CCPR/C/115/D/2077/2011 Committee’s jurisprudence,14 the author concludes that his communication cannot be deemed inadmissible on the basis of the mere existence of a mechanism incapable of undertaking or referring complaints for prosecution and which may not order the payment of adequate compensation. 6.7. With respect to the alleged inefficiency of the judicial system, which the author claims and the State party disputes, the author first points out that the State party does not provide information to back up its claim that the judicial system is independent and efficient. The author further refers to findings of the Committee against Torture and of the International Commission of Jurists, which indicated that the independence of the judiciary in Nepal is weak and ineffective, making it almost impossible for a complaint for alleged human rights violations to be successful.15 6.8 Regarding the adequacy of domestic law in relation to the Convention against Torture, the author quotes the Committee against Torture, which noted that the current legislation was not in line with the definition of article 1 of the Convention and recommended that the State party adopt new legislation and amend existing laws.16 The author further cites the Special Rapporteur on torture, who has deemed disciplinary actions “grossly inadequate” as the sole sanction against perpetrators of acts of torture (E/CN.4/2006/6/Add.5, p. 3). Such actions are, however, the only remedy available to victims of torture in Nepal, together with minor pecuniary compensation. The author submits that the State party’s arguments that the Nepalese legislation is in line with international standards is untenable. 6.9 Replying to the argument made by the State party that Mr. S. is moving freely and able to enjoy his freedom without threats or harassment, the author recalls the numerous times he was threatened by the police.17 He further argues that the fact that the Committee had requested the State party to adopt measures necessary to protect the life, safety and personal integrity of the author is evidence that the Committee deemed the situation serious and the author at risk of irreparable damage. The author points out that the State party, to his knowledge, has failed to implement the protection measures. Merits 6.10 Replying to the State party’s submission on the merits, dated 9 May 2012, the author remarks that the State party does not contest Mr. S.’s arbitrary arrest on 18 July 2007, his subsequent torture and ill-treatment, the inhuman conditions of detention and the impact they had on his family life, which are the core of the author’s allegations of a violation of his rights under articles 7, 9 (1), (2) and (5), 10 (1) and 17, and 2 (3), read in conjunction with the other articles. In the author’s view, the events of 9 February 2011, which are mentioned in the State party’s comments, are further proof of the continuous threats and 14 15 16 17 12 The author refers to Sharma v. Nepal, para. 5.6, as well as to Giri v. Nepal, para. 6.3, where the Committee states that national human rights institutions such as the National Human Rights Commission in Nepal are not considered a judicial remedy within the meaning of article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol. The author refers to CAT/C/NPL/CO/2, para. 16, and International Commission of Jurists, “Nepal: the rule of law abandoned” (March 2005), p. 9. The author refers to CAT/C/NPL/CO/2, para. 12. The author refers to his release on 19 July 2007, when he was told to “forget the incident” and that he would “get only suffering, not justice”; to 9 February 2011, when police officers came to the tea shop and asked for money; to continuous telephone threats in May and June 2011, including one that he reported to the police on 12 July 2011; and to the fact that the reporting of the telephone threats led to his and his wife’s detention and ill-treatment on 14 July 2011.