CCPR/C/126/D/2773/2016 also notes that the author claims that the 35-day statute of limitations under domestic legislation, which precluded him from filing his torture compensation claim, is not commensurate with the gravity of the crime. The Committee further notes that the grounds alleged by the Nepalese authorities for refusing to register the author’s complaints were based on the same 35-day statute of limitations. The Committee recalls its jurisprudence according to which such an unreasonably short statutory period for bringing complaints for such grave violations is flagrantly inconsistent with the gravity and nature of the crime. 24 The Committee takes note that, at the time of its submission, the State party informed that its legislation regarding torture would be amended, in order to criminalize and define it as a punishable crime (see para. 4.11 above) and also takes note that, in 2018, the State party amended its Criminal Code, including the criminalization and definition of torture under section 167 of the Code, setting a statute of limitations of six months from the day of the commission of the torture or from the day the person was released, if deprived of her or his liberty, to file a torture complaint and establishing a punishment of a maximum of five years’ imprisonment or a $500 fine, or both, for a person held responsible for torture. The Committee considers that, given that the revised legislation does not have retroactive effect, it is therefore not relevant to the author’s case and that the new statute of limitations and imposed penalties for torture are still not commensurate with the gravity of such a crime. 7.6 In the light of the foregoing, the Committee concludes that the failure of the State party to conduct any investigation into the author’s torture allegations, especially given that he was a child, and the fact that the statute of limitations for torture compensation claims under Nepalese law in force at the time of the events prevented the author from accessing an effective remedy, violated, in both instances, his rights under article 7, read alone and in conjunction with articles 2 (3) and 24 (1), of the Covenant. 7.7 Having found a violation of article 7, read alone and in conjunction with articles 2 (3) and 24 (1), of the Covenant, the Committee decides not to examine separately the author’s claim of a violation of article 7, read in conjunction with article 2 (2), of the Covenant. 7.8 The Committee notes the author’s claims under article 9 of the Covenant that he was subjected to arbitrary arrest and detention as a child and that he was not informed, at the time of arrest, of the reasons for his arrest nor was he promptly informed of any formal charges brought against him. The author has further claimed that he was deprived of his liberty between 14 August and 6 September 2012, without being informed of the charges against him and without having the opportunity to communicate with a counsel until 6 September 2012. The State party has stated merely that the arrest of the author complied with legal guarantees, without providing any additional information or evidence. The Committee considers that the author presented a consistent and detailed description of the facts surrounding his arrest and deprivation of liberty, which have not been contested by the State party. Therefore, the Committee concludes that the State party violated the author’s rights under article 9, read alone and in conjunction with article 24 (1), of the Covenant. 7.9 In the light of the latter conclusion, the Committee decides not to examine separately the author’s claims under article 9, read in conjunction with article 2 (3). 7.10 The Committee notes the author’s allegations that, between 2010, when he was 14 years of age, and 2012, he was forced to work for a family in Kathmandu, from 4 a.m. to 10 p.m. every day, as a domestic helper. It also notes the author’s claim that he spent almost 2 years cooking, doing kitchen work, cleaning, sweeping, doing the shopping, taking care of the house, attending to visitors, massaging feet and washing clothes for the family, without being allowed to attend school and without receiving any payment for his work. He also alleges that he was subjected to psychological and physical abuse by the family, until he decided to escape in July 2012. 7.11 The Committee notes that the author claims that the State party authorities failed to conduct ex officio an effective, independent, impartial and thorough investigation and did not prosecute or sanction those responsible, nor provide the author with adequate redress for the harm suffered. It also notes that the State party has not contested the author’s allegations as to the fact that the police and the Office of the Chief District Officer rejected 24 Nyaya v. Nepal, para. 7.9, Maharajan v. Nepal, para. 7.6, and Giri v. Nepal, para. 6.3. 13