CCPR/C/117/D/2164/2012 Further submissions from the parties 8.1 On 10 January 2014, the author informed the Committee that on 2 January 2014, the Supreme Court of Nepal had declared unconstitutional the executive ordinance of 14 March 2013 establishing the commissions on investigation into disappeared persons and on truth and reconciliation. The Supreme Court ordered the Nepalese authorities to establish new commissions without delay. 8.2 In notes verbales dated 11 August and 11 December 2014, the State party informed the Committee that the Truth and Reconciliation Commission Act had been enacted by the parliament in April 2014 and that a commission on enforced disappearances and a truth and reconciliation commission would soon be established. It also provided a brief description of the main provisions of the Act and held that it was a landmark instrument to address the issue of past human rights violations committed by both the State party and non-State actors. It also submitted that the bills to criminalize torture and enforced disappearance had been drafted and were in the process of resubmission to the parliament. The criminal justice system could not provide full remedy to the victims of the armed conflict without the transitional justice mechanisms. In that respect, the author’s claims would be addressed fully after the establishment of the said mechanisms. It also reiterated that the author had been awarded Nr 275,000 as interim relief. 8.3 On 2 September 2014 and 12 January 2015, the author reiterated her allegations concerning transitional justice mechanisms and argued that several provisions of the Act were incompatible with international human rights standards10 and would not offer her an effective remedy. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 9.1 Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Committee must decide, in accordance with rule 93 of its rules of procedure, whether the case is admissible under the Optional Protocol. 9.2 The Committee has ascertained, as required under article 5 (2) (a) of the Optional Protocol, that the same matter is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 9.3 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, and that her husband’s case will be addressed within the transitional justice mechanisms established in conformity with the Interim Constitution of 2007. The Committee also notes the author’s allegations that a first information report is not an appropriate remedy, as it is limited to the crimes listed in schedule 1 of the State Cases Act of 1992, which do not include enforced disappearance and torture; that the Compensation Relating to Torture Act does not provide for criminal accountability, but only for compensation of a maximum of Nr 100,000; and that transitional justice mechanisms do not replace access to justice and cannot be considered an effective remedy to be exhausted. The Committee observes that the author’s writ of habeas corpus was quashed by the Supreme Court on 5 July 2000. Although she promptly reported her husband’s disappearance to the authorities, more than 17 years later the circumstances of his alleged disappearance remain unclear and no investigation has yet been concluded. The Committee further recalls its jurisprudence that in cases of serious violations, a judicial 10 See OHCHR technical note, “The Nepal Act on the Commission on Investigation of Disappeared Persons, Truth and Reconciliation, 2071 (2014) — as gazetted 21 May 2014”. 9