Nepal: ICJ Submission to the UN Universal Periodic Review (UPR)

Nepal: ICJ Submission to the UN Universal Periodic Review (UPR)

Today, the ICJ submitted a report to the UN Human Rights Council Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) ahead of the review of Nepal’s human rights record in January-February 2021.

In the submission, the ICJ, Advocacy Forum – Nepal (AF), Terai Human Rights Defenders Alliance (THRD Alliance) & University of Passau, provided information and analysis to assist the Working Group to make recommendations to the Government of Nepal to take measures to prevent acts of torture and ill-treatment; to implement a human rights compliant legal framework for accountability and remedy and reparation for victims; and institute other measures to comply with its international obligations, including ratification of international human rights instruments.

In light of the concerns set out above, the ICJ, AF and THRD Alliance call upon the UPR Working Group and the Human Rights Council to recommend the following to Government of Nepal:

  • Ensure that the law criminalizing torture is consistent with international law, through the passage of an anti-torture law, and/or through amendment to the current Penal Code, including that the:
      • Definition of torture in national law is in line with the CAT and other international treaty provisions;
      • Statutory limitation or prescription periods for the filing of complaints or cases of torture or other ill- treatment be removed;
      • Penalties for torture are commensurate to the gravity of the offence;
      • Definition of reparation encompasses restitution, compensation, rehabilitation (including medical and psychological care, as well as legal and social services), and guarantees of non-repetition;
      • Independent mechanisms for the regular monitoring of places of detention are established, or existing mechanisms adequately supported.
  • Ensure that all allegations of torture are registered, investigated and prosecuted by an independent and impartial investigative body;
  • Ensure that all detainees have access to legal representation;
  • Collect and publicize data on allegations of torture and ill-treatment, including prosecutions and any measures, including disciplinary measures, taken against perpetrators;
  • Establish an independent police service commission or equivalent body to ensure fair and transparent appointment, promotion, transfer of police officers and to oversee disciplinary complaints against the police;
  • Establish a consistent system of documentation in each police station and at any detention facilities, in particular, concerning the entry into and release of detainees from custody, as well as the procedure during interrogations;
  • Systematize human rights education and training in police training programmes, including medico-legal training (based on Istanbul Protocol);
  • Ensure that victims are adequately involved in criminal proceedings, in accordance with international standards developed for this purpose;
  • Ratify OPCAT and establish a national preventative mechanism that complies with its requirements; become a party to other core human rights treaties to which Nepal is not yet a party;
  • Accept the requests to visit Nepal from UN special procedures, including the Working Group on Enforced and Involuntary Disappearances, the Special Rapporteur on Torture, Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions and the Special Rapporteur on the promotion of truth, justice, reparation and guarantees of non-recurrence.

Download

Nepal-UPR-Submission-2020-ENG (PDF)

Contact

Frederick Rawski, ICJ Asia and Pacific Regional Director, e: frederick.rawski(a)icj.org

Nepal: Despite new criminal laws, impunity for acts of torture prevails

Nepal: Despite new criminal laws, impunity for acts of torture prevails

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

Thailand: The ICJ and other human rights groups make supplementary submission to the UN Human Rights Committee

Thailand: The ICJ and other human rights groups make supplementary submission to the UN Human Rights Committee

On 24 April 2020, the ICJ, Thai Lawyers for Human Rights (TLHR) and the Cross Cultural Foundation (CrCF) made a joint supplementary submission to the UN Human Rights Committee on Thailand’s implementation of its human rights obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).

In their submission, the ICJ, TLHR and CrCF detailed their concerns in relation to Thailand’s failure to implement the Committee’s recommendations, including the ongoing human rights shortcomings of the country’s Constitutional and legal framework; the continued lack of domestic legislation criminalizing torture, other ill-treatment and enforced disappearance; and reports of torture and other ill-treatment. In addition, the three human rights organizations expressed concern over the use of the Emergency Decree on Public Administration in Emergency Situation to combat the COVID-19 outbreak, and measures imposed under the Decree that may constitute a blanket restriction on fundamental freedoms, including the rights to free expression, opinion, information, privacy and freedom of assembly and association, with no opportunity for the courts to review these extraordinary measures.

