Nov 3, 2020 | News
The government of Nepal should act without delay to carry out the National Human Rights Commission’s recommendations, particularly those concerning Nepal’s obligation to investigate and, where justified by the evidence, prosecute those accused of serious abuses, Human Rights Watch and the ICJ said today.
On October 15, 2020, the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) published 20 years of data, naming 286 people, mostly police officials, military personnel, and former Maoist insurgents, as suspects in serious crimes. In particular, the information relates to cases where its investigators concluded there is evidence warranting investigation and prosecution for abuses including torture, enforced disappearance, and extrajudicial killing.
In addition to domestic use, the data should provide important guidance to the United Nations in vetting Nepali security forces for peacekeeping missions, and to other countries for efforts to ensure international justice, including in their obligations to prosecute or extradite individuals suspected of responsibility for crimes under international law. They will also be of use to the United States in carrying out vetting requirements under the “Leahy laws” that prohibit military assistance to military and security forces implicated in serious human rights abuses.
“The National Human Rights Commission has taken an important step in publishing this information, which will be an essential tool for the UN and foreign governments in their engagement with Nepali security forces,” said Meenakshi Ganguly, South Asia director at Human Rights Watch. “The report highlights just how little progress there has been to establish meaningful human rights protections to address conflict era violations and ongoing abuses.”
The culture of impunity in Nepal is contributing to ongoing serious human rights abuses, the groups said. There have been numerous credible allegations of extrajudicial executions, torture, and ill-treatment, sometimes resulting in custodial deaths, and deaths resulting from the unlawful and excessive use of force in policing demonstrations in recent years. In many such cases, the authorities have refused even to register complaints, much less carry out effective investigations or prosecutions.
International and foreign authorities, including prosecutors and judicial authorities, should be aware of the commission’s data when considering targeted sanctions for people accused of serious violations, or preparing criminal cases under the principal of universal jurisdiction against those allegedly responsible for crimes such as torture and enforced disappearances, Human Rights Watch and the International Commission of Jurists said.
Particularly serious violations and abuses were committed between 1996 and 2006 during an armed conflict between government security forces and Maoist rebel forces. The former Maoist party in now part of the government. Since the conflict ended, the former enemies have effectively joined ranks to successfully shield their supporters from accountability, fostering a culture of impunity that continues to protect those responsible for ongoing extrajudicial killings and deaths in custody allegedly resulting from torture.
The NHRC said in its report that the government had mostly failed to act against suspects, despite being informed of the commission’s findings. Human Rights Watch and the International Commission of Jurists have not independently investigated all the cases documented, but the Nepal government is under an obligation to thoroughly and impartially investigate the allegations in the report with a view to bringing those responsible for these crimes to justice. Altogether the NHRC has recommended action against 98 police officers, 85 soldiers, and 65 members of the former Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist).
The NHRC presented and analyzed its findings and recommendations spanning two decades, since its establishment in 2000. It has registered 12,825 complaints and reached conclusions in 6,617 cases, making 1,195 recommendations to the government. The recommendations have been carried out fully in only 13 percent of cases, partially carried out in 37 percent, and not carried out at all in the remaining 50 percent. The government has often carried out recommendations to make payments to victims or their families but has very rarely investigated or prosecuted abuses.
In a March 6, 2013 ruling, the Supreme Court decided that the NHRC has the authority to refer these cases to the attorney general and prosecutors for investigation and prosecution, yet the NHRC has been unwilling to use that authority. The NHRC has also chosen not to use its prerogative to name those allegedly responsible for the abuses until now, waiting until the last days of the outgoing commissioners’ terms to publish the report.
“While releasing this report is an important step toward addressing entrenched impunity in Nepal, it has exposed the fact that the commission has struggled with a lack of investigative capacity, failing in many cases to summon alleged perpetrators or demand documentation,” said Mandira Sharma, senior international legal advisor at the International Commission of Jurists. “Had the NHRC used its authority to request prosecution from the attorney general where it has gathered sufficient evidence, it would have made a real contribution in tackling impunity and in addressing police failures in investigating ongoing cases of rights violations.”
