CCPR/C/126/D/2560/2015 States dollars) for Amrit Kandel’s enforced disappearance. Amrit Kandel’s family received an additional 200,000 rupees on 13 November 2011. The complaint 3.1 The authors of the communication submit that Nepal violated articles 6, 7, 9, 10 and 16 of the Covenant, read alone and in conjunction with article 2 (3) of the Covenant, with regard to the arbitrary arrest, torture and enforced disappearance of Amrit Kandel, as well as for the ongoing failure of the Nepalese authorities to carry out an ex officio, prompt, effective, independent, impartial and thorough investigation into his disappearance and to judge and sanction those responsible. 3.2 The authors further claim a violation of article 7, read alone and in conjunction with article 2 (3) of the Covenant, in respect of Tikanath Kandel and Ramhari Kandel due to the mental distress and severe anguish that they both have endured over the past 11 years and that they continue to suffer as a result of Amrit Kandel’s enforced disappearance and of the absence of information establishing his fate and whereabouts from the authorities. They submit that such suffering amounts to inhumane treatment by the State party. 3.3 The authors claim that they have exhausted the available domestic remedies as the only legal avenue under Nepalese law regarding enforced disappearances is the habeas corpus procedure. They also argue that no effective remedies exist to enable criminal prosecution, as torture and enforced disappearance have not been made criminal offences in Nepalese legislation. They further submit that the transitional justice mechanisms that currently exist cannot be considered as effective remedies since they had not been established at the time of the facts. 3.4 The authors also argue that their submission should not be considered as an abuse of submission. After obtaining a favourable judgment from the Supreme Court, the authors expected it to be enforced by the authorities. They also remained active and continued to attempt to obtain information on the fate and whereabouts of Amrit Kandel. They explain that they only brought the communication to the Committee when they realized that there were no prospects of obtaining any remedies or information through domestic procedures. 3.5 The authors have requested measures of reparation, including compensation, restitution, rehabilitation, satisfaction and guarantees of non-repetition. 3.6 As a form of restitution, in the event of Amrit Kandel’s death, the State party should take all the necessary measures to locate his mortal remains and deliver them to his family. In order to repair the harm caused to the authors and to avoid the repetition of facts similar to those of this case, the State party should acknowledge its international responsibility on the occasion of a public ceremony. The State party should also pay tribute to Amrit Kandel in order to restore his dignity and provide the authors, as a form of rehabilitation, with medical and psychological care and grant them access to free legal aid so that they can be provided with remedies. As a guarantee of non-repetition, the State party should take the necessary measures to ensure that enforced disappearance and torture constitute autonomous offences in its criminal law, punishable by appropriate penalties, and establish appropriate educational programmes for law enforcement officers. As a form of satisfaction, the State party should translate the Views of the Committee into Nepalese and publish them accordingly. State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 4.1 On 4 September 2015, the State party submitted that the authors’ communication is inadmissible due to the non-exhaustion of available domestic remedies or, alternatively, because it is without merit. 4.2 The State party first recalls the main facts described in the communication. On 10 October 2003, Amrit Kandel was arrested by personnel of the then Royal Nepalese Army and detained in Bhairabanath Battalion barracks at Maharajgunj. Ramhari Kandel, the elder brother of Amrit Kandel, was also arrested and brought to the same barracks. Ramhari Kandel found that Amrit Kandel had been blindfolded and tortured. On 30 November 2004, Tikanath Kandel filed a writ of habeas corpus to the Supreme Court of Nepal in order to 4