Mar 22, 2013 | Feature articles, News
The inclusion of an amnesty provision, which could cover the worst possible crimes, in Nepal’s new Truth, Reconciliation and Disappearance Ordinance, will make it impossible for thousands of victims of gross human rights violations to obtain justice, ICJ and other right groups said today.
The Asian Centre for Human Rights, Human Rights Watch, the International Commission of Jurists and TRIAL pointed to fundamental flaws in Nepal’s new law, passed by President Ram Baran Yadav on March 14, 2013.
“The new ordinance leaves open the door to amnesties for persons implicated in gross human rights violations and crimes under international law,” said Ben Schonveld, ICJ’s South Asia director in Kathmandu. “Amnesties for serious rights violations are prohibited under international law and betray the victims, who would be denied justice in the name of political expediency.”
At least 13,000 people were killed and over 1,300 subjected to enforced disappearance in Nepal’s decade-long conflict between government forces and Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) combatants.
The fighting ended with the signing of the 2006 Comprehensive Peace Agreement, consolidating a series of commitments to human rights.
However, the government has yet to take steps to ensure that those responsible for crimes under international law during the fighting are identified and prosecuted.
International and local human rights groups have consistently decried the government’s efforts to side-step promises of justice and accountability, represented most recently by this new ordinance.
The revised ordinance calls for the formation of a high-level commission to investigate serious human rights violations committed during Nepal’s armed conflict from 1996 to 2006.
It grants the commission discretion to recommend amnesty for a perpetrator if the grounds for that determination are deemed reasonable.
The government then decides whether to grant an amnesty. There is no definition of what is reasonable.
Confusion over scope of amnesty provision
The ordinance states that “serious crimes,” including rape, cannot be recommended for an amnesty, but it does not define what other “serious crimes” are not subject to an amnesty.
Gross violations of human rights, such as extrajudicial killing, torture and enforced disappearance, are not mentioned.
Torture and enforced disappearance are not specific crimes under Nepali domestic criminal law.
The organizations expressed concern that the commission’s powers to recommend prosecution may mean little without crimes being adequately defined in law.
The final decision on whether to prosecute can only be made by the attorney general, a political appointee of the government, instead of an independent entity.
Human Rights Watch, ICJ and TRIAL have previously documented the systematic failures of the Nepali criminal law system to address serious human rights violations.
“Nepal has had years to investigate some 1,300 suspected enforced disappearances during the conflict and thousands of other human rights violations, but it has failed to deliver any credible or effective investigations,” said TRIAL Director Philip Grant in Geneva. “The provisions on prosecution contained in this ordinance don’t appear to be strong enough to overcome Nepal’s entrenched practices of safeguarding impunity by withdrawing cases or failing to pursue credible allegations. It does not leave victims with much faith that the commission will fulfill its mandate to end impunity.”
Call for review and consultation
The organizations called upon the government to establish a mechanism to review and amend the legislation in consultation with victims of human rights abuses and representatives of civil society.
“This ordinance was signed by the prime minister and president in record time without any consultation with conflict victims and civil society,” Schonveld added. “If the government had carried out proper consultations, the result would have been different, and we wouldn’t have an ordinance that entrenches impunity.”
The rights organizations also expressed concern about the ordinance’s heavy emphasis on reconciliation at the possible expense of justice for victims.
The ordinance cedes authority to the commission to implement “inter-personal reconciliation” between victim and perpetrator, even if neither the victim nor the perpetrator requests it, which could result in pressure being placed on a victim to give up any claims against a perpetrator.
Although the ordinance mentions the need for victim and witness protection, there are no specific safeguards to ensure the safety and security of victims who become involved in reconciliation processes.
Violation of international obligation for political expediency
Under international law, Nepal is obliged to take effective measures to protect human rights, including the right to life and freedom from torture and other ill-treatment.
Where a violation occurs, Nepali authorities must investigate, institute criminal proceedings, and ensure victims are afforded access to effective remedy and reparations.
“The passage of this ordinance is just the latest example of the Nepali government’s cynical willingness to trade meaningful justice and accountability for political expediency,” said Brad Adams, Asia director at Human Rights Watch. “The government is kidding itself if it thinks it can ignore the voices of Nepal’s thousands of victims of human rights abuses. Nepal needs meaningful government initiatives to address its human rights problems, not the veneer of justice that this flawed ordinance represents.”
