CCPR/C/122/D/2364/2014 8.4 The Committee recalls its jurisprudence that, in cases of serious human rights violations such as torture or enforced disappearance, a judicial remedy is required. 24 In that connection, the Committee observes that the transitional justice bodies established by the Act on Commission on Investigation of Disappeared Persons, Truth and Reconciliation, 2071 (2014) are not judicial organs capable of affording a judicial remedy. 25 With regard to the remedy under the Compensation Relating to Torture Act 1996, the Committee observes that, according to article 5 (1) of the Act, claims for compensation must be submitted within 35 days from the event of torture or after a detainee’s release. The Committee therefore considers that, because of the 35-day statutory limit from the event of torture or the date of release for bringing claims under the Compensation relating to Torture Act, which is in itself flagrantly inconsistent with the gravity of the crime, this remedy was not available to the authors. The Committee also notes that the authors have made several attempts to report the violations they suffered and that they reported their case to the Supreme Court on two occasions. Accordingly, the Committee considers that the authors have exhausted all available domestic remedies and that there are no obstacles to the examination of the communication under article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol. 8.5 The Committee notes the State party’s observations that the authors’ allegations have not been substantiated. The Committee considers, however, that for the purposes of admissibility, the authors have sufficiently substantiated their allegations with plausible arguments in support thereof. As all admissibility requirements have been met, the Committee declares the communication admissible and proceeds to its examination on the merits. Consideration of merits 9.1 The Committee has considered the present communication in the light of all the information made available to it by the parties, as required under article 5 (1) of the Optional Protocol. 9.2 The Committee notes the authors’ allegations that Ms. Sharma was subjected to an enforced disappearance from 20 October 2003 to 25 August 2004, and from that date until the date of her release (30 June 2005) she was subjected to arbitrary detention, torture and ill-treatment. Her release followed an order of the Supreme Court of Nepal, which affirmed that her detention had been illegal, and the National Human Rights Commission and the Kathmandu District Administrative Office also affirmed that Ms. Sharma had been subjected to enforced disappearance. 9.3. The Committee notes the State party’s argument that the authors’ allegations have not been substantiated and that Ms. Sharma was arrested under the provision of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention and Punishment) Act, 2002. 9.4 The Committee notes that it has dealt with numerous cases in respect of similar practices in a number of earlier communications concerning the same State party. 26 In line with those precedents, the Committee reaffirms its position that the burden of proof cannot rest solely on the authors of the communication, especially considering that the authors and the State party do not always have equal access to evidence, and that frequently the State party alone has access to the relevant information. 27 It is implicit in article 4 (2) of the 24 25 26 27 12 See Giri v. Nepal, para. 6.3; and Neupane and Neupane v. Nepal (CCPR/C/120/D/2170/2012), para. 9.3. See Neupane and Neupane v. Nepal, para. 9.3; Tharu and others v. Nepal (CCPR/C/114/D/2038/2011), para. 9.3; Basnet v. Nepal (CCPR/C/117/D/2164/2012), para. 9.3; Nakarmi v. Nepal (CCPR/C/119/D/2184/2012), para. 10.3; and Dhakal and others v. Nepal (CCPR/C/119/D/2185/2012), para. 10.3. See Himal and Devi Sharma v. Nepal (CCPR/C/WG/122/DR/2364/2014); Neupane and Neupane v. Nepal ; Maya v. Nepal (CCPR/C/119/D/2245/2013); Basnet v. Nepal; A.S. v. Nepal (CCPR/C/115/D/2077/2011); Tharu and others v. Nepal; Sharma v. Nepal; Sedhai v. Nepal; Maharjan v Nepal (CCPR/C/105/D/1863/2009); Giri v. Nepal; Tripathi v. Nepal; and Katwal v. Nepal. See El Hassy v. Libyan Arab Jamahiriya (CCPR/C/91/D/1422/2005), para. 6.7; Medjnoune v. Algeria (CCPR/C/87/D/1297/2004), para. 8.3; Il Khwildy v. Libya (CCPR/C/106/D/1804/2008), para. 7.2; Basnet