Forgot your password?
Nepal: Backsliding On Rights
Hrw.org
January 24, 2012: the Human Rights Watch based in new York has released its World Report of 2012, and in its chapter concerning Nepal has stated the following:
The government and political parties consistently failed to establish accountability for serious human rights abuses during the conflict with Maoist insurgents, which ended in 2006, Human Rights Watch said. Instead, they further weakened an already dysfunctional justice system by ignoring court orders and appointing people allegedly guilty of serious rights violations to senior government positions.
“Successive governments since the peace agreement of 2006 have demonstrated no political will toward tackling these difficult but important issues,” said Brad Adams, Asia director of Human Rights Watch. “Neither the previous government nor the new Maoist-led government have kept their promises to ensure justice for tens of thousands of victims of the conflict. Justice and reconciliation have become catchphrases that parties use when it suits them while in opposition, but then conveniently forget when in power.”
None of the security forces or of the Maoists has been held criminally responsible for abuses during the conflict, and the security forces or political parties have protected many of the accused, Human Rights Watch said. On August 28, just days before the expiration of the mandate of the Constituent Assembly, Baburam Bhattarai, a senior member of the United Communist Party of Nepal-Maoist (UCPN-M) was finally elected prime minister. Going against the international law and standards, Bhattarai immediately struck a deal with coalition parties calling for the withdrawal of criminal cases against people affiliated with the Maoist party and the Madhesi, Janajati, Tharuhat, Dalit, and Pichadabarga movements, and declaring a general amnesty, which could include serious crimes and human rights abuses.
The agreement between UCPN-M and its coalition partners, if applied, would also violate Supreme Court directives. The prime minister sought to back away from the fury that this agreement generated by saying he only intended to withdraw “politically motivated” cases, but he didn’t say what exactly that would mean or who would make that determination.
Long promised draft bills to establish a Truth and Reconciliation Commission and a Disappearances Commission have been introduced in parliament but await debate by the Statute Committee. While the bills are a step toward justice for war victims, several provisions are inconsistent with international law, such as some that may allow compensation to victims to be contingent on an agreement to pardon those responsible for the violations.
In a particularly disturbing development, the government in December refused to extend the mandate of the office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights. The OHCHR office was mandated, among other things, to ensure effective implementation of the human rights components of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement of 2006, a task that has not been completed, in part due to political wrangling among the parties and a lack of commitment to human rights. No clear reason was given for denying the mandate.
“The refusal to extend the mandate of the UN human rights field office is a major step backward and calls into question the commitment of the main political parties in the government and opposition to protect the rights of Nepalis,” Adams said. “Nepalis know firsthand what the army and Maoists are capable of. The government should reverse this decision and show the Nepali people that they welcome the additional safeguards a UN presence offers.”
“Nepal is no closer to fulfilling the lofty rights-focused commitments spelled out in the Comprehensive Peace Agreement now than when it was signed five years ago,” Adams said. “If anything, current developments indicate that there is a trend to back away from these commitments for the sake of political expediency.”
The government and political parties have consistently failed to muster the will to establish accountability for even egregious wartime human rights violations. Not one person has been held criminally responsible for such crimes. In many cases, those accused of violations actively receive protection from security forces or political parties.
Dalits ("untouchables") suffer from endemic discrimination, especially in the economic, social, and cultural spheres. In September 2009 Nepal announced its support for UN-endorsed guidelines on the elimination of caste discrimination. However, Nepal has yet to implement recommendations made in 2004 by the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, including the adoption of legislation enabling the National Dalit Commission—a state agency—to fulfill its mandate.
While women have constitutional guarantees of equality and strong representation in the Constituent Assembly, women and girls continue to face widespread discrimination. Trafficking, domestic violence, dowry-related violence, rape, and sexual assault remain serious problems. Sexual violence cases are often settled in private and, even when complaints are filed, police rarely carry out effective investigations. Women in the Constituent Assembly have formed a caucus to push for greater focus on women's concerns.
Tibetan refugees have faced increasing harassment, as Nepali authorities grow increasingly responsive to pressures from China. Arrests, criminalization of entry, arbitrary detention, and forced return of refugees to China were reported in 2011. In March the government banned Tibetans from celebrating the Tibetan New Year. In August police arrested and briefly detained Thiley Lama, the Dalai Lama’s envoy to Nepal, and his assistant after they publicly asked for the inclusion of refugee rights in Nepal’s new constitution and the issuance of identity cards for Tibetans in Nepal.
In September Nepali authorities arrested more than 20 Tibetan refugees, including several children, for illegal entry. Pursuant to a “gentleman’s agreement” between the government and the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), authorities are to immediately hand over such refugees to UNHCR, which is then to facilitate their onward progress to India. But these refugees were transferred to UNHCR only after a court intervened more than a week later.
