CCPR/C/119/D/2245/2013 been established and is not available to her because the Supreme Court issued an injunction against its implementation on 1 April 2013. In addition, this remedy is neither adequate nor effective as it a non-judicial remedy without binding effect, 16 its procedure is deeply flawed, it allows amnesties for serious human rights violations, it promotes reconciliation without the victims’ consent, and it does not recognize the right to reparation. State party’s observations on the merits 6. On 27 November 2013, the State party noted that the Royal Nepalese Army had no record of the author’s detention, that the accused lieutenant was not posted at the time and place mentioned in the communication, and that the facial and body description mentioned in the communication do not match the one stationed at the time. Author’s comments on the State party’s observations on the merits 7. In her comments of 3 February 2014, the author notes that the State party denies her allegations in general terms, without any explanation as to what investigations carried out, which individuals questioned or which evidence of any records has been relied on. In contrast, she has submitted detailed witness statements, medical records and legal documents supporting her allegations. Her evidence and allegations are also consistent with the patterns of violations committed in Nepal during the conflict. Therefore, the Committee should give weight to her allegations in the absence of evidence to the contrary. In any event, the absence of a record of detention is meaningless since during the conflict, the Army reportedly routinely did not comply with legislative requirements for arrest and detention. 17 Given that she was held in an informal place of detention (army barracks, where serious human rights violations were committed against her), it is not surprising that no record was kept of her detention. As to the State party’s denial that the lieutenant was stationed in the area at the time of the events, the author notes that no evidence has been provided to substantiate this statement either. She has provided substantial and sworn evidence on her arrest and torture to both the police and the Committee. The information about which soldiers were stationed in the area at the time and which individuals were responsible for giving orders in those operations lies squarely within the State party’s knowledge.18 Additional information from the parties 8. On 4 July 2014, the author informed the Committee that the Parliament had passed the Act on the Commission on Investigation of Disappeared Persons, Truth and Reconciliation 2071 (2014) (the TRC Act) on 25 April 2014. The Act applies to cases of serious conflict-related human rights violations. Yet, according to two analyses of the Act conducted by OHCHR 19 and by a non-governmental organization group comprised of Advocacy Forum, REDRESS and TRIAL, 20 the Act is incompatible with the Covenant because, inter alia, it: (a) provides for amnesties for gross human rights violations; (b) gives discretion to authorities as to whether to undertake a criminal investigation into violations; (c) does not recognize victims’ right to reparation; (d) does not provide sufficient guarantees of independence and impartiality for the Commission. Although the crime of rape is excluded from the amnesty provision, reconciliation between victims and perpetrators for the crime of rape may be carried out without the victim’s consent and prosecution will then be barred. The other violations alleged by the author, including arbitrary detention and torture, are subject to amnesties. 16 17 18 19 20 8 See OHCHR Comments on the Nepal Commission on Investigation of Disappeared Persons, Truth and Reconciliation Ordinance — 2069 (2013) of 3 April 2013; and communication No. 2018/2010, Chaulagain v. Nepal, Views adopted on 28 October 2014, para. 6.3. See OHCHR, Nepal Conflict Report (2012), p.155. See communication No. 11/1977, Motta v. Uruguay, Views adopted on 29 July 1990, para. 14. 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. See Advocacy Forum — Nepal, TRIAL (Track Impunity Always) and REDRESS, “Paying lip service to justice: the newly adopted TRC Act breaches international law and flouts the decision of the Supreme Court of Nepal” (June 2014).