CCPR/C/125/D/2556/2015 referred to the 35-day statute of limitations as strict 15 and flagrantly inconsistent with the gravity of the crime of torture. 16 The complaint 3.1 The author claims that the State party has violated articles 7, 8 (3) (a) and 10 (1) of the Covenant, read alone and in conjunction with articles 2 (1)–(3), 3, 24 (1) and 26 of the Covenant, given the rape, sexual abuse, torture, ill-treatment, inhumane conditions of detention and forced labour that she was subjected to and the subsequent failure by the State party to provide an effective remedy and to carry out an ex officio, prompt, effective, independent, impartial and thorough investigation into her allegations, and to prosecute and sanction those responsible. The author submits that the violations are aggravated by the fact that, at the time of the events, she was a young indigenous girl and, as such, she was entitled to special protection from the State party. The author adds that the rape and sexual abuse that she endured were committed as part of a systematic practice existing during the conflict in Nepal. Moreover, she claims that Nepal has failed to adopt effective legislative measures to give effect to the rights enshrined in the Covenant and has failed to remove obstacles in the existing legal framework that have disproportionately prejudicial effects on women. According to Nepalese law, no complaint can be entertained regarding rape unless filed within 35 days after the commission or occurrence thereof.17 Filing a complaint would have been materially impossible for her as she was being held in arbitrary detention at the time. The author further claims that she was a victim of discrimination based on her gender and ethnicity because of the attitude shown by domestic authorities.18 3.2 The author further claims to be a victim of a violation of article 9 (1–3) of the Covenant, read alone and in conjunction with articles 2 (3) and 24 (1) of the Covenant, because she was subjected to arbitrary arrest and detention and because she was not informed, at the time of arrest, of the reasons for her arrest, or promptly informed of the charges against her. Nepalese authorities did not conduct any effective investigation into these claims of violations, and they did not identify, prosecute and sanction those responsible, or provide her with special protection due to her as a child. 3.3 The author finally alleges a violation of articles 17 and 23 (1), read alone and in conjunction with articles 2 (1) and (3), 24 (1) and 26 of the Covenant, due to the arbitrary interference with her privacy and her sexual life as a woman, 19 the disruption of her family life, and the unlawful attacks on her honour and reputation. Moreover, Nepalese authorities failed to adopt measures of protection for the author’s family, leaving the author to endure stigmatization and marginalization. The author claims she was a victim of triple discrimination: as a child, as a woman and as an indigenous person. 3.4 With respect to reparation, the author requests that the Committee call on the State party to adopt the following specific measures: (a) undertake prompt and effective investigations of the crimes alleged by the author and bring the perpetrators to justice; (b) provide an official apology to the author on the occasion of a private ceremony, acknowledging the State’s international responsibility; (c) provide prompt, fair and adequate compensation to the author for the material and moral damage caused; and (d) provide free-of-charge medical and psychological care for the author. The author also requests that the Committee call upon the State party to implement the following general measures: (a) criminalize torture; (b) adapt the definition of rape and other forms of sexual violence in accordance with international standards and codify rape as a crime against humanity; (c) amend the 35-day statute of limitations for the crime of rape and bring it into line with international human rights law; (d) amend Nepalese law to make it mandatory to 15 16 17 18 19 The author refers to Giri v. Nepal (CCPR/C/101/D/1761/2008 and Corr.1), para. 6.3. The author refers to Maharjan et al v. Nepal (CCPR/C/105/D/1863/2009), para. 7.6. She also refers to CCPR/C/NPL/CO/2 and to several of the Committee’s general comments (No. 17, No. 18, No. 20, No. 28, No. 31 and No. 35). The author refers to the criminal code (Muluki Ain), chapter on rape, section 11. The author refers to L.N.P v. Argentina (CCPR/C/102/D/1610/2007), para. 13.3. The author refers to the Committee’s general comment No. 28 (2000) on the equality of rights between men and women, paras. 11 and 20. 5