CCPR/C/112/D/2018/2010 4.2 The State party also submitted that investigations were under way in relation to the other incidents that took place on 11 February 2004. For example, the corporal who was allegedly responsible for the death of Ms. R.R. and who fled after the incident, was arrested by police and was facing trial for homicide in the Kavre District Court. The State party argues that domestic remedies have not been exhausted, as the facts complained of in the present communication are still under investigation. The State party pledges its commitment to conduct appropriate and comprehensive investigations into all the cases of alleged human rights violations that took place during the 10-year-long armed conflict and has already “acted in the direction of finding appropriate transitional justice mechanisms”. 4.3 The State party indicates that, on 11 February 2004, Shree brigade No. 9 in Bhakundebesi carried out an operation in the Pokhari Chauri area of Kavre District. In the course of that operation, the security team searched a number of houses, as they had been informed that terrorists were hiding in the area. The security team reached the house of Subhadra Chaulagain, a terrorist suspect. Despite requests, she did not open the door for 15 minutes. When it was opened and the security team entered the house, another terrorist suspect jumped out of the window. While some of the security officers were climbing up the ladder, they noticed that Subhadra was trying to run away. She was then arrested. One pistol and five rounds of bullets were found on her. When questioned, she immediately admitted that she was a terrorist. Subhadra stated that many terrorists were hiding in the village and offered to indicate their homes. She was with the security team when the houses were being searched. While the search was going on, she made an attempt to run away. The subsequent action by security officers “in order to take her under control unfortunately resulted in her death”. The State party adds that officers did not torture or rape Ms. R.R. 4.4 With regard to the investigation, the State party states that the battalion commander in charge of the operation in the Pokhari Chauri area on 11 February 2004 submitted a report about the incident, which was later found to be false. A Court of Inquiry was formed under the chairmanship of the battalion’s second-in-command. Since satisfactory information could not be obtained from the Court of Inquiry either, the army headquarters formed another Court of Inquiry which, after due investigations, recommended the establishment of a court martial. The court martial, established under the then prevailing Army Act (1959), rendered its judgment, according to which: (a) the battalion commander was convicted of submitting a false report about the incident, and proved liable to reprimand; (b) the Court of Inquiry formed under the chairmanship of the battalion’s second-in-command was found to have prepared a report “without taking stock of the truth of the matter” and the second-in-command was, therefore, punished with withholding of promotion for one year; (c) lieutenant S.B. deputed as the commander of the operation was convicted of giving orders to use excessive force, which resulted in the death of Ms. R.R., and was punished with imprisonment of four months and withholding of promotion for three years; and (d) one warrant officer-II deputed in the operation was convicted of provocation by making inappropriate suggestions to his commander and imprisoned for four months. The State party adds that a case of homicide has been filed in the Kavre District Court against the alleged perpetrators, including lieutenant S.B., and that the case is currently sub judice. Author’s comments on the State party’s observations on admissibility 5.1 On 6 June 2011, the author commented on the State party’s observations on admissibility. The author submits that the State party’s assertions are unsubstantiated by any evidence. The author submits that the State party appears to rely on two main contentions to support its argument that the communication is inadmissible: (a) that a remedy has been and is being provided because the circumstances have been examined by a court martial and the perpetrators have been punished for the violation or are in the process of being tried by the civilian courts; and (b) that investigations are ongoing in accordance with domestic law and that domestic remedies have therefore not been exhausted. 8