Oped»
Monday Interview
JUN 13 -
Four years into the peace process, the human rights situation in Nepal seems to have shown little improvement. Although the overall number of serious violations like extra-judicial killings and disappearances have decreased considerably, the level of immunity enjoyed by criminals remains worryingly high. In this climate, the government has agreed to extend the tenure of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights in Nepal (OHCHR-Nepal) by a year with a revised mandate. Biswas Baral and Pranab Kharel sat down with Mandira Sharma, one of the country’s leading human rights activists and executive director of Advocacy Forum, to discuss these and related issues.
How has the human rights situation in Nepal evolved since the start of the peace process?
Since the start of the peace process, no issue has been as neglected as human rights. The issue had gained significant attention before the signing of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) because the rights situation in the country back then helped garner international attention. Even the CPA acknowledges the importance of addressing rights issues. As compared to peace agreements in other countries, the CPA shows more concern towards human rights. But of late, the issue of human rights has been sidelined as other issues have come to the fore. When the time came to act on the cases of rights violations we had raised during the time of the conflict, to take concrete steps towards ending the culture of impunity by punishing the rights violators, the relevant political actors baulked, which in turn has helped further institutionalise the culture of
impunity.
Statistically, have rights violations gone up in recent times?
If you are talking about disappearances, the trend might be on a decline. If you talk about killings in the Tarai, it might show an increasing trend. The level of people’s confidence in police might be down. The number of torture cases might be down too. But I believe the status of human rights situation in Nepal cannot be judged on the basis of the frequency of incidents. The hope that people had after the success of the change (Jana Andolan II) seems to be waning. The situation is such that anybody can get away with virtually anything. This has increased the morale of the rights violators while the morale of the victims is further eroded.
How do you compare rights violations of state actors against the violations of the non-state actors?
When it comes to accountability, the records of both state and non-state actors are dismal. The victims of non-state actors are still not able to raise the cases of rights violations. For instance, Maoist victims are still not in a position to seek justice as they believe the Maoist activists in the villages. Many victims have been set upon when they have filed cases against the Maoists. The people have been intimidated. But even if the victims take the legal course, they don’t believe any good will come out of it.
Has the state been cooperative in investigating rights violations against the state actors?
Whenever we talk to high-ranking government officials, they all agree that the issue of impunity is a huge problem for Nepal. But why has not a single state actor has been punished so far? We have been pleading with the current government, especially Prime Minister Madhav Kumar Nepal and Home Minister Bhim Rawal to start investigations into right abuses. We have been telling them to take up at least a few cases we have raised in order to establish that the state is serious about punishing rights violators.
How many cases have you taken up with the government?
We have presented the government with a dossier of 64 cases and we have asked them to choose five. Even if a few cases are solved it will boost the morale of the rights victims and decrease the morale of criminals. In the Tarai, criminal groups now believe that they can get away with any level of violence if they are affiliated with one or the other political party. We have been telling the government that this trend hints at a huge public security crisis. We have presented before them details of five cases from the time of the conflict and three cases since the end of the conflict so that the government can act on them and send a clear signal that it does not tolerate impunity and will at least investigate the reported cases. The government assured us that it would look into these cases. But later, they told us that they are unable to act on the cases. The government can’t even act on the cases where the courts have already issued clear verdicts.
How do you asses the role of National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) in bringing an end to this culture of impunity?
Even during the establishment of NHRC in 2000, we compromised on the international norms for establishment of a national rights body. But NHRC was established under special circumstances. We had boycotted the rights body formed under the royal government as its functioning was thought to be one-sided and international norms were broken during its establishment. But even after the change (Jana Andolan II), international norms were compromised while appointing NHRC commissioners. According to the Paris Principle, the commissioners of national rights watchdogs should be independent, they should have worked in the field of human rights for a long time and their appointments should not be done along political lines. But NHRC commissioners were elected along party lines.
Nonetheless, since NHRC was established under special circumstances, we said we would judge it on the basis of its actions. Rights workers believe that the main constituency of NHRC are human rights workers and rights institutions. But the expected level of cooperation between NHRC and rights workers has not materialised. At present, NHRC commissioners look after the interests of their parties rather than the country’s human rights interests.
Advocacy Forum was one of the first organisations to lobby for OHCHR’s presence in Nepal. What role had you envisioned for OHCHR and has it been successful in living up to your expectations?
When we first said we needed OHCHR in Nepal, the space for rights defenders in the country was shrinking. We were not able to do all that was expected of us even as our responsibilities were growing. It was in 2003-04 we started for advocating for the presence of a credible international rights monitoring body. We had genuine reasons for it: since 2001, the incidents of rights violations, especially extra-judicial killings, killings in two-way fighting, and ‘disappearances’ were rapidly growing. The Maoist reign of terror was at its peak. We were not in a position to openly investigate and prosecute the guilty. We saw the conflict deepening. We thus said an international right monitoring mechanism was necessary to document the cases of abuse and to establish accountability. It was in this context we envisioned a role for an international monitoring body.
We had two main goals in inviting OHCHR: to create a conducive atmosphere for Nepali rights workers to work in and to internationally document rights violations in Nepal so as to establish accountability and help end the culture of impunity. In the initial stages, OHCHR, as expected, played an important role in building up the confidence level of rights workers. OHCHR’s role in publicising rights violations on the international stage was also vital. In fact, just its physical presence had great political significance.
But since the end of the armed conflict, OHCHR’s role has been rather ineffective. We had sought OHCHR’s role in establishing governance based on rule of law and accountability, but OHCHR has not been effective in that role. Right now, we don’t need an international rights body to document cases of abuse. It should rather help domestic rights instruments with the documented cases of rights abuse.
In your view, does the country still need OHCHR?
Since the end of the armed conflict, the overall number of people detained and killed illegally might have gone down. Otherwise, the level of impunity is about the same, the rights workers continue to get similar threats. OHCHR’s presence is important in terms of the international scrutiny it provides. The problem is: we don’t know where the country is headed. With regard to the CPA, other issues have been addressed, but those related to human rights have been put on the backburner. In this situation, international scrutiny and monitoring is important. But OHCHR must get it priorities, and the strategies to meet those, right.
How do you view the extension of OHCHR tenure with a revised mandate?
In recent times, those who are in the government feel that the government is getting stronger. But it is getting stronger in the sense that it does not feel liable to obey even court orders. The issue of disappearances is gradually being pushed into obscurity. The issue of Truth and Reconciliation Commission is also disappearing. The government has refused to hear cases of abuse against the Maoists. The government feels it can muzzle rights workers. Now the government is focusing on cutting funding of rights organisations. Thus the government is trying to project its autocratic tendency as its strength. The move to downsize OHCHR is guided by the same tendency. The regional offices of OHCHR, especially in the Tarai, are being closed down as they heighten the likelihood of exposure of the crimes of armed groups and their political patrons.
Second, most rights workers active in Tarai happen to be of hill-origin. The local politicians are looking to curtail their role. But there are also not enough rights defenders (of Tarai origin) to replace them. In the absence these rights workers, criminal offences in these areas might never come to light. This could also be a motive behind closure of OHCHR regional offices.
It is sad that OHCHR’s monitoring and investigation mandates have been curtailed as the country right now needs OHCHR
for investigative purposes, more than anything else.
Posted on: 2010-06-14 07:52
Headlines
Advertisements