The organizations’ submission also describes human rights concerns with respect to the following:

Constitution and legal framework

  • Head of the NCPO Order No. 22/2561; and
  • Head of the NCPO Order No. 9/2562

Extrajudicial killings, enforced disappearances and torture

  • continued lack of domestic legislation criminalizing torture, other ill-treatment and enforced disappearance;
  • reports of extrajudicial killings, torture, other ill-treatment, enforced disappearances, and the progress and results of investigations;
  • the application of security-related laws; and
  • threats and reprisals against persons working to bring to light cases of alleged torture, ill–treatment and enforced disappearance.

Download

Thailand-UN-Human-Rights-Committee-Supplementary Submission-2020-ENG (English, PDF)

Thailand-UN-Human-Rights-Committee-Supplementary Submission-2020-THA (Thai, PDF)

Background

On 23 March 2017, during its 119th Session, the Human Rights Committee adopted its Concluding Observations on the second periodic report of Thailand under article 40 of the ICCPR.

Pursuant to its rules of procedure, the Committee requested Thailand to provide a follow up report on its implementation of the Committee’s prioritized recommendations made in paragraphs 8 (constitution and legal framework) 22 (extrajudicial killings, enforced disappearances and torture) and 34 (conditions of detention), within one year of the adoption of its Concluding Observations – i.e., by 23 March 2018.

On 18 July 2018, Thailand submitted its follow-up report to the Committee. The report was published on 9 August 2018.

On 27 March 2018, the ICJ, TLHR and CrCF made a joint follow-up submission to the UN Human Rights Committee. However, since then, there have been several developments that the three organizations wish to bring to the attention of the Committee through this supplementary submission.

The UN Human Rights Committee will review Thailand’s implementation of the prioritized recommendations during its 129th Session, in June/July 2020.

Further reading

ICJ and TLHR, Joint submission to the UN Human Rights Committee, 13 February 2017

ICJ, TLHR and CrCF, Joint follow-up submission to the UN Human Rights Committee, 27 March 2018

Tajikistan: ICJ analysis and compilation of the UN Human Rights Committee Views concerning allegations of torture and other forms of ill-treatment

Tajikistan: ICJ analysis and compilation of the UN Human Rights Committee Views concerning allegations of torture and other forms of ill-treatment

Today, the ICJ published a compilation of cases (read the full document here) decided by the UN Human Rights Committee (HRC) concerning allegations of torture and other forms of ill-treatment (articles 7 and 10).

This compilation draws together the views of the HRC in all individual communications adjudicated on the merits in respect of Tajikistan, concerning Article 7 and Article 10 of the ICCPR from 1999 to 2019.

This compilation provides a resource for lawyers, judges, civil society and other stakeholders working to protect against torture and ill-treatment in Tajikistan. The cases in this volume demonstrate how the UN Human Rights Committee has applied the principles of its jurisprudence on torture and other ill-treatment to the particular legal and factual context of Tajikistan. These authoritative interpretations of the ICCPR by the Committee can help to inform consideration of these issues in the national courts, as well as in legislative reform and policy making.

In addition, by drawing together and analysing the facts of individual communications to the Committee from Tajikistan, this compilation also serves to identify underlying systemic issues which Tajik authorities and the national justice system fail to address. An introduction to the compilation highlight of the main issues which have been identified by the Committee in almost 20 years of its practice on Tajikistan. Several patterns regarding the actual functioning of the Tajik criminal justice system can be drawn from the Committee’s decisions. Together they represent an important evidentiary source to determine where the justice system fails in practice to protect human rights that are guaranteed by the ICCPR and often by Tajikistan law and procedure.

