CCPR/C/122/D/2364/2014 received any other form of reparation, but rather indicated that they would be entitled to reparation as per the recommendation of the transitional justice mechanism. 5.5 With regard to the fact that Ms. Sharma did not file a timely petition under the Compensation Relating to Torture Act, the authors argue that the 35-day statutory limitation is not in line with international standards. In that connection, they recall that the Committee already found in a previous case that the 35-day statute of limitation was excessively strict19 and could not be considered an effective remedy to be exhausted. In addition, filing a complaint within 35 days from the infliction of torture would have been impossible, since Ms. Sharma was being held incommunicado. 5.6 With regard to the transitional justice mechanism to be set up in the future, the authors contend that they cannot be requested to exhaust a remedy that does not exist in reality and that it would be impossible to assess if and when it will eventually be set up. Furthermore, the Committee held in the past that it is not necessary to exhaust avenues before non-judicial bodies.20 In addition, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission Act, approved on 11 May 2014, breaches international law under several counts: (a) the Commission has excessive power to conduct mediation in cases of gross human rights violations and the prohibition of any legal action in those cases; (b) the Commission has discretionary power to recommend amnesties; (c) offences that are recognized as crimes under international law are not criminalized in the State party; (iv) victims’ right to reparations is not recognized in the State party. Thus, it cannot be considered an effective remedy. 5.7 The authors also contend that the prosecution of those responsible for gross human rights violations should not be conditioned upon the previous creation of a transitional justice mechanism, particularly where the identity of the perpetrators is known and has been reported to the Nepalese authorities. 21 State party’s observations on the merits 6.1 On 12 September 2014, the State party submitted its observations on the merits. It argues that Ms. Sharma was arrested under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention and Punishment) Act, 2002, at the time when the country was in a state of emergency. 6.2 The State party reiterates that the authors have not been able to provide evidence of the allegations of torture. It also reiterates that it is committed to establishing a transitional justice mechanism, and submits that the Government of Nepal has constituted a Ministry of Peace and Reconciliation, which has framed various guidelines, procedures and manuals to deliver reparation to victims. Interim relief was provided in an initial package to conflict victims, who have a right to receive adequate compensation and reparation after the investigation of their cases, as per the recommendations of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. A Recommendation Committee headed by the former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court has been constituted, which will recommend individuals to be appointed as members of the Commission on Investigation of Enforced Disappearance and the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. 6.3 The State party finally argues that the authors have failed to exhaust domestic remedies and that the matters at hand can be addressed through the transitional justice mechanism. Authors’ comments on the State party’s observations on the merits 7.1 On 4 December 2014, the authors submitted their comments on the State party’s observations on the merits. Regarding the non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, they reiterated their arguments presented on 6 June 2014. 7.2 The authors note that the State party does not challenge the allegations concerning the violations of articles 7, 9, 10 and 16 in connection with article 2 (3) with regard to Ms. 19 20 21 10 The authors refer to Giri v. Nepal (CCPR/C/101/D/1761/2008 and Corr.1). The authors refer to Katwal v. Nepal (CCPR/C/113/D/2000/2010. The authors refer to CCPR/C/NPL/2, para. 5(a) (b).