CCPR/C/130/D/2777/2016 5.4 The author also contests the State party’s allegation that he was working in his office during the time of the alleged torture in November–December 2002.26 The author argues that the absence of prison records documenting his detention is not enough to refute the allegation of torture. The author reiterates his claim that the fact that his arrest and detention were not registered in any custody report reflects an existing systematic practice denounced by several international human rights bodies, including the Committee,27 and amounts to a violation per se of article 9 of the Covenant. 5.5 With regard to the fact that the medical report on the author’s injuries was disregarded by the State party as providing no conclusive evidence that he had been tortured, the author contends that it demonstrates that no thorough and effective investigation was conducted into his allegations. He also argues that the fact that the domestic courts decided to grant him compensation is recognition of the fact that he was indeed subjected to torture and illtreatment. 5.6 The author reiterates that the decision to grant him compensation can by no means be regarded as an effective remedy. Despite the allegation of the State party that the amount of compensation was determined on the basis of the gravity of the case and the harm he suffered, the author contends that the amount of money awarded as compensation pursuant to the decision of the Kathmandu District Court is not commensurate with the gravity of his arbitrary arrest and detention, the inhumane conditions of detention and the hindrances to his and his family’s rights to privacy. The author argues that, although the amount of compensation of 21,000 Nepalese rupees is the standard amount paid to victims of torture in Nepal, this sum is not commensurate with the extreme gravity of the crime committed against the author and is therefore at odds with international standards. 28 The author argues that, in the case of allegations of torture, pecuniary compensation alone can never be considered sufficient to provide adequate reparation to the victims. He reiterates that, pursuant to international law, measures of reparation for victims of torture must also include restitution, rehabilitation, satisfaction and guarantees of non-repetition. 5.7 In sum, the author alleges that the State party failed to provide solid legal arguments against the admissibility of the communication and to adequately challenge the merits. The author reiterates that the State party has violated articles 7 and 10 (1), read alone and in conjunction with article 2 (3) of the Covenant, because of the torture, ill-treatment and inhumane treatment the author was subjected to during the periods of arbitrary detention and the subsequent failure by the State party to carry out an ex officio, prompt, effective, independent, impartial and thorough investigation, to prosecute and sanction those responsible and to provide the author with an effective remedy. 5.8 The author also claims a violation of article 7 in conjunction with article 2 (2) of the Covenant as a result of the State party’s failure to adopt effective legislative measures to give effect to the rights enshrined in the Covenant and to remove obstacles in the existing legal framework concerning torture that remain at odds with the international obligations it has assumed. Despite the State party’s allegation that the right to be free from torture is recognized in the Nepalese Constitution of 2015, the author contends that the recognition of this fundamental right in the Constitution is not sufficient unless it is accompanied by enabling criminal legislation that allows for the penal prosecution of such acts and the appropriate punishment of the perpetrators, which is still not the case in the State party. 5.9 The author further reiterates that the State party has violated article 9 (1), (2), (3) and (5), read alone and in conjunction with article 2 (3) of the Covenant, as the author was subjected to arbitrary arrest and detention; and he was not informed, at the time of arrest, of the reasons for his arrest. Furthermore, the State party violated article 17, read alone and in 26 27 28 He reiterates witness testimony from his colleague and mentions the medical certificates he has submitted as proof of his arbitrary arrest and the injuries he received, which the State party does not contest. CCPR/C/NPL/CO/2, para. 11. The author argues that the compensation for gross violation of human rights should take account of physical and mental harm, lost opportunities in terms of employment, education and social benefits, moral damages and the costs required for expert assistance, medicine and medical services. 9