The NHRC has long been dogged by political interference in the appointment of commissioners, and a widely perceived reluctance to confront the government or other powerful institutions, such as the army and political parties, that oppose accountability for rights abuses. In 2019 the government proposed amendments to the 2012 National Human Rights Commission Act that would further undermine its independence.
To download the full statement with additional information, click here. (PDF)
Contact
For International Commission of Jurists, in Nepal, Mandira Sharma (Nepali, English): +977-9851048475 (mobile); or mandira.sharma@icj.org.
Jun 26, 2020 | News
On the occasion of the International Day in Support of Victims of Torture, the ICJ, Advocacy Forum (AF) and Terai Human Rights Defenders Alliance (THRD Alliance) voiced concerns about the near total failure by authorities to investigate and prosecute acts of torture in Nepal.
Nearly two years after provisions in the new Penal Code that criminalized torture came into effect, not a single torture prosecution appears to have been brought. There have also been very few instances in which victims have received an effective remedy and reparation for their ill-treatment. Nepal has failed to meet its obligations in this regard under article 2(3) of the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights and article 14 of the Convention Against Torture.
“Nepal has an obligation under international law to hold perpetrators accountable for acts of torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. This includes obligations as a party to the Convention Against Torture and the international Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,” said Frederick Rawski, ICJ Asia-Pacific Director. “It is disturbing to see that two years after the rightfully celebrated Penal Code provisions criminalizing torture have come into effect, the government has yet to successfully prosecute any acts of torture, which by all accounts continue to occur on a frequent basis.”
The Advocacy Forum and THRD Alliance both published reports today that document instances of torture and other ill-treatment against detainees over the past year. Some 20 percent of the more than 1000 detainees interviewed reported some form of unlawful ill-treatment during confinement.
“Although in some locations there appears to be some improvement in the treatment of detainees, torture and ill-treatment remains far too prevalent,” said Om Prakash Sen Thakuri, Advocacy Forum Executive Director. “Police still continue to rely on “confessions”, typically obtained by ill-treatment or coercion during interrogation, as opposed to conducting proper investigations. Our police institutions need serious reform to ensure that investigative practices conform to international law and standards.”
In a separate report analyzing the obstacles faced by victims in seeking justice for torture and ill-treatment, the THRD Alliance documented the complex challenges faced by torture survivors seeking accountability in the formal justice system. These obstacles included a frequently refusal by police to file a First Information Report on allegations of ill-treatment, statutes of limitation preventing cases from being prosecuted, and a lack of independence of police investigations in the rare cases when they do move forward.
“Despite repeated public commitments by justice sector and human rights institutions, such as the National Human Rights Commission and the Office of the Attorney General, torture survivors still struggle to have their voices heard or have their cases addressed,” said Mohan Karna, Executive Director of the THRD Alliance. “We urge the authorities at both the federal and provincial levels to take action to address the concerns of victims and to institute policies – such as establishing robust detention monitoring and internal accountability mechanisms – that will deter future acts of torture and ill-treatment.”
On the occasion of the International Day in Support of Victims of Torture, the three organizations urged the Government of Nepal to:
- Carry out prompt, thorough, impartial and effective investigations into all allegations of torture and ill-treatment, and to bring prosecutions where warranted under the criminal provisions of the Penal Code.
- Institute structural reform within the police including the establishment of a separate and independent mechanism to investigate allegations of torture and ill-treatment involving police personnel.
- Ensure public availability statistics on the investigation, prosecution and other action taken in response to allegations of torture and ill-treatment.
- Amend the Penal Code and other relevant provisions of law to eliminate the statute of limitations in torture cases, and to ensure that the definition of torture is in line with international law.
- Establish an independent preventative mechanism for monitoring of detention centers.
