CCPR/C/117/D/2164/2012 of Nepal-Maoist activities, allows for a presumption that he was deprived of his liberty by agents of the State on 21 May 1999. No legal grounds were provided for his deprivation of liberty. His detention was not entered in any official record or register. He was never charged with a crime, nor was he brought before a judge or any other official authorized by law to exercise judicial power. He was unable to take proceedings before a court to challenge the lawfulness of his detention. 3.6 Mr. Nepali’s enforced disappearance and the failure by the authorities to conduct an effective investigation concerning his whereabouts and fate, have maintained him outside the protection of the law since May 1999, preventing him from enjoying his human rights and freedoms. Consequently, the State party is responsible for a continuing violation of article 16 of the Covenant. 3.7 Although the author reported promptly the arbitrary deprivation of liberty and enforced disappearance of her husband, no ex officio, prompt, impartial, thorough and independent investigation was carried out. As of today, no one has been summoned or convicted for his arbitrary deprivation of liberty, enforced disappearance and torture. Likewise, if he is no longer alive, his mortal remains have not been located, identified and returned to his loved ones. Accordingly, the State party has violated and continues to violate his rights under articles 6, 7, 9 (1-4), 10 (1) and 16, read in conjunction with article 2 (3), of the Covenant. 3.8 The author claims that the State party violated her rights under article 7, read in conjunction with article 2 (3), as she was subjected to deep anguish and distress owing to the arbitrary arrest and subsequent enforced disappearance of her husband, and to the acts and omission of the authorities in dealing with the case. As a result of her husband’s disappearance, she has had to bring her children up alone. In that regard, she claims that wives and families of disappeared persons are often stigmatized in Nepal. 3.9 The author requests the Committee to recommend the State party, inter alia, to (a) order an independent investigation as a matter of urgency concerning the fate and whereabouts of her husband and, in the event of his death, to locate, exhume, identify and respect his mortal remains and return them to the family; (b) bring the perpetrators before the competent civilian authorities for prosecution, judgment and sanction, and disseminate publicly the results of those actions; and (c) ensure that the measures of reparation cover material and moral damages, and measures of restitution, rehabilitation, satisfaction and guarantees of non-repetition. In particular, she requests that the State party acknowledge its international responsibility on the occasion of a public ceremony to be held in the presence of the authorities and of Mr. Nepali’s relatives, to whom official apologies shall be issued, and that the State party name a street or build a monument or a commemorative plate in memory of all the victims of enforced disappearance and torture during the internal armed conflict, including a specific reference to the case of Mr. Nepali whereby his reputation is fully restored. In order to reduce the psychological and mental suffering that the events described above have caused to the author and in general the material harm inflicted, the State party should also provide her without delay with medical and psychological care free of charge, through its specialized institutions, and grant her access to free legal aid where necessary. As a guarantee of non-repetition, the State party should take the necessary measures to ensure that enforced disappearance and torture, and the different forms of participation in those crimes, constitute autonomous offences under its criminal law, punishable by appropriate penalties which take into account their extreme seriousness. State party’s observations on admissibility 4.1 In a note verbale dated 22 August 2012, the State party submitted its observations on admissibility, challenging the admissibility of the communication on the grounds of failure to exhaust domestic remedies and being manifestly ill-founded. 6