Mar 21, 2014 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
The ICJ spoke at the UN Human Rights Council on the lack of progress in Nepal on ending impunity.The oral statement was delivered during the general debate on the Universal Periodic Review (UPR).
Nepal has failed to take concrete action to implement key UPR recommendations, including those crucial to implementing the right to an effective remedy and reparation, creating effective mechanisms for transitional justice and ending impunity.
The Government continues to try to force through a Truth and Reconciliation Commission that is not human rights complicant and has already been ruled invalid by the Supreme Court of Nepal.
Nepal has also failed to take meaningful measures to investigate human rights violations and abuses that arose during the armed conflict.
The ICJ called on Nepal to take specific measures towards ending impunity.
The full written statement can be downloaded, in PDF format: Advocacy-UN-HRC25-Nepal-OralStatement-2103214
The representative of Nepal exercised the right of reply in response to ICJ’s oral statement.
Video of the oral statement, and Nepal’s statement in reply, via the official UN webcast.
Mar 5, 2014 | Advocacy
The ICJ has submitted a written statement to the Human Rights Council, on lack of progress in Nepal to end impunity.
The written statement, published by the United Nations today, notes that in 2012 the Government of Nepal adopted a plan to implement the recommendations made during its 2011 Universal Periodic Review (UPR) by the Human Rights Council.
However, Nepal has failed to take necessary measures to implement recommendations on ending impunity.
Key concerns include:
- the failure to implement recommendations for strengthening the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC),
- failure to draft constitutional provisions consistent with international legal principles on the protection of human rights, rule of law and the right to effective remedy,
- failure to establishment of credible transitional justice measures,
- failure to take the necessary practical steps in relation to individual cases, towards ending impunity
Nepal-WrittenStatement-HRC25-Advocacy-2014 (download PDF)
Feb 11, 2014 | News
The personal decision of Khil Raj Regmi to resign and not return to his post as Chief Justice safeguards the independence of the judiciary and maintains the rule of law in Nepal, the ICJ says.
Caretaker Council of Minister Chairman Khil Raj Regmi announced this afternoon that he would not return to his former post of Chief Justice after acting as the Chairman of the Council of Ministers since March 2013.
“Khil Raj Regmi’s decision is one that will help to preserve the Supreme Court’s hard-earned reputation as an independent institution,” said Ben Schonveld, ICJ’s South Asia Regional Director.
International standards, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the UN Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary, clarify that all governmental officials and institutions as well as judges must respect and preserve the independence and integrity of the judiciary.
The 2007 Interim Constitution of Nepal enshrines guarantees for the independence of the judiciary and contains safeguards for the separation of executive, legislative and judicial powers.
Article 106 of the 2007 Interim Constitution explicitly bans sitting and retired judges from assuming any appointment in government service apart from a role in the national human rights commission.
To enable former Chief Justice Regmi to act as caretaker Prime Minister, the President amended several provisions of the Interim Constitution, including Article 106.
These amendments were made in contravention of the Constitution, which required a two-thirds majority of a sitting Parliament.
“The return of Khil Raj Regmi to the post of Chief Justice would have significantly undermined the appearance of independence of the Supreme Court and the judiciary as a whole,” Schonveld added.
The Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct clarify that judges must not only be free from any inappropriate connections with the executive and legislative branches of government but also must appear to a reasonable observer to be free therefrom.
The ICJ applauds the personal decision of Chairman Khil Raj Regmi to resign as Chief Justice.
The ICJ calls on the new Government under the leadership of the Nepali Congress Chairperson, Sushil Koirala as well as the other elected political parties of the Constituent Assembly to honour the commitments made during the election and work to end impunity for gross violations of human rights.
Contact:
Ben Schonveld, ICJ South Asia Director, (Kathmandu); t: 977 9804596661; email: ben.schonveld(a)icj.org
Govinda Bandi Sharma, ICJ Senior Legal Adviser, Nepal (Kathmandu), t: +977 9851061167; email: govinda.sharma(a)icj.org
Sheila Varadan, ICJ Legal Adviser, South Asia Programme (Bangkok), t: +66 857200723; email: sheila.varadan(a)icj.org
Jan 31, 2014 | News
The Parliament of Nepal should reject the Ordinance on Truth, Reconciliation and Disappearances tabled this week and enact a new transitional justice mechanism that complies with international human rights law, the ICJ and HRW said today.
