CCPR/C/125/D/2556/2015
refused to register the author’s first information report, as it allegedly did not comply with
the 35-day statute of limitations for reporting the crime of rape established pursuant to
section 11 of the Nepalese criminal code. The lawyer also tried to file a claim for
compensation before the Kailali District Court, pursuant to the torture compensation act of
1996, but the Court refused to register the claim.
2.13 The author notes that section 3 (5) of the Government Cases Act (1992) allows
complainants to lodge their first information report with the Chief District Officer or the
police office superior to the police office that initially refused to file the report. Accordingly,
on 29 March 2014, the author requested the Assistant Chief District Officer in Dhangadhi,
the District Headquarters of Kailali, to register a first information report, but he refused to
do so alleging that it was not possible for conflict-related cases to be registered and that the
author should wait for the establishment of transitional justice mechanisms.
2.14 On 11 April 2014, the author filed a writ of mandamus before the Supreme Court of
Nepal, which was registered on the same date, requesting the non-application of the 35-day
statute of limitations. However, the author notes that the Supreme Court has never admitted
requests concerning the non-application of the 35-day statute of limitation in individual
cases, so the chances that her petition will succeed are null. The author notes that the only
exception was made regarding a specific case not related to the conflict, in which the
Supreme Court highlighted the need to remove provisions on prescription, noting that they
were a barrier to effective remedy and reparations for victims and directed the Government
to amend the relevant legislation to remove the 35-day statutory limitation on rape.
However, this has remained unimplemented since 2008.10
2.15 On 17 April 2014, the Supreme Court issued a show cause order, asking the
Ministry of Home Affairs, Nepal Police Headquarters in Naxal, the District Police Office in
Kailali and the District Administration Office in Kailali to provide a reply within 15 days
(by 2 May 2014). None of the respondents respected the deadline and the Supreme Court
fixed a second deadline for 2 June 2014.
2.16 Nepal Police Headquarters and the Ministry of Home Affairs submitted rejoinders
on 5 and 19 May 2014, respectively, challenging the admissibility of the claims on the basis
of the 35-day statute of limitations, which precludes any investigations. 11 In June 2014, the
District Police Office in Kailali and the District Administration Office in Kailali submitted
similar replies. The case is still pending, while the author’s overall health situation is
critical and requires prompt intervention.
2.17 The author claims that she tried, unsuccessfully, to have a first information report
registered and to submit a complaint for compensation pursuant to the torture compensation
act of 1996. She contends that she had no effective remedies available and cites the
Committee’s jurisprudence, according to which the exhaustion of local remedies can only
be required insofar as such remedies appear to be effective in the given case and are de
facto available to the author; 12 and that domestic remedies do not need to be exhausted
where the author has objectively no prospect of success.13
2.18 The author further refers to a case against Nepal where the Committee held that the
filing of first information reports with the police rarely led to any investigation and thus
declared the case admissible.14 The author adds that in other cases the Committee expressly
10
11
12
13
14
4
The author refers to Supreme Court of Nepal, Sapana Pardhan Malla v. the Government of Nepal,
case No. 3393/2061, decision of 11 July 2008.
The author provides copies of the rejoinders submitted to the Supreme Court by the police and by the
Ministry of Home Affairs.
The author refers to, inter alia, Ondracka and Ondracka v. Czech Republic
(CCPR/C/91/D/1533/2006), para. 6.3 and Baboeram-Adhin et al. v. Suriname, communication No.
146/1983 and Nos. 148–154/1983, para. 9.2.
The author refers to Länsman et al. v. Finland (CCPR/C/52/D/511/1992), para. 6.2 and Pratt and
Morgan v. Jamaica, communications No. 210/1986 and No. 225/1987, para. 12.3.
The author refers to Sharma v. Nepal (CCPR/C/94/D/1469/2006), para. 6.3.