September, 11 2008, 02:07pm EDT
Nepal: End Cycle of Impunity and Deliver Justice to Victims
New Government Should Investigate Past Abuses and Prosecute Perpetrators
KATHMANDU
The new Maoist-led government of Nepal should investigate and prosecute
those responsible for thousands of extrajudicial killings, torture, and
enforced disappearances during the country's decade-long armed
conflict, Human Rights Watch and Advocacy Forum said in a joint report released today.
"The Maoists claimed they took up arms because of the denial of
justice," said Brad Adams, Asia director of Human Rights Watch. "Now
that they are in government, we hope they will show the courage to
bring perpetrators to justice."
The 118-page report, "Waiting for Justice: Unpunished Crimes from Nepal's Armed Conflict,"
documents in detail 62 cases of killings, disappearances, and torture
between 2002 and 2006, mostly perpetrated by security forces but
including a couple of cases involving Maoists. The families of those
killed and disappeared have filed detailed complaints with police
seeking criminal investigations but the Nepali justice system has
failed miserably to respond to these complaints.
"People took to the streets in 2006 demanding a new Nepal
built on justice, human rights, and rule of law," said Mandira Sharma,
executive director of Advocacy Forum. "It's time for the new government
to honour that call."
To date, not a single perpetrator has been brought to
justice before a civilian court. Fearing both the army and Maoists, at
times police refuse to register complaints altogether, saying they will
be dealt with by a proposed transitional justice body.
For instance, almost four years after eyewitnesses saw
army personnel seize and shoot Madhuram Gautam dead in Morang District
on December 18, 2004, police are still refusing to file a criminal
complaint into his death. This is despite interventions by lawyers,
representatives of the National Human Rights Commission of Nepal and
the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights-Nepal, and even
an order from the Biratnagar Appellate Court requiring police and the
chief district office to register the complaint. But when Madhuram's
family and Advocacy Forum visited Morang police on September 1, 2008,
to file the complaint, the superintendent of police still refused to
register it.
When police do register complaints, they often fail to
interview suspects and witnesses and conduct the most rudimentary of
investigations. Public prosecutors have been reluctant to scrutinize
ongoing police investigations, and courts have been unreceptive and
submissive to political influences. Meanwhile the army flatly refuses
to cooperate with investigations.
Fifteen-year-old Maina Sunuwar was "disappeared" after her
arrest in February 2004, and Kavre police registered a complaint in
November 2005 only after considerable national and international
pressure. But slow action by police in the process of identifying and
verifying human remains has hampered investigations. In July 2008, DNA
test results finally confirmed that human remains found buried at the
Panchkal army camp were Maina's. Despite a February 2008 court order
issuing summons for the arrest of four accused army officers, none has
yet been arrested.
"Due to fear, ignorance, or incompetence, police and
prosecutors have time and again failed in their duty to investigate and
prosecute these crimes," said Sharma. "If the political will is there,
then we can achieve justice. The government needs to support the police
to do their job of investigating crime and restore people's trust in
the rule of law and state institutions."
While only two of the 62 documented cases in the report
implicate Maoists, Maoist forces have also abducted, tortured, and
killed civilians. During the conflict and since, many victims have been
afraid to file complaints against them. Maoists abducted and allegedly
killed Arjun Bahadur Lama in December 2005, but police refused to
register a complaint fearing reprisals from the Maoists. More than a
hundred Maoists intimidated police and relatives when the relatives
tried to file a complaint with police. Following a Supreme Court order
for the police to register a murder case against five Maoist members
and a Maoist Central Committee member on August 11, 2008, the Kavre
police finally registered a complaint. Human Rights Watch also
documented Maoist and security force abuses in the October 2004 report,
"Between a Rock and a Hard Place: Civilians Struggle to Survive in Nepal's Civil War"
In the new report, Human Rights Watch and Advocacy Forum called on the new government of Nepal to:
- *
Vigorously investigate and prosecute all persons responsible for
abuses, including members of the security forces, in all 62 cases
highlighted in this report, as well as other cases of human rights
violations;
* Criminalize "disappearances" and torture - whether committed by
the security forces, Maoists, or other actors - and ensure these
offenses when committed by the army will be subject to investigation
and prosecution by civilian authorities and courts; and
* Establish a Truth and Reconciliation Commission and a
commission of inquiry into disappearances that does not grant amnesty
for serious human rights abuses.
