Insecure
place for defenders
1.
INTRODUCTION
This paper provides an overview of human
rights situation and highlights key challenges faced by human rights defenders.
A set of recommendations are outlined in a form of ‘way forward’ points for
national and international human rights community and concerned stakeholders to
consider.
2.
OVERVIEW OF CONTEXT
OVERVIEW OF CONTEXT
Nepal’s road towards peaceful political
resolution is in the verge of fragility, instability and deteriorating law and
order. Following the dissolution of the Constituent Assembly (CA) in May 2012,
the country is in an untoward position that has jeopardized the peace and
constitutional processes. Prolonged transition has adversely impacted on the
public life in all sectors. Local government bodies remain vacant for over a
decade. Most of the constitutional bodies do not have office bearers. The
number of judges at the apex court has now decreased to only one-fourth; it
will face further fall off this year. Most of the past political commitments,
including the 2006 comprehensive peace agreement (CPA), have turned bleak –
impunity deepens, transitional justice mechanisms are far from introduction,
and political manipulation of state mechanisms overshadows the rule of law. The
situation of human rights defenders, who have the role to raise these issues
for improvement, is more than serious and sensitive. Cases on the ground
vividly tell a consistent story: Nepal is an insecure place to work as an
effective human rights defender.
3.
UNDERLYING CHARACTERISTICS OF CURRENT CRISIS
3.1
Weak rule of law
and persistent impunity
The World Justice Project Rule of Law Index
2012, ranked Nepal 83rd among 97 countries surveyed in terms of
guaranteeing access to civil justice.[1] The number of
inmates in Nepal in 2006 was 8,000 which soared to 14,000 by the end of 2012.[2]
Corruption cases[3] are not dealt
with properly despite growing public concerns.
The reality is different than commitments.
Unlike commitments in the CPA and the Interim Constitution 2007, one of the
most serious reasons of current human rights crisis in Nepal is resulted from
the weak state of rule of law and deepened culture of impunity. Current
government is withdrawing criminal cases, ignoring court rulings and promoting
blanket amnesty to perpetrators of serious crimes against humanity.[4]
Criminalisation of politics is factoring into this ‘encouragement’. The
government has been promoting alleged perpetrators of human rights violations
within the government agencies.[5] The
Prime Minister and Attorney General, beyond their jurisdictions, are directing
local attorneys to sideline cases against perpetrators of disappearance,
torture and unlawful killings.[6]
3.2
Pledges proved mere lip services
During the UN HRC UPR early 2011, the
Government of Nepal had made commitments to complete the writing of a new
constitution by May 2012 by ensuring full participation of people from all
strata of social life and by guaranteeing fundamentals of rights and freedom.
Immediate formation of transitional justice mechanisms, including a Truth and
Reconciliation Commission (TRC) in compliance with international standards,
effective implementation of court orders and bringing perpetrators of major
conflict-era human rights violations to justice were other key commitments made
by the government.[7] However,
neither the constitution is promulgated nor the transitional justice mechanisms
are put in place. Rather the existing CA has been diminished. Uncertainties
loom large around the political spectrum. Political predictions are very
difficult to work at the moment.
3.3
Disregard for human rights concerns
UN OHCHR released a ‘Nepal Conflict Report
2012’ in October 2012 by highlighting the patterns and cases of serious
violation of international law.[8] However, the
Government of Nepal abruptly dismissed the report questioning its legality. It
was mainly due to the government’s systemic attempt to black out the
conflict-era violations. Similarly, the government has been trying to weaken
the national institution—the National Human Rights Commission, which is a
constitutional body—in Nepal. The Commission’s recommendations are largely
ignored by the government bodies.
3.4
Increasing violence against women
In recent days, cases of violence against
women are on the rise as is their reporting in the media. Lack of awareness,
weak law and order situation, growing impunity and absence of government
mechanisms to address such cases are a few causes of the problem. Even the
government office holders are involved in some of the ‘high-profile’ cases.
They enjoy ‘freedom’ – thanks to the culture of impunity.
3.5
Freedom of expression in limbo
Disregard to freedom of expression and
repeated attacks against the press by ruling party leaders and the Prime
Minister has put serious threats against journalists, especially when covering
human rights issues. Recently, media persons who were demanding justice to the
family of a deceased journalist in Dailekh were attacked by ruling party UCPN
(Maoist) cadres – about a dozen journalists were displaced for over a week. In
Kavre, a town near by Kathmandu, journalists were attacked by Maoist cadres
when they were reporting a programme attended by the Prime Minister. These are
a few representative cases.
4.
A DANGEROUS PLACE FOR HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENDERS
4.1
Threats against
human rights defenders
The government ministers and mouthpieces of
ruling party media outlets are at the forefront to pose threats against human
rights defenders. Last month, four human rights defenders, including the
Chairperson of Informal Sector Service Centre (INSEC) Subodh Raj Pyakurel, were
threatened by a number of Maoist-affiliated publications.[9] These
publications have made fake allegations against the human rights defenders as “janadushman (enemies of the people)”,
and, more seriously, have incited “janakarwahi (public punishment and
physical attacks)” against them. The government, which has the prime
responsibility to protect, is as silent as are they instigated by the Maoist
party.
4.2
Victim families
are silenced
Families of the victims of past human rights
violation cases are another group of target. In an incident, during recent
protests against impunity and gender-based violence in Kathmandu, Ms Sabitri
Shrestha was approached by an unidentified person and warned that her life was
in danger after she publically displayed a photograph of the former CA member,
Bal Krishna Dhungel. This is because Dhungel was convicted by the Supreme Court
of killing Sabitri’s brother, Ujjan Kumar Shrestha, and is enjoying impunity.[10]
Mr Janak Raut, a torture survivor whose case
is currently pending in a British court faces an alarming threat from unknown
persons. Nepal’s army colonel Kumar Lama was arrested in the UK on the charge
of being involved in serious violations, including torturing Raut during the
conflict period.[11]
Nanda Ram Paudel, INSEC representative in Kapilvastu district, who provided the
information on the torture of Raut at an army barrack there, has been inquired
by unknown persons time and again. The strategy is to silent voices for justice
by posing direct and indirect threats to the victims, families and human rights
defenders. There is a cause to fear these: Absence of protection mechanism.