- Become party to the Optional Protocol of the Convention on Torture
Background
International Day in Support of Victims of Torture is marked worldwide on 26 June every year. Under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT), to which by Nepal is a party, the authorities to investigate, prosecute, punish and provide effective remedies and reparation for the crimes of torture and other acts of ill-treatment.
The Penal Code criminalizing torture came into force in August 2018. While it was welcome as positive step, the provisions fall short of international standards in a number of respects, including failure to recognize the continuous nature of the crime of enforced disappearance or its status as a crime against humanity; an unacceptably brief six-month limitation period to file complaints; and penalties incommensurate with the gravity of the crimes.
Download
Nepali (PDF)
English (PDF)
Contact
Frederick Rawski, ICJ Asia-Pacific Director, e: frederick.rawski@icj.org, t: +66 644781121
Om Prakash Shen Thakuri, AF, Executive Director, e: opsenthakuri@gmail.com, t: +977 9841275732
Mohan Karna, THRD Alliance, Executive Director, e: karnamohan90@gmail.com, t: +977 9841449139
Nov 12, 2019 | Advocacy, News
The Government of Myanmar should adopt constitutional and legislative guarantees to enable the Myanmar National Human Rights Commission (MNHRC) to better protect and promote human rights for all persons in the country, according to a new ICJ briefing note.
Entitled Four Immediately Implementable Reforms to Enhance Myanmar’s National Human Rights Commission, the note analyzes the ability of the MNHRC to address various human rights violations, some of which have been found by experts to constitute the most serious crimes under international law. The briefing is available in Burmese and English.
“The NLD-led government should promptly reform the MNHRC Law, allowing for the selection of better qualified and representative Commissioners, and granting them the independence and resources necessary for their work. This reform is a low-hanging fruit for the NLD, and overdue” said Sean Bain, ICJ Legal Adviser.
“At the same time, Commissioners should robustly pursue their mandate, including by advocating for the rights of society’s most vulnerable people,” he added.
The MNHRC itself has recognized the need for law reform, in its self-assessment of 2018, and in its reform proposals to the Government. Any law reform process should be opened up to genuine public consultation, enabling inputs from experts and the general public.
“The MNHRC generally fails to act on reported human rights violations, from crimes by soldiers in border areas through to regular attacks on the press, rendering it ineffective in providing redress to victims,” said Sean Bain, ICJ Legal Adviser. “The MNHRC’s routine inaction in critical cases demonstrates its lack of the necessary independence to stand against state actors, particularly the military,” he added.
One illustrative case is the Commission’s reluctance to further pursue justice for the death in military custody of journalist Ko Par Gyi, whose killers were secretly tried and acquitted in a military court, despite the MNHRC’s finding that a public criminal prosecution was warranted. Commissioners have also been notably silent on gross human rights violations against Rohingyas, perpetrated by Tatmadaw soldiers in the context of “clearance operations”.
The note highlights that the Commission refrains from investigating alleged human rights violations by referencing Section 37 of the 2014 MNHRC Law. This provision is narrowly construed to effectively preclude the MNHRC from conducting inquiries on matters that are already the subject of a legal proceeding.
The composition of the Commission also does not reflect Myanmar’s ethnic, religious, regional and gender diversity, which further erodes its ability to address the conflict-related violations and abuses particularly prevalent in border areas such as Rakhine, Kachin and Shan states.
While amending problematic provisions in the 2014 MNHRC Law is warranted, a constitutional guarantee would also significantly improve the Commission’s institutional independence.
“A constitutional provision, in contrast to ordinary legislation, is subject to a stricter amendment process that would less likely render the MNHRC politically vulnerable,” said Jenny Domino, ICJ Associate Legal Adviser.
“Myanmar can look to the experience of the national human rights institutions of East Timor and the Philippines, which were established by constitutional provision at a time that both countries were transitioning to a democratic and rule of law based order”,” she added.
