CCPR/C/112/D/2018/2010 7. The established facts are chilling: Subhadra was grabbed by the hair, hit on the head, taken from her house, insulted, threatened with death, interrogated under torture and brutally executed, and her body was kicked and stamped on, causing her intestines to spill out onto the ground. How is it possible for the Committee not to have found a direct violation of the victim’s rights under articles 6, 7, 9, 10 and 24 of the Covenant in that case? 8. Accordingly, we believe that paragraph 12 of the communication should have been worded as follows: “The Human Rights Committee, acting under article 5, paragraph 4, of the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, is of the view that the State party violated the rights of the author’s daughter under articles 6, paragraph 1, 7, 9, 10 and 24 of the Covenant, both separately and when all are read in conjunction with article 2, paragraph 3; in addition, the State party violated the author’s rights under article 7 and under article 2, paragraph 3, of the Covenant, read in conjunction with article 7”. In addition, the reparations should have been commensurate with the grave human rights violations of which Subhadra Chaulagain and Kedar Chaulagain were the victims. 9. The Committee should review its method of examining cases and should follow the logical practice of international judicial and quasi-judicial bodies, which apply the law on the basis of the established facts, irrespective of the legal arguments made by the parties. 10. In so doing, the Committee will avert situations that oblige us to issue partly dissenting opinions such as in the present case and will be able to properly fulfil its role as a body for the protection of human rights within the framework provided by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the first Optional Protocol thereto. 19