CCPR/C/112/D/2111/2011 compensation under the Compensation Relating to Torture Act; and that her husband’s case will be addressed within the transitional justice mechanisms, which should be established in conformity with the Interim Constitution of 2007 and the Comprehensive Peace Agreement of 2006. The Committee also notes the author’s allegations that a first information report is not an appropriate remedy, as it is limited to the crimes listed in schedule 1 of the State Cases Act of 1992, which does not include enforced disappearance and torture; and that the Compensation Relating to Torture Act does not provide for criminal accountability, but only for compensation of a maximum of Nr. 100,000. The Committee observes that the author’s writ of habeas corpus was quashed by the Supreme Court on 26 January 2004. Despite the recommendations of the National Human Rights Commission of 4 July 2006 and the ruling by the Supreme Court of 1 June 2007, the circumstances of the alleged disappearance of the author’s husband remain unclear and no investigation has yet been concluded. The Committee further recalls its jurisprudence that in cases of serious violations a judicial remedy is required.8 In that respect, the Committee observes that the transitional justice bodies to be established are not judicial organs. Accordingly, the Committee considers that the investigation has been unreasonably prolonged and that there are no obstacles to the examination of the communication under article 5, paragraph 2 (b), of the Optional Protocol. 6.4 The Committee notes that the State party refers to rule 96 (c) of the Committee’s rules of procedure, without providing observations in that regard. The Committee observes that the present communication was submitted to it on 28 September 2011 and that its new rule 96 (c) is applicable to communications received by the Committee after 1 January 2012.9 The Committee further observes that the Optional Protocol does not establish time limits within which a communication should be submitted, and that the period of time elapsing before such a submission, other than in exceptional circumstances, does not in itself constitute an abuse of the right of submission of a communication.10 It is clear that, in determining what constitutes excessive delay, each case must be decided on its own facts. In the meantime, the Committee applies its jurisprudence which allows for finding an abuse, where an exceptionally long period of time has elapsed before the presentation of the communication, without sufficient justification.11 The Committee observes that no domestic legal action was taken by the author after the ruling by the Supreme Court of 26 January 2004; however she continued to make efforts to clarify her husband’s whereabouts after that date, approaching different authorities. Moreover, on 1 July 2007, the Constitutional Court issued a ruling concerning the arbitrary detention and enforced disappearance of several detainees, including the author’s husband. Therefore, in the circumstances of the instant case, the Committee considers that the delay does not constitute an abuse of the right of submission under article 3 of the Optional Protocol. 8 9 10 11 10 See communication No. 1761/2008, Giri v. Nepal, Views adopted on 24 March 2011, para. 6.3. According to new rule of procedure 96 (c), the Committee shall ascertain that the communication does not constitute an abuse of the right of submission. An abuse of the right of submission is not, in principle, a basis of a decision of inadmissibility ratione temporis on grounds of delay in submission. However, a communication may constitute an abuse of the right of submission when it is submitted five years from the exhaustion of domestic remedies by the author of the communication, or, where applicable, three years from the conclusion of another procedure of international investigation or settlement, unless there are reasons justifying the delay, taking into account all the circumstances of the communication. See, for example, communications No. 1223/2003, Tsarjov v. Estonia, Views adopted on 26 October 2007, para. 6.3; No. 1434/2005, Fillacier v. France, decision of inadmissibility adopted on 27 March 2006, para. 4.3; and No. 787/1997, Gobin v. Mauritius, decision of inadmissibility adopted on 16 July 2001, para. 6.3. Ibid.