The Ordinance on Disappearances, Truth and Reconciliation Commission, signed by the President on 14 March, 2013, was declared unconstitutional and in violation of international human rights law by the Nepali Supreme Court on 2 January, 2014.
In a directive, the Supreme Court ordered the Ordinance be repealed or amended significantly to bring it in line with Nepal’s obligations under national and international law.
However, on 27 January, the Government reintroduced the Ordinance with no amendments in the meeting of the Legislative-Parliament – in direct contravention of the Supreme Court’s orders.
“Tabling a rejected version of the Ordinance after the Supreme Court’s landmark judgment on transitional justice is contemptuous, and raises serious concerns over the government’s respect for the rule of law in Nepal,” said Ben Schonveld, ICJ’s South Asia Director.
The Interim Constitution says clearly that the Supreme Court’s rulings are binding on the Government of Nepal. Article 116 of the Interim Constitution states that any order issued by the Supreme Court in the course of the hearing of a case shall be binding on the Government of Nepal and all its offices and courts.
The Supreme Court has previously held that any mechanism for transitional justice must conform with international standards, lead to accountability for serious human rights violations, and ensure victims their right to remedy and reparations, which includes the right to truth, justice, and guarantees of non-recurrence.
In its 2013 briefing paper, “Authority without Accountability,” the ICJ expressed concern over multiple provisions in the Ordinance, including amnesty provisions, which would entrench impunity for gross human rights violations in Nepal.
Any amnesty for gross human rights violations would add another layer to the complex web of immunities, documented in the report, that continue to shield those responsible for human rights abuse from accountability in Nepal.
“The Parliament of Nepal should strongly reject the tabled Ordinance and the government must expeditiously implement the Supreme Court’s directive,” said Meenakshi Ganguly, South Asia Director at Human Rights Watch. “The ordinance in its current form violates undertakings made as part of the peace agreement, and essentially strips victims of serious rights abuses of a proper chance at justice.”
The rights groups called on the government to implement the Supreme Court’s ruling, creating a new transitional justice law that, at a minimum:
- Establishes two separate transitional justice commissions: a “Truth and Reconciliation Commission” and a “Commission of Inquiry on Enforced Disappeared Persons;”
- Criminalizes the act of enforced disappearance in accordance with the definition set out in the International Convention on the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance and ensures that it is punishable with penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime;
- Criminalizes other serious crimes, including crimes against humanity, and other crimes under international law, in a manner that is consistent with international law;
- Prohibits amnesties for gross human rights violations or crimes under international law;
- Does not contain a limitation period on the reporting of violations and ensures there are no time limits on the prosecutions of of serious crimes including enforced disappearance, other crimes under international law including, war crimes, and crimes against humanity;
- Ensures that the composition and structure of the Commissions complies with international standards. In particular, there should be a fair vetting system which aims to ensure the impartiality of the commission members and to ensure that no individuals against whom there are credible allegations they have committed human rights abuses are selected as Commissioners;
- Requires the necessary legal and institutional measures to be taken to enable and ensure the establishment, adequate resourcing and maintenance of effective victim and witness protection mechanisms; and
- Establishes and requires other necessary legal, administrative, institutional, or other arrangements for an effective reparation program.
Contact:
In Bangkok, Sam Zarifi: +66-857200723; or sam.zarifi(a)icj.org
In Kathmandu, Ben Schonveld +977-9804596661; : ben.schonveld(a)icj.org
Read also: ICJ releases new report on the struggle for justice in Nepal
The report Authority without accountability: the struggle for justice in Nepal can also be downloaded below:
Nepal-SUMMARY-Authority without Accountability-Publication-report summary-2012 (full text in pdf)
Nepal-FULL-Authority without accountability-publications-report-2012 (full text in pdf)
