Thursday, March 14, 2013

NEPAL: DEEPENING HUMAN RIGHTS CRISIS



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.      Double Bracket: 1. Introduction
2. Overview of Context
3. Underlying characteristics of current crisis
3.1 Weak rule of law and persistent impunity
3.2 Pledges proved mere lip services
3.3 Disregard for human rights concerns
3.4 Increasing violence against women
3.5 Freedom of expression in limbo
4. A Dangerous Place for Human Rights Defenders
4.1 Threats against human rights defenders
4.2 Victim families are silenced
4.3 Self-censorship
4.4 Witnessing is a risk
5. Way forward
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
Tel: +977-1-4278770 Fax: +977-1-4270551, Email: insec@insec.org.np Website: www.inseconline.org




[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)
[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