CCPR/C/112/D/2111/2011 and that of her daughter. Finally, the author points out that rule 96 (c) of the Committee’s rules of procedure applies to communications submitted after January 2012. 5.3 As to the requirement of exhaustion of domestic remedies, the author holds that a habeas corpus proceeding is not limited to examining the legality of a detention, but may also obtain the freedom of the person concerned, should the detention be found to be arbitrary. In her husband’s case, the State party claimed that his detention must be proven in order for the habeas corpus to be issued. However, if that were the rationale of the remedy, its effectiveness would be rendered useless in cases of enforced disappearance. In light of all the evidence that indicated that her husband was the victim of enforced disappearance, it was for the State party’s authorities to investigate the circumstances of his detention and establish his fate and whereabouts. She reiterates that the first information report is not an effective remedy and that even in those cases where such reports may be filed, the police generally refuse to register submissions when members of the police or the Army are involved. As to the State party’s argument that victims of torture can request compensation, the author points out that the Coimpensation Relating to Torture Act is a civil act, which only provides for compensation and, potentially, disciplinary action with regard to the perpetrators of such actions. 5.4 At the time that the author submitted her comments, the establishment of the future truth and reconciliation commission and the commission on disappearance, as well as their powers to carry out prompt, independent and effective investigations and prosecutions, were uncertain. Further, they would not be judicial bodies and the draft bills included a general amnesty clause for perpetrators of serious violations of international human rights law and international humanitarian law, including enforced disappearance. Fact-finding processes by non-judicial bodies, a l though crucial for the establishment of the truth, could never replace access to justice and redress for victims of gross human rights violations and their relatives, as the criminal justice system is the more appropriate avenue for immediate investigation into and punishment of criminal acts. 5.5 The State party’s commitment to human rights, expressed in its observations, is neither supported by the evidence, nor of relevance to the case of the author’s husband. In that regard, it is emphasized that the State party has failed to implement the ruling by the Supreme Court of 1 June 2007. 5.6 The amount of Nr. 300,000 received by the author as interim relief is a negligible amount to cover the material and moral harm suffered by her and her daughter, and cannot be considered as an effective domestic remedy within the meaning of article 2, paragraph 3, of the Covenant. Furthermore, mere pecuniary compensation for human rights violations of that nature is not a sufficient remedy. Reparations in cases of gross human rights violations shall include restitution, rehabilitation, satisfaction and guarantees of non-repetition. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 6.1 Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Human Rights Committee must, in accordance with rule 93 of its rules of procedure, decide whether or not the case is admissible under the Optional Protocol to the Covenant. 6.2 The Committee has ascertained, as required under article 5, paragraph 2 (a), of the Optional Protocol, that the same matter is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 6.3 With respect to the requirement of exhaustion of domestic remedies, the Committee notes the State party’s arguments that the author has not exhausted domestic remedies, as she failed to register a first information report with the police; that she could request 9