CCPR/C/112/D/2031/2011 6.3 By the time the author submitted his comments, the hearings regarding the registration of the first information report, within the writ to mandamus lodged before the Supreme Court on 12 May 2008, had been postponed six times. The last scheduled hearing was supposed to take place on 23 August 2011. However, the authorities simply placed a notice saying that it was postponed, without providing any reason. 6.4 The State party’s assertion that an examination of his father’s remains was conducted contradicts what is stated in the letter submitted on 6 March 2002 by a section officer of the Army to the Supreme Court. If the examination took place afterwards, no evidence or documentation has been provided to the author. 6.5 As to the length of the writ of mandamus proceedings before the Supreme Court, the author claims that he was forced to lodge this writ in May 2008, as the authorities refused to register his first information report. Likewise, local victims’ organizations have tried to register hundreds of cases of enforced disappearance, but the police and the Chief District Officer have continuously rejected their first information reports. The author reiterates that there is no effective remedy to exhaust and that domestic remedies have been unduly prolonged. 6.6 In May 2009, the Supreme Court issued a judgment, ordering the Government to criminalize torture, but it is yet to be implemented, much like its judgment of June 2007 concerning the need to criminalize enforced disappearances. Moreover, those decisions have not been followed by reforms to the lower judiciary, which continues to perform poorly when handling mandamus petitions and other aspects of cases alleging serious human rights violations, such as torture and enforced disappearance. 6.7 At the time the author submitted his comments, the establishment of the future truth and reconciliation commission and the commission on disappearance, as well as their powers to carry out prompt, independent and effective investigations and prosecutions, were uncertain. Further, fact-finding processes by non-judicial bodies, although crucial for the establishment of the truth, could never replace access to justice and redress for victims of gross human rights violations and their relatives, the criminal justice system being the more appropriate avenue for immediate criminal investigation and punishment. 6.8 The amount of Nr. 100,000 that the State party granted to the author as interim relief is a negligible amount and clearly not enough to cover the material and moral harm suffered by him and his father. Furthermore, mere pecuniary compensation for a human rights violation of this nature is not a sufficient remedy. Reparations in case of gross human rights violations must include restitution, rehabilitation, satisfaction and guarantees of nonrepetition. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 7.1 Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Human Rights Committee must, in accordance with rule 93 of its rules of procedure, decide whether or not the case is admissible under the Optional Protocol to the Covenant. 7.2 The Committee has ascertained, as required under article 5, paragraph 2 (a), of the Optional Protocol, that the same matter is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 7.3 With respect to the requirement of exhaustion of domestic remedies, the Committee notes the State party’s argument that the Supreme Court has dealt with the writ of mandamus submitted by the author on 12 May 2008, as prescribed by its regulations, and that this proceeding is still ongoing. The Committee takes notes of the author’s allegations 10