CCPR/C/123/D/2658/2015 Court or to otherwise interfere in such cases. 28 The author claimed that the necessary amendments to the Act had not been introduced to implement the Court’s judgment. 29 Concerning the State party’s reference to the rules introduced for the Commissions, the author notes that they do not transform the Commissions into a judicial remedy. The author further argues that the Act will always take precedence over the rules. 5.4 The author reiterates that, even if the Truth and Reconciliation Commission did provide an effective remedy, it would be unreasonably delayed and would not form a bar to admissibility. 5.5 The author recalls that the interim relief she received is provisional and not a bar to admissibility; it does not amount to adequate reparation for violations as serious as those alleged in the present case. 5.6 Concerning the merits, the author argued that the absence of a record of the arrest and detention of her husband as set out in the State party’s report does not disapprove the allegation that Mr. Bolakhe was arrested on 27 December 2003 and subsequently detained. It is widely documented that during the conflict in Nepal, the Army and the Police regularly failed to follow safeguards for arrest and detention, including, in particular, the maintenance of custody records.30 5.7 The author adds that there is extensive witness and circumstantial evidence attesting to the fact that Mr. Bolakhe was arrested and kept under the control of the Army and the Police. The evidence was strong enough for the Commission to make a formal finding that he was arrested on 27 December 2003 and detained incommunicado at Satru Mardan Army barracks, before being transferred to the Army barracks at Panauti in February 2014. The Commission also identified the perpetrators. The author further submits that the witness evidence in the present case, including that referred to in the Commission’s decision, is entirely consistent with that of the Police and Army at the time. 5.8 With regard to the State party’s argument that, according to the autopsy, the type of bullets found with Mr Bolakhe’s remains were from a 12-bore shotgun, and that the Army did not use such a gun, the author contends that this does not disapprove that the Army or the Police were responsible for the killing. She adds that there is insurmountable evidence, corroborated by the subsequent discovery of his remains, witness evidence and findings of the Commission that he was shot by the Army or the Police during a joint operation. The author submits that, although it may be true that 12-bore shotguns were not official Armyissued weapons during the conflict, the Police, which was also part of the joint operation in which Mr. Bolakhe was killed, did use this type of weapon during the conflict. Soldiers from the Army also had easy access to such weapons, as Maoists used 12-bore shotguns. Maoist weapons were regularly seized by the Army and it is public knowledge that soldiers had access to them. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 6.1 Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Committee must decide, in accordance with rule 93 of its rules of procedure, whether the communication is admissible under the Optional Protocol. 6.2 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. 28 29 30 The author submitted an extract of the Supreme Court’s Order 070-WS-0050 of 26 February 2015. In this regard, the author cited the position of OHCHR clarifying that the Act fails to comply with the international legal obligations of Nepal and is inconsistent with the United Nations policy on amnesties. See OHCHR, “Nepal: OHCHR position on UN support to the Commission on Investigation of Disappeared Persons and the Truth and Reconciliation Commission” (16 February 2006), para. 6. The author made a reference to E/CN.4/2006/6/Add.5, para. 20. 11