The current human rights picture in Nepal is undeniably a very depressing one, if looked at through the lens of access to justice, and is compelling enough to make every conscientious Nepali citizen ponder the current state of our country’s human rights record.
People’s sincere hopes for truth, justice, rule of law, peace and progress, that the political change of 2006 promised, remain a far cry. The Constituent Assembly dissolved without writing the constitution; the political parties disappointed people with inter and intra party squabbles and power games; rule of law has been continually compromised; corruption in the public sector is rife; unemployment is rising; and development is at its lowest. To add to this sorry state is the clear lack of willingness displayed by the political leadership to address the severe harms done to civilians during the conflict. The fate of over a thousand victims of enforced disappearances remains unknown—as does the real figure—and clearly nothing has been done till date to bring to justice even a single perpetrator implicated of serious violations of human rights.
NOORCULTURALCENTRE.CA
Nepal had numerous opportunities since the very beginning of the peace process to prove to its people and the international community that it indeed was committed to improving the human rights situation. Unfortunately, however, successive governments formed after the CA election in 2008 have miserably failed to live up to the expectation of the people. Despite the lapse of over six years, there is no indication that anything is happening for the thousands of victims who faced injustice. The Truth and Disappearance Commissions, envisaged by both the CPA and the Interim Constitution, were never established even after six years. The president has only recently approved the ordinance which has been decried by the victims’ community as an amnesty ordinance.
The arrest in January this year of Colonel Kumar Lama in the UK over charges of torture was a direct consequence of Nepal’s lack of interest and initiative towards the investigation and prosecution of conflict era crimes. The subsequent reactions by the government of Nepal and the political parties terming the arrest “an attack against the sovereignty of Nepal” has been largely understood by the international community as a statement of Nepal’s resolve to perpetuate the state of impunity indefinitely.
The government’s direct intervention against the arrest, investigation and subsequent prosecution of the alleged perpetrators involved in the murder of a Dailekh-based journalist in 2004 has only served to further justify the fears among the international community that Nepal indeed is not willing to address the past and provide justice and reparation to victims. State accountability towards the victims of gross violations of human rights is essential for all societies emerging after conflict that aim toward a lasting peace and stability. Therefore, one thing that the state and the political party leaders must clearly understand is that lack of accountability has a price: Nepal is no exception to this reality.
Unfortunately, our party leaders appear to be blissfully unaware of this glaring truth and are only keen to withdraw criminal cases. Various governments have already withdrawn over 700 criminal cases and have also rewarded perpetrators allegedly involved in human rights violations with promotions. Promotion of Kuber Singh Rana, implicated in the disappearance of five students of Dhanusha in 2005 as Inspector General, and of Colonel Raju Basnet to the post of Brigadier General by the previous government, has sent a clear message that the state is not willing to prosecute any war-era crimes under any circumstances. And this is not only regrettable but also dangerous and unlawful.
While on the one hand this sorry state is nothing new to the people, on the other hand, there is a growing perception among the international community that Nepal is fast becoming a country that breeds and promotes de facto impunity. Nepal’s refusal to extend the mandate of OHCHR in December 2011 was already widely perceived as a government plan to prepare easy ground for entrenching impunity. Moreover, the government’s lack of cooperation and disengagement with the OHCHR in the context of the release of its Nepal Conflict Report in October 2012 and subsequent rebuttal of the report by the government, and more specifically by then Foreign Minister Narayan Kaji Shrestha, also seemed to clearly indicate that the government indeed wanted to disregard international community’s concerns about Nepal’s failure to address impunity and re-establish the rule of law.
Having said all this, a question comes up: what should Nepal do? The answer is to make a sharp turnaround, and to take domestic measures to address the deeply entrenched culture of impunity, including initiatives to undertake law and policy reforms. This means ensuring effective investigation and prosecution of criminal cases and working towards providing relief and reparations to the vulnerable groups in society, including the victims of conflict who have been grossly neglected till today. Moreover, it means engaging with all the UN human rights mechanisms constructively.
There is a growing perception that Nepal is fast becoming a country that promotes de facto impunity.
“Constructive engagement” with the UN human rights mechanisms does not just mean attending a few sessions or assemblies in Geneva or New York. What it means is answering for alleged human rights violations before the Human Rights Council, responding to cases transmitted by UN bodies like the Working Group on Enforced and Involuntary Disappearances (WGEID) and opening the country’s door to inspections by UN human rights mandate holders such as the WGEID, and others. It also means trying in good faith to implement the recommendations by these mechanisms. And why? Because such engagement will not only earn a better reputation for the state among the international community, but also serves as an opportunity for Nepal to be noticed as a country that needs international support and cooperation—including material support necessary to enhance the system of rule of law and promote development.
Nepal can initiate and strengthen this engagement, for instance, by sending invitations to the UN’s Special Procedures such as the WGEID. The WGEID had made a nine day country visit in December 2004 when the conflict was at its peak and incidents of enforced disappearances were alarmingly high. This visit and the pressure it created had greatly contributed to lessening the cases of disappearances. Since then, the WGEID has been closely monitoring the situation in Nepal on matters related to the victims of enforced disappearances.
In its 2012 Annual Report, the WGEID mentioned that there are 458 outstanding cases of disappearances from Nepal pending before it, and that it has twice now—in 2006 and 2011—requested a follow-up visit. Considering and accepting such a visit when the government is preparing the recently approved ordinance to address the grievances of victims of enforced disappearances will be not only timely, but also a positive gesture in that direction.
The author is a Human Rights Lawyer who formerly worked as Human Rights Officer with the OHCHR-Nepal
nirajannt@gmail.com
Related story
Paris Hilton reveals engagement to entrepreneur Carter Reum