While the freedom from torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment under Article 7 is the central point of this review, it logically includes some reference to other relevant Articles of the ICCPR, including Article 2(3) (the right to an effective remedy for violations of the Covenant rights) Article 6 (right to life), Article 10 (conditions of detention), Article 9 (the right to liberty) and Article 14 (fair trial rights). These rights are analysed only where they are pleaded by applicants in cases also involving allegations of violations of rights under Article 7 or 10 ICCPR.

This compilation of cases is published as part of ICJ’s Global Redress and Accountability Initiative, with a view to rendering accessible the cases of the Human Rights Committee related to torture and other ill-treatment to a wide range of different actors within and engaging with the justice system. It should be useful both for independent practitioners such as lawyers, human rights defenders and civil society organizations, and for the judiciary, but also the Ministry of Justice, the Ministry of Health or the Ministry of Interior, under whose competence some of the issues may fall. The publication should be of equal interest to IGOs working in or with an interest in Tajikistan.

Suriname: the rule of law must be respected by all concerned

Suriname: the rule of law must be respected by all concerned

Today, the ICJ has taken note of the 29 November 2019 conviction by the military and civilian chambers of a Court Martial (“the Court”) in Suriname of President Desiré Delano Bouterse and acquittal of others for crimes under international law relating to events that had taken place in December 1982 in Suriname.

The Court imposed a 20-year sentence of imprisonment on Bouterse, albeit it did not order an arrest warrant to be issued against him.

Bouterse and his co-accused faced charges of torture and murder — by means of extra-judicial executions – of 15 people – lawyers, journalists, soldiers, businessmen, academics and a trade union leader – who had been openly critical of the regime at the time, following a military coup led by Bouterse.

Bouterse, who remains the country’s President, was abroad when the Court delivered its verdict; he returned to Suriname two days later.

The ICJ is concerned at apparent efforts to circumvent the Court’s verdict. Since his conviction, Bouterse has made statements amounting to a deliberate undermining of the judicial process and rule of law, such as calling on the court to “come and get me”.

The ICJ further takes note that there is a possibility of appeal and calls on all parties to respect the rule of law and to allow the legal system to run its course, in accordance with international fair trial standards, without further delays, threats or other forms of executive interference.

Background to the 29 November 2019 verdict

The trial against Bouterse and his alleged accomplices began in 2007. On 19 July 2010, Desiré Delano Bouterse was elected President of Suriname, taking up office on 12 August 2010. On 4 April 2012, the country’s Parliament adopted an amendment to the 1989 Amnesty Law in existence at the time, which had the effect of granting an amnesty to President Bouterse and others in relation to any wrongdoing in connection with the December 1982 events. This led to a decision by the Court to suspend the trial of Bouterse and his co-accused indefinitely pending the establishment of the constitutionality or otherwise of the 1989 Amnesty Law. As the ICJ noted in its report of 29 May 2012, which followed an ICJ mission to the country to observe the trial, there were a number of unresolved questions regarding the legality of the 1989 Amnesty Law, including its incompatibility with Suriname’s international law obligations.

Since its initial mission in 2012, the ICJ has frequently expressed concern at the persistent delays in the proceedings. Eventually, in June 2016, the Court declared the 1989 Amnesty Law unconstitutional, and ordered the proceedings’ resumption; however, delays continued to beset the proceedings. On 2 August 2016, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights expressed its deep concern about the then ongoing delays in the resumption of the trial. Eventually, by early 2017, the Court decided to have the charges put to the accused and ordered the prosecutor to read them out in court.

Persistent efforts by Bouterse to use his authority to have the trial declared a threat to national security or a danger to the country’s economic stability were unsuccessful, and the trial resumed, albeit with continued delays, prompting the ICJ to issue a further statement in May 2017 calling for the resumption of the trial without further delay.

Eventually, in June 2017, the public prosecutor issued his full list of charges against President Bouterse, accompanied by a request of a sentence of imprisonment of no less than 20 years on conviction, thereby moving to the trial phase proper of the proceedings.

Download

Suriname-Bouterse case-news-press release-2019-DUT (PDF available in Dutch)

Translate »