It is no secret that the Nepal government is looking at two options for the Office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights Office in Nepal (OHCHR-Nepal) as the agreement between the government and the OHCHR runs out on June 9. First, the mandate should be terminated and OHCHR-Nepal should go home. Second, the mandate should be restricted to technical assistance to Nepal’s National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) and that the OHCHR’s regional offices should close.

The OHCHR, Nepali NGOs and the international community oppose both. They argue that a deteriorating human rights situation, a politically fragile environment and an unfinished peace process do not suggest conditions for removing the only functioning monitoring in Nepal. They argue that as human rights is central to the peace process and the OHCHR is central to monitoring that process, removal of the OHCHR represents a high-risk strategy, an attack on the peace process and a dangerous unpicking of the framework that underpins it.

The arguments have been accompanied by a series of attacks against the OHCHR. They have been made most loudly by the Nepali Congress. This is the same party whose leader G.P. Koirala, in his first speech at the end of Jana Andolan II, thanked the OHCHR, not only for its work on human rights, but equally its promotion and protection of Nepal’s democracy at a time of crisis. As the human rights situation deteriorates and democracy is again under threat as the constitutional deadline approaches, attacking the OHCHR is at best a questionable strategy for NC democrats. There has also been a spate of articles in the media circulating unsubstantiated innuendos and rumours. These too must stop.

Most troublingly, there has been yet another attack from the NHRC on the OHCHR.  On May 19, NHRC member Gauri Pradhan told a newspaper that the NHRC had “demanded a curb on its [OHCHR’s] mandate in the changed political scenario”. He went on to argue that the OHCHR “cannot exercise sole authority and has to work as a supporting agency to the NHRC”. Given the timing and content of Pradhan’s fuming ventriloquism of government policy, his remarks do little other than raise already serious doubts about the institution.

Restricting the OHCHR’s mandate rests on a single argument that the NHRC is a credible institution capable of undertaking OHCHR-Nepal’s tasks and doing so in a rapidly declining political and human rights environment. It is an argument that simply does not stand up. The first NHRC was unable to defend human rights in the run-up to the 2005 royal takeover, and this current NHRC enjoys far less legitimacy.

Human rights groups, including, astonishingly, members of the NHRC, as well as repeated evaluations, have very clearly shown that the NHRC has very serious capacity constraints, its independence has been compromised, and there are real concerns over corruption in the institution. It should also be understood that parallel to restricting the OHCHR, the government is pushing legislation to further restrict the powers of the NHRC (an observation notably absent from Gauri Pradhan’s analysis). These are documented in considerable detail in the March 2010 report of the Asian Centre For Human Rights (ACHR): “The Withdrawal of OHCHR: Agreeing an Alibi for Violation”.

Moreover, new information has come to light that would appear to put an end to the claims of the government that the NHRC is a credible body. The ACHR is in possession of confidential information that reveals that the international network of National Human Rights Institutions, the governing body of NHRIs, is moving to downgrade Nepal’s NHRC from full member to observer.

According to the information received, the SCA (Sub-Committee on Accreditation) has informed the NHRC of its intention to recommend to the ICC (International Coordination Committee — the governing body) that the NHRC should be downgraded to B status but should be given a grace period of one year to justify remaining at A level. B level is the same status given to the NHRC during the royal regime, i.e., the international body no longer regards the NHRC as an organisation demonstrating sufficient capacity and independence.

With such compelling evidence, the government’s determination to restrict the mandate suggests a worrying political agenda. Prime Minister Nepal and others in his government have alluded to Sri Lanka on a number of occasions. A May 2010 International Crisis Group report on war crimes in Sri Lanka underlined the popularity of governments in the region for a “Sri Lankan solution” — “unrestrained military action, refusal to negotiate, disregard for humanitarian issues, keeping out international observers including the press and humanitarian workers — as a way to deal with insurgencies and other violent groups”. With no rights logic behind the government’s move to restrict the OHCHR, it is difficult to ignore the increasing parallels. 

Nepal has a duty to provide its citizens with functioning mechanisms to seek justice and redress for human rights violations. If national mechanisms are demonstrably failing, any decision to restrict the OHCHR mandate at a time of crisis and deteriorating human rights is effectively to abandon Nepal’s international human rights obligations. The government is knowingly abandoning its citizens to the mercy of human rights violators. 

Given the repeated attacks by the NHRC on the OHCHR, technical assistance from the OHCHR is no longer tenable. The human rights community recommends a renewal of full mandate of the OHCHR and a return to field-based protection and monitoring over two years given its extensive capacity and problems in the NHRC; an end to the current cooperation agreement between the OHCHR and the NHRC; and finally, given its  recent failings, an immediate review of the current donor funding and strategy for the NHRC.

(The author is director of Delhi-based Asian Centre for Human Rights)

Post Your Comment

Please note that all the fields marked * are mandatory.
* Full Name
* Address
* Email Address
* Comment
* Captcha	Get another CAPTCHA code
Note:	Comments containing abusive words or slander shall not be published.