CCPR/C/117/D/2164/2012 4.2 The State party maintains that the author’s allegations concerning the circumstances in which the alleged arrest and detention of her husband took place are not supported by any direct and circumstantial evidence. In that regard, the Supreme Court quashed the two writs of habeas corpus lodged in favour of the author’s husband, because the applicants were unable to show that he was in fact detained by the police. The fact that the fate and whereabouts of Mr. Nepali have not been established cannot prove the allegations of his arrest, detention and subsequent disappearance at the hands of the police or any other authority. 4.3 The State party has serious concerns as to the existence of human rights violations committed during the armed conflict. To address that situation, it has decided to establish a commission to investigate cases of disappearances and a truth and reconciliation commission, in compliance with the Interim Constitution of Nepal of 2007. To that end, bills on a truth and reconciliation commission and a commission on enforced disappearances have been submitted to the parliament. By the time the State party submitted its observations, the bills were pending approval. The two commissions to be formed after endorsement of the bills will investigate cases which occurred during the conflict and bring to the surface the truth about those cases. The State party holds that, against that background and in the light of its sincere efforts to establish those transitional justice mechanisms, it could not be concluded that domestic remedies have been unreasonably prolonged. Accordingly, the author has not exhausted domestic remedies. Author’s comments on the State party’s observations on admissibility 5.1 On 19 October 2012, the author submitted her comments on the State party’s observations. She argues that the State party’s observations in fact focus on the merits of the communication rather than on the admissibility. In that regard, she points out the existence of direct evidence of her husband’s arrest, detention and subsequent enforced disappearance, as described in her initial communication: inter alia, she herself witnessed his arrest, on 4 June 1999 she received an anonymous call that informed her of the location of her husband, on 10 June 1999, a policeman on duty at police headquarters handed her Mr. Nepali’s dirty clothes in exchange for the clean ones she had brought; on the same day she, together with her friend, K.B., saw him within the police facilities from a distance; and a newspaper later reported that he had been transferred to the premises of the Riot Control Police in Pokhara. 5.2 In cases of enforced disappearance, where the clarification of the facts depends on information exclusively on the hands of the authorities, the State party is under the obligation to investigate allegations ex officio in good faith, even in the absence of direct evidence. The habeas corpus writ concerning her husband’s case was quashed by the Supreme Court on merely procedural grounds because she was unable to provide proof of Mr. Nepali’s detention. The State party maintained that his detention must be proven in order for the habeas corpus writ to be issued. However, if that were the rationale of the remedy, its effectiveness would be rendered useless in cases of enforced disappearance. In the present case, neither the Supreme Court nor any other authority carried out an effective investigation into the circumstances of her husband’s arrest and subsequent disappearance. 5.3 At the time that the author submitted her comments, the establishment of the future truth and reconciliation commission and the commission on enforced disappearances, 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 disappearances. Fact-finding processes by non-judicial bodies, although crucial for establishing the truth, can never replace access to justice and redress for victims of gross human rights violations 7