Contact:
In Kathmandu, for ICJ, Ben Schonveld: ben.schonveld(at)icj.org
In Bangkok, for ICJ, Sheila Varadan: +66-857-200-723; sheila.varadan(at)icj.org
Mar 14, 2013 | News
Chief Justice Khil Raj Regmi should not keep his position on the Supreme Court after he was appointed today as the country’s interim prime minister so as to preserve the independence of the judiciary and the rule of law.
“The Supreme Court under the leadership of Chief Justice Khil Raj Regmi, has demonstrated a strong commitment to upholding the rule of law and protecting human rights in Nepal,” said Ben Schonveld, ICJ’s South Asia Director in Kathmandu. “To preserve the Nepali judiciary’s hard-won independence, the Chief Justice should step down from his post as soon as he assumes his position at the top of the Executive Branch.”
The Chief Justice Khil Raj Regmi was appointed as Chairperson of the Council of Ministers – effectively the country’s Prime Minister – today.
The country’s four key political parties agreed on an arrangement whereby Chief Justice Khil Raj Regmi will refrain from participating in his duties as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court while exercising powers of the Prime Minister conferred by the Interim Constitution, in brokering an election of the Constituent Assembly.
After the election is held, the agreement provides that the Chief Justice will resume his power and regular duties as Chief Justice.
In the interim, the senior-most judge of the Supreme Court will act as Chief Justice.
“Appointing the serving Chief Justice to act as Chairperson of the Council of Ministers throws the country into uncharted constitutional waters,” Schonveld added. “This agreement obliterates the line between the executive and the judiciary.”
A petition challenging the constitutional validity of the Agreement is currently before the Supreme Court.
The interim Constitution of Nepal guarantees the independence of the judiciary and the separation of powers.
Article 106 bans sitting and retired judges from assuming any appointment in government service apart from a role in the national human rights commission.
To enable the Chief Justice’s appointment as Prime Minister, the President under the recommendation of the Council of the Ministers amended several provisions of the Interim Constitution, including Article 106.
These amendments were made in contravention of the requirements of the Interim Constitution, which calls for a mandatory two-thirds majority of Parliament.
Under international law and standards, including the United Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary, States are required to ensure an independent judiciary at all times.
Under the Bangalore Principles on Judicial Conduct, judges must be free, and be seen to be free, from inappropriate connections with the executive and legislative branches of government.
The Beijing Statement of Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary stresses the importance of the independence of the judiciary in a free society observing the rule of law.
Judges must uphold the integrity and independence of the Judiciary by avoiding impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all of their activities.
CONTACTS:
Ben Schonveld, ICJ South Asia Director, (Kathmandu); t: 977 9804596661; email: ben.schonveld(at)icj.org
Govinda Bandi Sharma, ICJ Senior Legal Advisor, Nepal (Kathmandu), t: +977 9851061167; email: govinda.sharma(at)icj.org
Sheila Varadan, ICJ Legal Advisor, South Asia Programme (Bangkok), t: +66 857200723; email: Sheila.varadan(at)icj.org
Photo by Bikash Dware
Jan 30, 2013 | News
The Nepali government must ensure that the case of the 2004 killing of journalist Dekendra Thapa (photo) can proceed without further political interference, the ICJ said today.
“Political interference into an ongoing criminal investigation constitutes a fundamental attack on the rule of law in Nepal,” said Frederick Rawski, ICJ Nepal Country Representative. “The Government must ensure that there are no further attempts to subvert the course of justice.”
On 11 January, Nepal’s Attorney General, Mukti Pradhan, sent a written instruction to the local police and prosecutor not to move forward with the investigation and prosecution.
In response to a petition challenging the instruction, on 16 January, the Supreme Court ordered both Prime Minister Baburam Bhattarai and the Attorney General not to intervene in the ongoing investigation.
The Home Ministry subsequently ordered the transfer of officials involved in the investigation, and the Prime Minister himself has made public statements calling for the suspects to be released pending the much-delayed formation of a promised truth commission.
