7, 9 (1), (2), (3) and (5), 10 (1) and 17, all read alone and in conjunction with article 2 (3), of the Covenant. Accordingly, it proceeds with its consideration of the merits. Consideration of the merits 7.1 The Committee has considered the communication in the light of all the information submitted to it by the parties, in accordance with article 5 (1) of the Optional Protocol. 7.2 In regard to the author’s allegation under article 7 of the Covenant, the Committee notes the various findings of international human rights bodies and reports of nongovernmental organizations highlighting the widespread practice of torture and ill-treatment in Nepal. 31 The Committee recalls that article 7 of the Covenant cannot be subject to derogation, even in situations of public emergency,32 and that, once a complaint about torture and ill-treatment contrary to article 7 has been filed, a State party must investigate it promptly and impartially. The Committee reiterates its position that the burden of proof cannot rest solely with the author of the communication, especially considering that the author and the State party do not always have equal access to evidence and that frequently the State party alone has access to the relevant information.33 In cases where the allegations are corroborated by credible evidence submitted by the author and where further clarification depends on information that is solely in the hands of the State party, the Committee may consider an author’s allegations to be substantiated in the absence of satisfactory evidence or explanations to the contrary presented by the State party. The Committee further recalls that, in the absence of any convincing explanations from the State party, due weight must be given to the author’s allegations, if sufficiently substantiated.34 7.3 In the present case, concerning the torture and ill-treatment the author alleges to have suffered during the period from 28 November to 5 December 2002, the Committee notes that the State party argues that the claim of torture and ill-treatment cannot be substantiated because the alleged perpetrators had not been identified and there were no detention records or valid injury report. The Committee also notes that the author submits that he identified the alleged perpetrators and that the lack of a record of detention does not prove that no detention took place. In addition, the author submits testimonies to prove that he was not working in 30 31 32 33 34 A/RES/60/147, annex, para. 15. CCPR/C/NPL/CO/2, para. 10; CAT/C/NPL/CO/2, para. 13; E/CN.4/2006/6/Add.5, paras. 17–19; A/HRC/16/52/Add.2, paras. 77–79; A/HRC/10/53; A/67/44, annex XIII, paras. 100–108. See also Pandey v. Nepal (CCPR/C/124/D/2413/2014), Giri v. Nepal and Katwal v. Nepal. General comment No. 20 (1992), para. 3. Khoroshenko v. Russian Federation, para. 9.5. See also Kandel et al. v. Nepal (CCPR/C/126/D/2560/2015), para. 7.4; Pandey v. Nepal, para. 8.3; Sharma and Sharma v. Nepal (CCPR/C/94/D/1469/2006), para. 7.5; Sharma et al. v. Nepal (CCPR/C/122/D/2364/2014), para. 5.3; Nakarmi and Nakarmi v. Nepal (CCPR/C/119/D/2184/2012), para. 11.4; Dhakal et al. v. Nepal (CCPR/C/119/D/2185/2012), para. 11.4; Maya v. Nepal (CCPR/C/119/D/2245/2013), para. 12.2; Maharjan et al. v. Nepal, para. 8.3; Tripathi et al. v. Nepal (CCPR/C/112/D/2111/2011), para. 7.2; and Katwal v. Nepal, para. 3.6. Giri v. Nepal, para. 7.4; and El Awani v. Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, para. 6.5. 11