Four immediately implementable reforms for the Government of Myanmar are recommended:
- To the Union President and the Selection Board: appoint Commissioners through a transparent and fully consultative process that enables its composition to effectively protect human rights and appropriately reflect the full diversity of the population of Myanmar, including ethnic, religious, regional, gender and sexual identities;
- To the Commissioners: adopt a broad and active interpretation of their mandate, including by taking steps to address the most serious violations, including crimes under international law, and certain human rights cases that have gone before courts;
- To the Myanmar parliament: amend the 2014 MNHRC Law to include provisions that strengthen the MNHRC’s capacity and independence, and improve the appointment process for commissioners
- To the Constitutional Amendment Committee: propose provisions guaranteeing the structural and financial independence of the MNHRC in amending the 2008 Constitution.
To download the press release in Burmese, click here.
Download
Myanmar-MNHRC-Advocacy-Briefing-Note-2019-ENG (in English, PDF)
Myanmar-MNHRC-Advocacy-Briefing-Note-2019-BUR (in Burmese, PDF)
Contact
Jen Domino, ICJ Associate Legal Adviser, e: jenny.domino(a)icj.org, t: 09968134317
Daw Hnin Win Aung, ICJ Legal Adviser, e: hninwin.aung(a)icj.org, t: 09428122794
Related material:
Achieving Justice for Gross Human Rights Violations in Myanmar: Baseline Study
Myanmar: Five years without justice for journalist Ko Par Gyi
Dec 9, 2014 | News
On the eve of the 64th annual world Human Rights Day, the ICJ urges the Pakistani Government to promptly constitute a strong and effective National Human Rights Commission that is compliant with the UN Principles relating to the Status of National Institutions (Paris Principles).
“Independent and credible national human rights institutions can be helpful for protecting and promoting human rights,” said Sam Zarifi, ICJ’s Director for Asia and the Pacific. “The Pakistan Government has been inexplicably dragging its feet despite repeated promises to constitute the Commission.”
In South Asia, India, Sri Lanka, Nepal and Bangladesh have established National Human Rights Institutions (NHRIs), making Pakistan a regional exception.
“A properly constituted national human rights commission will not by itself fix any country’s human rights problems, but it can be part of the solution,” said Zarifi. “Pakistan can and should learn from the lessons of failed NHRIs in the region and constitute an institution that can address the real needs of all people in the country.”
Pakistan passed the National Commission for Human Rights Act in 2012. The law provides for an independent commission with broad powers to promote human rights and to investigate human rights violations.
However, the law significantly limits the Commission’s mandate where the armed forces are accused of committing human rights violations.
In such cases, the Commission is only authorized to seek a report from the Government, and make recommendations if it sees fit.
The law further emphasizes that the functions of the Commission “do not include inquiring into the act or practices of the intelligence agencies”.
“The proposed Commission’s restricted mandate over the armed forces, and especially the intelligence agencies, is of grave concern given that Pakistan’s military and intelligence services are accused of perpetrating gross human rights violations, including enforced disappearances, extrajudicial killings, and torture and ill-treatment,” Zarifi added.
“A human rights commission that does not have jurisdiction over abuses by these actors risks being toothless and ineffective—and worst, a cover for continuing government inaction in response to these violations.”
Contact:
Sam Zarifi, ICJ Asia Pacific Regional Director (Bangkok), t: +66 807819002; e: sam.zarifi(a)icj.org
Reema Omer, ICJ International Legal Adviser (London), t: +44 7889565691; e: reema.omer(a)icj.org
Background:
Section 3 (a) (ii) of the Paris Principles, which provide the minimum standards required by national human rights institutions to be considered credible and effective, states that a NHRI should have the power to hear a matter without higher referral over “any situation of violation of human rights which it decides to take up”.
Because of the proposed Commission’s limited mandate over the military, it is questionable whether the proposed National Human Rights Commission is compliant with the Paris Principles.
During its 2012 Universal Periodic Review, Pakistan accepted multiple recommendations to speedily operationalize the National Commission for Human Rights.
Over two years since the Review, there has been little progress in constituting the Commission, let alone amending the law establishing the Commission to ensure that it complies with the Paris Principles.
