AUG 02 -
We are closing down our offices in Janakpur and Dhangadi in September and those in Biratnagar and Nepalgunj by the end of the year



The chief of the UN Office of High Commissioner for Human Rights in Nepal Richard Bennett is leaving the country after serving out his

three-year term. On the eve of his departure, Biswas Baral, Kamal Raj Sigdel and Ghanashyam Khadka caught up with Bennett to discuss the state of human rights in the country during his tenure, the challenges faced by OHCHR and the recent curtailment of OHCHR mandate. 



OHCHR has been in Nepal for five years. And not a single rights violator has been prosecuted. Do you see this as a failure on the part of OHCHR?



Of course it is very disappointing that

there has been little accountability so far — still no one has been convicted in a civilian court for a conflict related offence. However the responsibility for that cannot be laid at the door of OHCHR. It is the government that has failed to bring perpetrators to justice and the UCPN (Maoist) that has failed to cooperate with judicial processes. Incidentally there have been successful prosecutions for discrimination offences in the Far West region.



How do you assess the performance of OHCHR-Nepal?



I have no hesitation in saying that OHCHR-Nepal is almost certainly one of the most successful field operations that OHCHR has ever had anywhere.

After OHCHR came to Nepal in May 2005 there was an immediate impact on the level of human rights violations. Then OHCHR’s monitoring intervention during the April Protests of 2006 (Jana Andolan II) helped to prevent and reduce violence. Although I came later, I recall seeing that the then Prime Minister late GP Koirala said, ‘the presence of OHCHR saved hundreds of Nepali lives during the democratic movement of Nepal.’

Nepal has ratified most of the UN treaties and in that regard the Government of Nepal has done a good job. Some remain to be ratified such as the ICC Rome Statue and the optional protocol on torture. But implementation of these treaties often falls short. Also there is a need to ensure that the culture of impunity is replaced by the culture of accountability.



But the current government seems to be pretty disappointed with your office.



I don’t agree. If you go and ask the civil servants of the ministries we work with such as the Office of the Prime Minister, the Peace Ministry, or the Home Ministry, you will find different answers. Capacity building programmes including the development and implementation of new human rights polices have been welcomed. These programmes are not given any publicity. For instance just a few days ago we brought forward technical expertise for the finalisation of the national human rights plan. We have been working with the government to bring human rights indicators into national development planning and programmes. We have conducted training programmes on human rights for the government officials.  We have also worked with Nepal Police and the Armed Police Force. 

I think that one thing that has sometimes not been well understood is that while during an emergency OHCHR may need to step in directly, during a post-conflict period our office should not substitute for national organisations except on rare occasions. Rather, we should be providing the needed support to domestic institutions, be they civil society, national institutions or the government. Some organisations have understood this well and have benefited from our technical and moral support and advocacy. Others have understood it less well and have either mistakenly seen us as competitors or have unrealistic expectations about what OHCHR can and should be doing. However, I think it is mainly our responsibility that we have failed to convince some of our partners on these points, including some parts of the media in Kathmandu.



How has OHCHR’s relationship with Nepal Army been on the issues of human rights?



What we have been saying is that rule of law should prevail and nobody is above the law. It is not for us to say whether somebody is guilty or not. All that we are saying is if there is a case against anybody, then it should go through the judicial process.



But clearly things are not happening in that manner. Be it the case of Maina Sunuwar or the Bardiya disappearances.



Maina Sunuwar’s is an emblematic case and it is true that progress on that has been stalled. We have expressed concern that the Nepali Army continues to be in defiance of the judiciary. On Bardiya, we have not seen much progress but we are hopeful. We have been assured by the Army that internal investigation is going on. So I would not like to judge on that. I would also like to bring to notice the cases involving UCPN (Maoist). I have met with several party

leaders including Prachanda. I met him two weeks ago as well. I raised with him four cases which I had raised a year ago.  The Ramhari Shrestha case, the Birendra Shah case, the

Arjun Lama case and the bombing of the bus at Madi. On all of those cases the party has acknowledged their involvement.  But they seem to be doing nothing about it.



OHCHR is often accused of being pro-Maoist. For instance, it is held that it is not as vocal about Maoist rights violations as it is about those of the Nepal Army.



First of all I would like to say that that the international law on human rights is obligatory on the state. And secondly, the standards expected of the state are higher. Having said that, I don’t think that we have been biased. I reject the claim that we are pro-Maoist. We have no interest in being pro-Maoist. Our interest is in promoting human rights. We work within that framework.  I have talked about the cases we have been raising with the Maoists. We are concerned with the conduct of the Maoist on this matter as we are concerned with the conduct of any state institution. Credibility of the UN lies in its impartiality. Let me give you an example of OHCHR’s advocacy against impunity. I meet with both the Prime Minister and Maoist Leader Prachanda to express my concerns on pending issues pertaining to accountability; I have written to both of them reinforcing OHCHR’s advocacy intervention against impunity, and made public those letters followed by a statement to the press.



Do you agree with the government decision to curtail OHCHR mandate?



Since incidents of right violation continue particularly in Tarai and Eastern hills, there is a need to monitor them. Some of our most useful work is done in the regions and the closures are premature given the public security situation and the fragile state of the peace process. We are nonetheless closing down our offices in Janakpur and Dhangadi in September and those in Biratnagar and Nepalgunj by the end of the year as required by the government. The closure of the regional offices is the main effect of the new mandate; otherwise, we are able to continue the work we were doing before.

Building a culture of human rights including an effective national human rights protection system takes time—probably a generation rather than five years or so. It requires determination and persistence over a long period by all the actors involved who need to work in cooperation. I hope OHCHR is seen for what it is—a helping hand in the transition towards a new society that places respect for human rights at its core. I have very much valued my three years in Nepal while trying to make a contribution to this goal.


Posted on: 2010-08-03 08:49

Post Your Comment

Please note that all the fields marked * are mandatory.

* Full Name

* Address

* Email Address

* Comment
[Some of the HTML tags you can use : <b>, <i>, <a>]

* Captcha

Get another CAPTCHA code