CCPR/C/112/D/2031/2011 that he reported the detention and disappearance of his father promptly and filed a complaint with the National Human Rights Commission and a writ of habeas corpus before the Supreme Court on 31 January and 4 March 2002, respectively. In 2007, he attempted to lodge a first information report, but the police refused to register it. The Committee observes that 12 years after the alleged disappearance of the author’s father, the circumstances of his disappearance remain unclear and the State party has failed to provide convincing arguments to justify the delay in completing the investigation. Accordingly, the Committee considers that domestic remedies have been unreasonably prolonged7 and that it is not precluded from considering the communication under article 5, paragraph 2 (b), of the Optional Protocol. 7.4 As all admissibility requirements have been met, the Committee declares the communication admissible and proceeds to its examination on the merits. Consideration of the merits 8.1 The Human Rights Committee has considered the communication in the light of all the information made available to it by the parties, as provided for under article 5, paragraph 1, of the Optional Protocol. 8.2 The Committee takes note of the author’s allegations that on 31 December 2001, his father, Tej Bahadur Bhandari, was arrested by policemen and soldiers in civilian clothes and taken to the office of the Chief District Officer. During his arrest and subsequent stay in the detention facility, he was severely ill-treated, according to witnesses. Although the author reported promptly the arrest, ill-treatment and disappearance of his father, and filed several complaints and writs, no ex officio, prompt, impartial, thorough and independent investigation has been carried out by the authorities, the fate and whereabouts of his father remain unknown to date, and no one has been summoned or convicted for those acts. The Committee also takes note of the State party’s argument that the fate of the author’s father is known, that, according to a report prepared by the police upon investigation, he was taken to the forest area at the border of Simpani village by the security forces in order to locate weapons which had been hidden by Maoist groups; that he tried to break the security cordon and run away; and that the action taken by the security forces to prevent his escape resulted in his accidental death. 8.3 The Committee notes that both parties agree that the author’s father was arrested by members of the security forces, taken to the office of the Chief District Officer and kept in custody. The Committee observes, however, that in 2002, when the events occurred, the author and his mother received contradictory information concerning the detention and, despite their requests, never received an official notification about the place where the author’s father was being held, nor could they visit him or have any contact with him. Further, the Committee observes that the Chief District Officer, the Deputy Superintendent of Police and the Army informed the National Human Rights Commission and the Supreme Court that the author’s father had been killed in crossfire on 1 January 2002, rather than in the manner stated by the State party (see para. 8.2 above), and that it was unclear whether the bullet that killed him was fired by the security forces. It also notes tha,t according to testimonies gathered by the author from former detainees who saw or heard his father while he was in detention, Mr. Bhandari was beaten to death in the District Police Office. In any event, the Committee notes that his mortal remains have not been returned to the family and no information has been provided by the authorities as to the location of the remains and the efforts that may have been undertaken to return them, thus keeping the author in constant uncertainty. 7 See communication No. 1761/2008, Giri v. Nepal, Views adopted on 24 March 2011, para. 6.3. 11