CCPR/C/126/D/2773/2016 justice of the Committee on the Rights of the Child. It adds that the Supreme Court stated that, under the provisions contained in the preamble of the Children’s Act, a legal obligation is imposed on the State to protect children’s physical, mental and intellectual development and that it was not in the best interests of the accused child to be in a juvenile reform home. The State party also notes that the District Court subsequently found the author guilty of stealing a laptop and other items and sentenced him to one month in jail and a fine of 4,000 Nepalese rupees (approximately $34.40). It adds that his imprisonment time and fine were reduced, in accordance with section 11 (3) of the Act. 4.5 The State party notes that, although torture was already assessed by the Kathmandu District Court during the adjudication of the theft case, the author brought a separate torture complaint claiming compensation before the District Court after the expiration of its statute of limitations. The Court refused to register the case, on the basis of section 5 of the Torture Compensation Act, which states that a victim may file a complaint claiming compensation within 35 days from the date the torture was inflicted or of her or his release from detention, and rendered the case inadmissible according to rule 15 (3) of the District Court Regulations. 4.6 The State party notes that, “with regard to the issue of compensation from the employer”, the author did not seek remedy within the statute of limitations. The author’s complaint before the Labour Office was refused registration, given the expiration of the statute of limitations of one year from the date of commission of the act, in accordance with section 20 (2) of the Child Labour Act. The State party also notes that the author had a right to file a complaint regarding an offence punishable under the Act and that the author’s legal remedies did not end with the refusal of registration. The author could have sought recourse before the Labour Court against the refusal to register his complaint and subsequently could have invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. 4.7 Regarding the author’s writ petitions before the Supreme Court as to his torture and complaints made under the Child Labour Act, the State party claims that it is unbelievable that the Section Officer of the Writ Section and the Joint-Secretary of the Supreme Court refused to register his cases. The State party argues that, if the author had genuinely lodged the case before the Supreme Court, he would have had an option to go to the Registrar and, in the case of refusal, he could have appealed the Registrar’s decision before the Supreme Court bench, according to rule 27 (3) of the Supreme Court Regulations. 4.8 The State party claims that, according to the documents submitted by the author, nothing suggests that the author went through the established judicial proceedings. The judicial process of Nepal is independent, systematic, robust and institutionalized. The State party argues that there are proper and adequate processes for the adjudication and delivery of justice and that the author did not follow any of those established procedures. The State party claims that the recourse to the Human Rights Committee – as the last resort – without having exhausted all domestic remedies, is an abuse of the remedial process available under the Optional Protocol and that the communication is therefore inadmissible. 4.9 The State party claims that the author’s allegation of refusal to register his complaints is “not based on facts or reality”. The State party reiterates that the author did not exhaust the available domestic remedies within the statutes of limitations and argues that the author seemed to have engaged in the practice of forum-shopping. Therefore, the State party claims that the communication is inadmissible according to article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol. 4.10 Regarding the merits of the communication, the State party considers that, because the author did not exhaust all the legal remedies available within the statutes of limitations, all his allegations should be rejected. 4.11 The State party notes that Nepal has a number of legal measures to protect children from torture and ill-treatment.13 It refers, inter alia, to: (a) section 4 of the Child Labour Act, 13 The State party refers to articles 22 and 39 of the Constitution of Nepal, sections 53 (3), 7 and 15 of the Children’s Act, sections 3, 4 and 19 of the Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, section 14 of the State Cases Act, and the national Penal Code. 7