Criminal Liability For Forced Displacement Of Indigenous Communities
Legal & Institutional Framework
Forced displacement of Indigenous communities can give rise to criminal liability under domestic penal codes (e.g., for offences such as forced eviction, destruction of property, crimes against humanity, war crimes) and international law (e.g., the “forcible transfer” crime under the Rome Statute).
Domestic law may criminalise eviction without due process, destruction of property, deprivation of rights; it may also provide for restitution, compensation, and recognition of Indigenous land rights (free prior informed consent, FPIC).
Indigenous rights frameworks: e.g., ILO Convention No. 169 (on Indigenous and Tribal Peoples) has been ratified by some states; and there is growing jurisprudence recognising the right of Indigenous communities not to be forcibly removed from ancestral lands without consent.
Key issues include: the nature of state or private actor involvement; whether there is armed conflict; how displacement is organised; whether there is intent or systematic practice; how domestic criminal law addresses such practices; and whether reparations are required.
Case 1: Indigenous Evictions in Protected Areas — Nepal (Chitwan / Bardiya National Parks)
Facts:
In Nepal, Indigenous communities (e.g., Chepang, Majhi, Tamang) who historically lived in or near buffer zones of protected forests and national parks (such as Chitwan National Park and Bardiya National Park) were subjected to evictions without meaningful notice or consultation. Authorities forcibly removed families, sometimes with inadequate alternative accommodation, disrupting their livelihoods.
Issues:
Were the evictions carried out without due process, consultation, compensation, or recognition of Indigenous rights?
Does the state’s enforcement of conservation law constitute a criminal act of forced displacement or arbitrary eviction when it violates domestic protections and international standards?
What remedies or criminal sanctions apply when communities are displaced without legal safeguards?
Outcome / Significance:
Though not always resulting in a specific criminal conviction of state actors, these evictions have been documented by human rights organisations as violations of Indigenous rights and forced displacement. They highlight a gap in domestic criminal liability for displacement of Indigenous peoples. The cases pushed for reforms in law (recognising Indigenous land rights, requiring FPIC, ensuring due process in eviction). The significance is that the law must recognise Indigenous occupancy as protected, and forced removal without process can engage state responsibility.
Legal principle: Forced displacement of Indigenous communities can amount to an unlawful act if carried out without due process and without protection of Indigenous rights — even if not prosecuted criminally in all cases, the domestic legal system bears responsibility.
Case 2: Newar Community Forced Evictions in Kathmandu Road‑Expansion
Facts:
In the Kathmandu Valley, the road‑widening drive affected the Newar Indigenous community. Houses and heritage structures were bulldozed, residents (many Newar) were evicted, often with little consultation and inadequate compensation. The process involved displacement of people from their traditional lands and neighbourhoods.
Issues:
Was the eviction executed without meaningful consultation, without recognition of Indigenous rights, and so constituted forced displacement of Indigenous community?
Did domestic law or constitutional protections provide for free, prior and informed consent (FPIC) or at least notice and compensation?
Could liability attach to the state or local authorities for failure to protect these rights, or for abusing their power in the process of eviction?
Outcome / Significance:
The community filed litigation and used human rights mechanisms to press their claim. While a full criminal prosecution for forced displacement may not yet have occurred, the case has set precedent for recognition of Indigenous land rights and the requirement for consultation. It shows that forced eviction can be challenged under constitutional law and Indigenous rights frameworks.
Legal principle: Even in urban development contexts, when Indigenous community land is used for infrastructure and residents are removed without adequate process, the displacement may engage legal liabilities (administrative, human rights, and potentially criminal) for the state.
Case 3: Communication to UN Human Rights Committee — P. Tharu, N.K. Tharuni et al. v. Nepal
Facts:
Members of the Tharu Indigenous community in Nepal alleged systematic arbitrary arrests, extra‑judicial killings, and displacement in the context of the internal conflict (Maoist insurgency). The communication to the United Nations Human Rights Committee (HRC) also referenced interference with their land and community safety.
Issues:
The role of displacement as part of human rights violations directed at Indigenous minority groups.
Whether the state is liable under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) for forced displacement/disruption of Indigenous community life.
Outcome / Significance:
The HRC recognised that Indigenous groups faced discriminatory patterns of violence and displacement. While the decision primarily addresses arbitrary arrest and other violations, the forced displacement of Indigenous communities was part of the pattern of violations. It establishes that Indigenous people’s displacement in conflict contexts triggers state obligations of remediation and accountability.
Legal principle: When Indigenous communities are displaced as part of conflict or group‑based violence, the displacement may be a component of larger rights violations (including discrimination) and the state has liability under international human rights treaties. Even if criminal liability for “forced displacement” per se is not always invoked, the associated rights violations are actionable.
