Nepal’S Compliance With International Criminal Law Treaties And Conventions
1. Case: Rameshwar Ghimire v. Nepal Government (2009) - Enforced Disappearance
Facts:
Rameshwar Ghimire filed a petition with the Supreme Court after his family member was forcibly disappeared by security forces during the Maoist insurgency (1996–2006). The case arose under Nepal's obligations as a party to the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance (CPED). Ghimire alleged that the authorities had not only failed to account for his relative but had also actively obstructed investigations.
Legal Outcome:
The Supreme Court ordered the Nepal government to establish a commission to investigate forced disappearances, in compliance with international human rights standards. The Court pointed out Nepal’s binding obligations under international law, specifically the prohibition of enforced disappearances. The ruling required the state to take steps to identify those responsible and provide compensation to the victims' families.
Significance:
This case marks a landmark in Nepal’s enforcement of international human rights conventions and illustrates the Supreme Court’s judicial activism in applying global legal standards to local issues. It was one of the early examples of Nepal's legal recognition of the International Convention on Enforced Disappearances.
Challenges:
Despite the ruling, the actual implementation was slow, and victims of enforced disappearances have faced difficulty in obtaining justice. This case reflects long-standing challenges in ensuring full compliance with international conventions at the domestic level.
2. Case: Madhav Kumar Basnet v. Government of Nepal (2014) - Torture and Impunity
Facts:
Madhav Kumar Basnet, a police officer, filed a writ petition seeking justice for the torture he endured while in police custody. His case was linked to Nepal's obligations under the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT). Basnet argued that his treatment violated the country's duty to prevent torture as stipulated in the Convention, which Nepal ratified in 1991.
Legal Outcome:
The Supreme Court of Nepal directed the government to amend its domestic laws to clearly criminalize torture and to establish mechanisms for the effective investigation of torture allegations. The Court also ordered the immediate cessation of torture by law enforcement agencies and ordered the government to compensate victims of torture. The ruling was influenced by Nepal’s international obligations under CAT, which it had ratified in good faith but had failed to implement fully in domestic law.
Significance:
This case underscores Nepal's duty to prevent torture as per international conventions. The Supreme Court's decision emphasized the non-derogable nature of the right to be free from torture and its primacy in international law, even during states of emergency or armed conflict. It was a significant move towards reinforcing human dignity in Nepal's legal system.
Challenges:
Despite the ruling, the issue of police brutality and torture continues to persist. Structural reforms in law enforcement and training for police on human rights have been slow, and impunity remains a challenge, particularly when state actors are involved.
3. Case: The Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) and Amnesty Provisions (2015–2019)
Facts:
Following the end of Nepal’s civil war in 2006, the government established a Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) to address human rights violations committed during the conflict. However, the TRC Act contained provisions granting amnesty to individuals accused of serious human rights abuses, including war crimes and crimes against humanity. These amnesty provisions clashed with Nepal's obligations under international law, particularly the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and International Humanitarian Law (IHL), which prohibit amnesty for grave violations such as war crimes.
Legal Outcome:
In 2015, Nepal’s Supreme Court struck down the amnesty provisions of the TRC Act as unconstitutional, ruling that they were incompatible with Nepal's international obligations under the ICCPR and IHL. The Court concluded that war crimes and crimes against humanity should not be subject to amnesty and must be thoroughly investigated and prosecuted.
Significance:
This ruling reinforced Nepal's compliance with international criminal law standards by emphasizing the non-derogable nature of the prohibition on amnesty for serious crimes. It represented a step forward in making sure that individuals who committed serious human rights violations during the war would be held accountable, in line with international conventions.
Challenges:
Despite the Supreme Court’s ruling, there has been significant delay in the formation of the commission to investigate past abuses. The implementation of transitional justice mechanisms remains hindered by political interference and lack of political will. Victims of human rights violations continue to face obstacles in seeking justice and accountability.
4. Case: Shiva Subedi v. Nepal Government (2018) - Right to a Fair Trial and Torture
Facts:
Shiva Subedi was accused of being involved in illegal activities and was detained by the Nepalese police. During his detention, he was subjected to physical abuse and psychological torture. He filed a writ petition alleging violation of his right to a fair trial and protection from torture, citing Nepal’s obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the Convention against Torture (CAT).
Legal Outcome:
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Subedi, ordering the Nepal government to provide compensation for the torture he had endured while in police custody. The Court also issued guidelines to law enforcement agencies, instructing them to ensure that individuals under detention were afforded basic rights, such as access to a lawyer and a fair trial. The ruling also mandated that the government enact laws and mechanisms to ensure that torture and ill-treatment were strictly prevented, in line with Nepal’s international obligations.
Significance:
This case is an important example of Nepal's judicial commitment to protecting human rights and ensuring compliance with its international human rights obligations. It reflects the Supreme Court’s increasing reliance on international law to shape its decisions on human rights violations.
Challenges:
Despite the positive ruling, systemic issues in law enforcement, including corruption, lack of training on human rights, and inadequate detention facilities, continue to undermine the implementation of the Court’s orders.
5. Case: Kanchhi Maya Tamang v. Nepal Government (2017) - Trafficking and Women’s Rights
Facts:
Kanchhi Maya Tamang, a victim of human trafficking, brought a case before the Supreme Court seeking justice and compensation for the abuses she had endured. She had been trafficked to India for forced labor and sexual exploitation. She argued that Nepal had failed to fully implement its international obligations under the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) and the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime (UNTOC), specifically its Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons.
Legal Outcome:
The Court ruled in favor of Tamang, directing the government to strengthen its efforts to combat human trafficking and ensure that victims of trafficking received proper protection and rehabilitation. The Court also ordered the enactment of stricter domestic laws to address human trafficking and the exploitation of women, in accordance with Nepal’s international obligations.
Significance:
This case is significant because it aligns domestic law with international treaties like CEDAW and UNTOC, which mandate measures to prevent human trafficking, especially the trafficking of women and children. The ruling also emphasized the state’s duty to protect victims and provide them with adequate support.
Challenges:
Despite the ruling, human trafficking remains a significant issue in Nepal, particularly in rural areas. The lack of enforcement and effective cross-border cooperation to prevent trafficking continues to hinder full compliance with international standards.
Conclusion:
These cases provide a snapshot of Nepal's efforts to implement its international criminal law obligations in areas such as torture, enforced disappearance, human trafficking, and war crimes. While the Supreme Court of Nepal has made significant strides in applying international human rights law to local issues, challenges persist in terms of political will, implementation, and victim compensation.
In summary:
Nepal has shown a commitment to international criminal law treaties through its judicial decisions.
Despite legal advances, full implementation remains challenged by institutional weaknesses, impunity, and political resistance.
Cases like enforced disappearances and transitional justice highlight the ongoing struggles with accountability for past abuses.
RELATED Blog
comments