“It is now the obligation of the justice system to ensure due process and the right to a fair trial,” Rawski added. “This is an opportunity for Nepal to illustrate the political will exists to address past human rights violations, and that the country’s judiciary can provide justice for the victims while protecting the rights of the defendants.”
Dekendra Thapa was allegedly tortured and buried alive by Maoist cadres in 2004 during the country’s decade-long civil war, which ended in 2006.
The case was finally submitted to a District Court yesterday (January 28, 2013) by the District Attorney of Dailekh in Mid-Western Nepal. The Dailekh District Attorney has charged nine people alleged to be involved.
Five of the suspects have been arrested and produced before the district court.
“Dekendra Thapa was one of the thousands of civilians whose deaths have gone without proper explanation or justice,” said Rawski. “Thanks to the courageous decision of the local authorities to proceed with this case, there is now an opportunity for the Nepali justice system to begin answering the demands for justice.”
Contact:
In Kathmandu, Frederick Rawski, ICJ Nepal Country Representative : t +977-984-959-7681
In Bangkok, Sam Zarifi, ICJ’s Asia Director: t +66-807-819-002
Photo credit: Dhurba Basnet
Jan 8, 2013 | News
The Nepali government should cooperate with any investigation into allegations of torture against Nepal Army Colonel Kumar Lama, recently arrested and charged in the United Kingdom, the ICJ said today.
“The ICJ welcomes the steps taken by the UK to criminally investigate and bring to justice an individual suspected of the serious crime of torture,” said Sam Zarifi, ICJ’s Asia Director. “If the government wants to prevent the future prosecution of conflict-era human rights violations in foreign countries, then it must cooperate with the UK proceedings, and take immediate steps to investigate and prosecute similar violations domestically, in line with Nepal’s own international obligations and the jurisprudence of Nepal’s Supreme Court.”
UK authorities arrested Colonel Lama on January 3rd for his alleged involvement in the torture of detainees while commander of the Gorusinge Battalion barracks in Kapilbastu in 2005.
Colonel Lama is currently serving as UN peacekeeper in the Sudan. At the time of the arrest, he was visiting family members who reside in the UK.
In response to the arrest, senior Nepali government leaders including the Deputy Prime Minister have called for his immediate release, and characterized the arrest as an “attack on national sovereignty.”
The ICJ pointed out that such statements seem to be predicated on a basic misunderstanding of both the UK and Nepal government’s international obligations to investigate and prosecute acts of torture, which are crimes under international law.
The Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment of Punishment, to which both the UK and Nepal are party, expressly provides under article 7 that a State must prosecute or extradite for prosecution a person found under its territorial jurisdiction.
This obligation is an expression of the legal principle of “universal jurisdiction,” under which all States have a duty, not only a right, to prosecute and punish crimes under international law, including torture, and to take effective measures including the adoption of national legislation to exercise jurisdiction over such crimes.
In many countries, including the UK, legislation grants the courts jurisdiction to prosecute certain international crimes, including torture, regardless of where the violations took place.
The UK legislation was passed as part of an effort to comply with international law, including the Geneva Conventions on the laws of war and the Convention Against Torture.
For the UK police to release Colonel Lama without conducting a full investigation, as called for by the government of Nepal, would constitute a violation of the UK’s own international obligations, the ICJ stresses.
“This arrest by the UK police is not a threat to the sovereignty of Nepal; on the contrary, the acceptance of international human rights legal obligations to combat torture constitutes a clear expression of sovereignty by both the UK and Nepal. The UK through its actions this week is rightfully discharging these obligations,” Zarifi said. “Nepali victims have been forced to seek redress outside their own country against perpetrators because of the government of Nepal’s track record of failing to prosecute conflict-era crimes.”
“Decades of experience from around the world demonstrates that the failure to provide truth and justice as a society transitions away from conflict hampers the development of a durable peaceful society. That’s why the Nepali government should do all it can to help thousands of Nepali victims receive truth and justice in Nepal, and wherever perpetrators may be hiding,” Zarifi added.
National courts are generally reluctant to invoke universal jurisdiction to prosecute foreign nationals, and usually only do so when it is clear that national authorities are unable or unwilling to investigate and prosecute the alleged violation.