Case 4: Domestic Court Decision – Soldier Convicted for Indigenous Victim in a Conservation Area (Nepal)
Facts:
In a recent decision, a district court in Nepal convicted an army sergeant for his involvement in the death of a member of the Chepang Indigenous community, who was collecting snails in a national park buffer zone (protected area). The sergeant was charged under the Penal Code for death by negligence while acting as security in the area. Indigenous livelihood practices and land access were at issue.
Issues:
The killing of an Indigenous community member in the context of land/forest conservation and restriction of traditional livelihoods.
The broader context of displacement of Indigenous livelihoods due to protected area enforcement.
Criminal liability for state actors in enforcement contexts that restrict Indigenous land/livelihood.
Outcome / Significance:
The court’s conviction (imprisonment + compensation) was significant because for the first time a soldier was held liable under the new penal code (§ 182(3) “death by negligence”) in relation to Indigenous community land access. While this is not a conventional “forced displacement” case, it relates to enforcement of protected area rules that result in Indigenous livelihood loss or displacement. The case signals a growing willingness of courts to hold state actors liable for violations of Indigenous land access and associated harm.
Legal principle: When state enforcement of conservation laws leads to harm or displacement of Indigenous community members, state actors may face criminal liability under domestic criminal law.
Case 5: Forced Evictions Without Due Process – Amnesty International Report (2020–2024)
Facts:
A recent study has documented multiple forced eviction incidents across Nepal (2020‑2024) affecting Dalit and Indigenous families. For example: in Dhangadhi the government bulldozed homes of Indigenous families despite verification processes; in Chitwan families in buffer zones of national parks were removed with one week’s notice. The report details use of bulldozers, lack of consultation, and severe impacts on marginalized Indigenous groups.
Issues:
Whether forced evictions of Indigenous families without due process constitute illegal forced displacement under domestic law (e.g., Right to Housing Act, Lands Act) and international law (e.g., the right to housing, prohibition of forced evictions).
Whether criminal liability attaches to officials or authorities who carry out or enable such evictions.
The interplay of Indigenous rights (land, housing, secure tenure) and criminal law.
Outcome / Significance:
While this is a rights‑report rather than a published criminal judgment, it indicates systemic violations. The cases provide evidence for potential criminal liability of state actors for forced displacement of Indigenous communities. They also generate pressure for reform and accountability.
Legal principle: When Indigenous or marginalized communities are forcibly evicted without due process, secure tenure, or consultation, this may amount to unlawful forced displacement giving rise to state responsibility and possible criminal liability for perpetrators or officials.
Case 6: (Comparative) International Decision – Forced Displacement of Indigenous Peoples (Amazon)
Facts:
Though not Nepalese, jurisprudence from other regions (e.g., the Amazon) is instructive: environmental developments caused large‑scale displacement of Indigenous communities; some authorities have recognised that forced transfer of Indigenous peoples can amount to a human rights violation or international crime of deportation/forcible transfer.
Issues:
Whether large‑scale displacement of Indigenous peoples due to extractive activities amounts to forcible transfer (international law) and criminal liability for state/private actors.
How domestic criminal law intersects with international norms in Indigenous forced displacement.
Outcome / Significance:
International jurisprudence supports the idea that forced displacement of Indigenous peoples is a serious crime and that states must prevent, investigate and prosecute such acts. In Nepal, this jurisprudence informs domestic reform, and strengthens the argument for criminal liability of displacement of Indigenous communities.
Legal principle: Forced displacement of Indigenous communities on a large scale, particularly in the context of development or environmental projects, can constitute a crime under international law and may trigger domestic criminal liability when incorporated by statute.
Key Legal Principles & Take‑aways
Forced displacement of Indigenous communities may be unlawful when carried out without consultation, compensation, due process, or respect for Indigenous land rights.
Criminal liability may attach to state actors (or third parties) when such displacement involves offences such as destruction or appropriation of property, deprivation of livelihoods, or violation of rights, especially when Indigenous communities are targeted or discriminated.
Indigenous land/livelihood rights (e.g., FPIC, secure tenure) matter: displacement often roots in denial of these rights; domestic law must recognise these rights to give effect to criminal protections.
Domestic penal codes may need to recognise specific offences of forced eviction or displacement, or apply existing offences (e.g., mischief, destruction of property, criminal negligence, crimes against humanity).
International law and mechanisms (treaties, UN decisions) play an important normative role in shaping domestic liability for forced displacement of Indigenous peoples.
Implementation gaps remain: Although legal frameworks exist, convictions specifically for forced displacement of Indigenous communities are rare, and enforcement weak in many contexts.
Documentation and evidence gathering are crucial: to attribute liability for displacement, one must show the link between the act of displacement and the harm, target group (Indigenous), and state or actor responsibility.
Holistic remedy includes criminal accountability + restitution/compensation: displaced communities require not only criminal sanctions for perpetrators but also restoration of rights, land, or compensation.
RELATED Blog
comments