4.3
Self-censorship
One of the major, immediate consequences of
rampant insecurity is the increased self-censorship amongst human rights
defenders and victims; many of them are becoming less outspoken and less active
in their human rights work, and in some cases, are increasingly isolated.
Victim families have reported that they are kept in silence by direct and
indirect threats from perpetrators. A victims’ leader from Bardiya district
says, “The situation will become more dangerous. We were initially trying to
use the current human rights momentum to file the cases in the court but our
current assessment is that if we register any of the cases, then Bardiya will
become next Dailekh.”[12]
4.4
Witnessing is a
risk
The situation is that the witnesses do not
feel secure if they try to come out as witnesses of any human rights violation
case. Fact-finding reports from Dailekh district suggest that there is a
possibility of retaliation against witnesses who may be asked to appear before
the court to testify. Similarly, victims in Bardiya district are concerned
about possible witness intimidation and attempts to destroy witness
testimonies, which will negatively impact the ongoing investigations, let alone
future investigations of the cases.
5.
WAY FORWARD
·
Formation of a new consensus government has become a central issue
to deal with all others including the peace and constitutional processes.
·
Establishment of transitional justice mechanisms in pursuant to
international standards is another most important area of concern for
respecting human rights and combating impunity.
·
Unless and until strong political will is translated into
practice, there is a huge chance of increasing ‘politicisation of crimes’ and ‘criminalisation
of politics’. Stopping the government at least from the current trend of
withdrawing criminal cases is an immediate entry point of advocacy.
·
Engaging and exerting pressure on the government to implement
court verdicts and promoting the value of independent judiciary is yet another
issue that requires coordinated efforts.
·
Implementing recommendations of the National Human Rights
Commission, adopting measures to protect human rights defenders, including
victims, and dealing with gender-based violence need to be taken into
consideration by all concerned stakeholders. These require greater commitments
from the government and political parties as well as practical realisation of
the national and international human rights standards. Combating gender-based
violence more effectively requires immediate amendment to discriminatory laws
and establishment of a fast-track court system.
For more information on Nepal’s human rights
trend, cases and latest updates, please contact Informal Sector Service Centre
(INSEC) at the following address:
INSEC Central Office, Kalanki,
Syuchatar, P.O. Box 2726, Kathmandu, Nepal
[1] See
http://www.ekantipur.com/the-kathmandu-post/2012/12/01/nation/nepal-ranks-towards-the-bottom/242346.html
[2] INSEC. Nepal
Human Rights Yearbook 2013. Pp. 16
[4] Emblematic
cases are related to some of the high profile people such as Niranjan Basnet
and Raju Basnet of the Nepal Army, Kuber Sing Rana of Nepal Police, and Agni
Sapkota and Bal Krishna Dhungel of UCPN (Maoist). Sapkota and Dhungel enjoy
inaction of the government to bring them to justice whilst Basnet and Rana have
been promoted in the Nepal Army and Nepal Police despite their alleged
involvement in serious cases of human rights violations in the past.
[5]Kuber Singh
Rana, accused of human rights violations during the conflict, has been appointed
to the position of Inspector General of Nepal Police on 13 September 2012 (http://www.newsnepalonline.com/news/main-news/4614-kuber-singh-rana-appointed-as-aig.html). Similarly,
the government promoted Nepal Army General Toran Jung Bahadur Singh to the
position of Lieutenant General (http://www.ekantipur.com/2009/12/24/top-story/govt-promotes-toran-jung-bahadur-singh-recommends-koiralas-name-for-nobel-peace-prize/305051.html). The security
officials are allegedly involved in some of the serious cases of human rights
violations in the past.
[6] One of the
examples is a case where a journalist Dekendra Thapa was killed, after
abduction, by the Maoist cadres in 2004. The Prime Minister and the Attorney
General tried to stop the investigations on a case filed by the journalist’s
wife in Dailekh district. After a series of protests by human rights defenders
across the country, and a ruling by the Supreme Court, the investigation
proceeded. (see http://southasia.oneworld.net/news/journo-murder-nepal-govt-accused-of-obstructing-justice#.UTaB8Fc359w)
[8]OHCHR. Nepal
Conflict Report 2012, available at http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Countries/NP/OHCHR_ExecSumm_Nepal_Conflict_report2012.pdf
[9] Under Threat in
Nepal, Former U.N. Officials Seek Protection. http://www.ipsnews.net/2012/02/under-threat-in-nepal-former-un-officials-seek-protection/ and http://krishnasenonline.org/main/news.php?pname=krishnasen&id=5867&cata_name=politics
[10]Dhungel was
convicted of killing Ujjan Kumar Shrestha and sentenced to life imprisonment by
the district court and Supreme Court. The UCPN (Maoist)-led government
requested the President to pardon Dhungel who is yet to serve his sentence and
remained an active member of the CA until its dissolution.
[12] In Dailekh,
investigation on Dekendra Thapa’s case has been very difficult for police and
attorney due to direct pressure for withdrawal from the Prime Minister and
Attorney General in Kathmandu. Journalists and human rights defenders in the
district faced direct and indirect threats from Maoist party – some of them
were forced to displace. Later on, due to nationwide protests by human rights
defenders, the Maoists agreed to let the displaced journalists return to their
district.
No comments:
Post a Comment