CCPR/C/112/D/2051/2011 of Tribhuvan University,3 submitted to the NHRC after his release, supported the conclusion. The NHRC recommended that the authorities, inter alia, carry out an investigation to identify and sanction those responsible, and provide him with 50,000 rupees as compensation. However, at the time that the communication was submitted, none of the recommendations had been implemented and the compensation had not been paid. 2.14 On 18 September 2006, Jit Man Basnet submitted a contempt of court writ petition to the Supreme Court against the Commander-in-Chief of the RNA, the chief of army staff, the Brigadier General of the law division of RNA, the RNA spokespersons, the Commander of the battalion and the Major of the Bhairavnath Battalion. He claimed that they had caused contempt of court during the habeas corpus proceedings instituted by advocate Mr. B.L., as they misled the Court by denying that he had been detained in the Bhairavnath barracks and subjected to torture. Accordingly, the author requested the Court to impose on them the maximum possible punishment as provided for in section 7(1) of the Supreme Court Act, 2048 (1991). On 19 September 2006, the Joint Registrar of the Supreme Court denied the registration of the author’s petition as it was addressed against defendants not all of whom were included in the original writ of habeas corpus, and failed to identify which acts constituted contempt of court. On 22 September 2006, the author requested the Supreme Court to overturn the Joint Registrar’s decision. On 14 December 2006, the author’s request was rejected by the Supreme Court. 2.15 In parallel, on 29 October 2006, Jit Man Basnet filed a writ of mandamus to the Supreme Court, claiming that he had been illegally detained and subjected to ill-treatment and torture. He requested that the Court order the Government to establish a high-level independent judicial commission to investigate the disappearance of persons held in the Bhairavnath barracks. On 22 December 2006, Lieutenant Colonel R.J.K., on behalf of the Bhairavnath Battalion, informed the Supreme Court that the author had been arrested by the security forces on the grounds of his involvement in terrorist activities and held in detention by “virtue of the order of the competent authority under the law”. He also stated that Mr. Basnet was not subjected to torture or ill-treatment. On 2 January 2007, the Army Legal Department reiterated that information before the Supreme Court. On 3 March 2009, the Supreme Court dismissed the mandamus writ due to the absence of Mr. Basnet’s lawyer in one hearing. The authors, however, claim that the lawyer missed only 1 out of 15 hearings. 2.16 On 6 March 2010, Jit Man Basnet filed a request for compensation with the Ministry of Peace and Reconciliation in connection with his illegal arrest and detention by the RNA. At the time that the communication was submitted, he had received no compensation. 2.17 The authors claim that they have exhausted all domestic remedies. Despite their efforts, no investigation has been carried out by the State party and no one has been sanctioned for Jit Man Basnet’s arbitrary detention, enforced disappearance and torture. Moreover, the NHRC cannot be considered an effective remedy. The authors argue that they did not try to file a first information report to the police as that procedure is limited to the crimes listed in Schedule 1 of the Government Cases Act of 1992 which does not include enforced disappearance and torture. The Supreme Court ordered the Government in 2007 to criminalize enforced disappearance, but no action has been taken in that respect. As 3 According to the English translation of the medical examination report issued by the Tribhuvan University’s Institute of Medicine, Maharaj Campus, of 19 December 2004, provided by the authors, Jit Man Basnet had multiple hyperpigmented tramline contusion marks and scars on his body. The report also stated that “the injuries [were] produced by the repeated impact of elongated objects with blunt force. Age of the injury marks [was] consistent with alleged time of infliction”. 5