In Nepal, successive governments have not only failed to show their commitment to prosecute these crimes, but have made systematic efforts to avoid accountability, and rewarded suspected violators with promotions, ministerial appointments and opportunities to participate in UN peacekeeping operations.
The ICJ advised the government of Nepal that the most effective way to prevent the future arrest and prosecution abroad of those alleged to have been responsible for torture and other gross human rights violations is to:
- Show its commitment to the international rule of law by cooperating with any investigation by the UK police into the culpability of Colonel Lama, including allowing police to visit Nepal if such a request is made as part of their investigation;
- Order the prosecution of serious crimes committed during the conflict to move forward, and end attempts to introduce an amnesty for such crimes;
- Introduce transitional justice legislation that is in line with Nepal’s obligations under international law, and precludes the granting of amnesty for serious crimes;
- End politically-motivated withdrawals of human rights cases now before Nepali courts; and
- Criminalize torture, enforced disappearance and other crimes under international law.
Contact:
In Kathmandu, for ICJ, Frederick Rawski: t +977-984-959-7681
In Bangkok, for ICJ Asia-Pacific, Sam Zarifi: t +66-807-819-002
FURTHER READING:
Nepal: ‘toothless’ commissions of inquiry do not address urgent need for accountability – ICJ report
Oct 6, 2012 | News
The promotion of colonel Raju Basnet is a slap in the face for the victims of Nepal’s protracted civil war, ICJ and other human rights groups said today.
The Nepali cabinet’s decided on October 4, 2012, to promote colonel Raju Basnet to the rank of brigadier general. Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and the International Commission of Jurists say the United Nations and the Nepali National Human Rights Commission compiled credible evidence of systematic enforced disappearances and torture at Bhairabnath Battalion headquarters in Kathmandu under the command of the colonel Raju Basnet in 2003.
On the basis of this evidence, in 2007 Nepal’s Supreme Court ordered an independent investigation and prosecution of these human rights violations. That order includes allegations that Basnet personally committed acts of torture.
“Nepal’s cabinet has thrown the entire idea of holding soldiers accountable for abuses out the door,” said Brad Adams, Asia director at Human Rights Watch. “This cynical and reprehensible decision seriously undermines respect for human rights and contradicts Nepal’s assurances to the international community that it would hold those implicated in wartime crimes to account.”
Basnet’s promotion occurred under the leadership of the United Communist Party of Nepal – Maoist (UCPN-M). During the war, the UCPN-M was itself responsible for enforced disappearances, torture, and unlawful killings, and has not had to answer for a single wartime violation, the groups said. Agni Sapkota, a UCPN-M member, was appointed to a cabinet position even as he was under a court-ordered police investigation for his involvement in a 2005 unlawful killing.
“Despite years of promises, the Maoists and the army have shown themselves united in one crucial aspect: contempt for the notion of accountability for criminal acts and victims’ rights to justice, truth, and reparation,” said Polly Truscott, Amnesty International’s South Asia director.
International law applicable in Nepal obligates the government to investigate and prosecute serious violations of international human rights and humanitarian law. Consistent with international legal principles, officials implicated in serious offenses should be removed or suspended pending completion of full investigations, with full respect for their due process rights.
The Nepali Supreme Court in an August decision directed the government to put in place appropriate legislation and guidelines to ensure that security officials are vetted before they are appointed or promoted to high-level positions.
“With the promotion of Basnet, the denial of justice and accountability has essentially turned into government policy,” said Sam Zarifi, Asia director at the International Commission of Jurists. “This decision is basically the current Nepali government saying it does not care about the rule of law, does not care about its own Supreme Court directives, and indeed, does not care about the best interests of its own citizens. This promotion is a signal to all perpetrators that power trumps justice.”
The rights groups called on the international community to urge the Nepali government to revoke its decision.
“Nepali civil society, with support from the UN and the international community, has spent years seeking to promote justice and accountability,” Adams said. “By promoting Col. Basnet, the government has sent a clear signal to the Nepali people and the country’s international supporters that it not committed to these same goals.”
For more information, please contact:
In Kathmandu, for ICJ, Govinda Sharma: +977-985-106-1167
In Bangkok, for ICJ Asia-Pacific, Sam Zarifi: +66-807-819-002
