CCPR/C/122/D/2364/2014 Sharma, and of articles 7, 17, 23 and 24 — alone and in conjunction with article 2 (3) — with regard to Basanta Sharma Paudel. Therefore, the authors understand that the State party does not contend the facts as reported by the authors in their allegations. With regard to the alleged violations of articles 7, 17 and 23, read alone and in conjunction with article 2 (3) of the Covenant, which were invoked with regard to Bijaya Sharma Paudel, the State party affirmed that “it would like to challenge the allegations” but did not provide any concrete argument in that regard. 7.3 The authors note that the State party’s responses to the allegations of arbitrary arrest, detention and enforced disappearance and of torture of Ms. Sharma are almost identical to the ones provided on 23 May 2014. Therefore, they refer the Committee to the arguments included in their reply of 4 June 2014. The authors clarified, however, that besides the 161,000 rupees and the 25,000 rupees received as interim relief, Ms. Sharma also obtained 60,000 rupees as interim relief from the District Administration Office of Parbat. They reiterate, however, that interim relief does not constitute an adequate remedy commensurate to the serious violations inflicted.22 They argue that, since the State party’s reply with regard to the transitional justice mechanism is essentially the same in content as the previous response of 23 May 2014, they also refer to their reply of 4 June 2014. The authors further refer to the recent findings of the Committee with regard to the prospective transitional justice mechanisms, which are not judicial organs, and as such cannot be considered as effective remedies.23 In the absence of any satisfactory evidence from the State party to contend their credible and detailed allegations, the authors submit that the Committee should consider their submissions as fully substantiated. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 8.1 Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Committee must decide, in accordance with rule 93 of its rules of procedure, whether the claim is admissible under the Optional Protocol. 8.2 The Committee has ascertained, as required under article 5 (2) (a) of the Optional Protocol, that the same matter is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 8.3 With respect to the requirement of exhaustion of domestic remedies, the Committee notes the State party’s arguments that the authors have not exhausted domestic remedies, as they have failed to register a complaint under the 1996 Compensation Relating to Torture Act mechanism; and that the case should be addressed within the transitional justice mechanism, established in conformity with the Interim Constitution of 2007 and the Act on the Commission on Investigation of Enforced Disappearance, Truth and Reconciliation, 2071 (2014). The Committee also notes the authors’ allegations that the Compensation Relating to Torture Act does not provide for criminal accountability; that the statutory limitation prevented Ms. Sharma from using this mechanism while she was held incommunicado and, once she was released, she did not submit a complaint owing to the serious threats she had received; that the 35-day statutory limitation is not consistent with the gravity of the offence and is not in line with international standards; and that transitional justice mechanisms do not replace access to justice and cannot be considered as an effective remedy to be exhausted. The Committee observes that, on 29 October 2003, Mr. Paudel submitted an application to the National Human Rights Commission denouncing his wife disappearance and, on 30 October 2003, he filed a writ of habeas corpus before the Supreme Court that did not shed light on the whereabouts of Ms. Sharma. On 11 June 2013, Ms. Sharma attempted to file a complaint with the Kathmandu Metropolitan Police Range, but the latter refused to register it. 22 23 The authors refer to Bhandari v. Nepal (CCPR/C/112/D/2031/2011); Tripathi v. Nepal (CCPR/C/112/D/2111/2011); and Basnet and Basnet v Nepal (CCPR/C/112/D/2051/2011). The authors refer to Tripathi v. Nepal. 11