The report also calls on
influential international actors to promote security sector reform
including the establishment of effective oversight and accountability
mechanisms for the security forces and vetting procedures. On September
1, 2008, Deputy Prime Minister and Home Minister Bamadev Gautam told
journalists that the main target of the new government would be to
establish law and order in Nepal within six months and end the state of
impunity. While some politicians maintain that justice for past abuses
has to be balanced against progress in the peace process, Human Rights
Watch and Advocacy Forum believe this is a dangerous misconception, and
that without justice there cannot be a lasting peace.
"Actions speak louder than words. The only real proof of
the government's commitment to human rights will be when perpetrators
are finally held to account in a court of law," said Adams. "The new
government and law enforcement agencies have a historic chance to show
that they will investigate and prosecute abusers and send a message
that no one in Nepal can get away with murder."
Selected accounts from the report:
"The
soldiers forced me to go into the other room. Then I heard the shots
and I ran out. My son and his wife, both of them were asking for water.
I saw them crying out with pain. I was holding my granddaughter, who
was also injured. I saw my son and his wife struggling for the last
minute of their life, they were dying in front of my eyes."
- Bhumisara Thapa, the mother of Dal Bahadur Thapa, who was killed by security forces in 2002.
"I
went to the [Chief District Officer] and the District Police Office at
least 20 times. Officials in both places took the application from me
but did not register a complaint. I met the CPN-M [Communist Party of
Nepal-Maoist] leader Prachanda and asked him for the whereabouts of my
husband. He asked me to give him two or three days. It's been two
years."
- Purnima Lama, wife of Arjun Lama, abducted by Maoists on April 19, 2005, and still missing.
"I
visited many places to knock on the door of state authorities for
justice, however I haven't got justice yet. The skeleton of my daughter
is still kept in the hospital. I am tired yet still visiting the
authorities to get justice in my daughter's case but I am not sure when
I will get justice...."
- Bhakta Bahadur Sapkota, father of 15-year-old Sarala Sapkota,
abducted by soldiers on July 15, 2004, and whose remains were found on
January 11, 2006.
"The army investigation and court martial was a mere
formality. They were not even put in jail and in any case being
[sentenced to] jail for six months for the torture and killing of a
minor is not just punishment."
- Devi Sunuwar, mother of 15-year-old Maina Sunawar, abducted by
soldiers on February 19, 2004, and whose remains were found in March
2007.
Human Rights Watch is one of the world's leading independent organizations dedicated to defending and protecting human rights. By focusing international attention where human rights are violated, we give voice to the oppressed and hold oppressors accountable for their crimes. Our rigorous, objective investigations and strategic, targeted advocacy build intense pressure for action and raise the cost of human rights abuse. For 30 years, Human Rights Watch has worked tenaciously to lay the legal and moral groundwork for deep-rooted change and has fought to bring greater justice and security to people around the world.
LATEST NEWS
Critics Blast 'Reckless and Impossible' Bid to Start Operating Mountain Valley Pipeline
"The time to build more dirty and dangerous pipelines is over," said one environmental campaigner.
Apr 23, 2024
Environmental defenders on Tuesday ripped the company behind the Mountain Valley Pipeline for asking the federal government—on Earth Day—for permission to start sending methane gas through the 303-mile conduit despite a worsening climate emergency caused largely by burning fossil fuels.
Mountain Valley Pipeline LLC sent a letter Monday to Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) Acting Secretary Debbie-Anne Reese seeking final permission to begin operation on the MVP next month, even while acknowledging that much of the Virginia portion of the pipeline route remains unfinished and developers have yet to fully comply with safety requirements.
"In a manner typical of its ongoing disrespect for the environment, Mountain Valley Pipeline marked Earth Day by asking FERC for authorization to place its dangerous, unnecessary pipeline into service in late May," said Jessica Sims, the Virginia field coordinator for Appalachian Voices.
"MVP brazenly asks for this authorization while simultaneously notifying FERC that the company has completed less than two-thirds of the project to final restoration and with the mere promise that it will notify the commission when it fully complies with the requirements of a consent decree it entered into with the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration last fall," she continued.
"Requesting an in-service decision by May 23 leaves the company very little time to implement the safety measures required by its agreement with PHMSA," Sims added. "There is no rush, other than to satisfy MVP's capacity customers' contracts—a situation of the company's own making. We remain deeply concerned about the construction methods and the safety of communities along the route of MVP."
Russell Chisholm, co-director of the Protect Our Water, Heritage, Rights (POWHR) Coalition—which called MVP's request "reckless and impossible"—said in a statement that "we are watching our worst nightmare unfold in real-time: The reckless MVP is barreling towards completion."
"During construction, MVP has contaminated our water sources, destroyed our streams, and split the earth beneath our homes. Now they want to run methane gas through their degraded pipes and shoddy work," Chisholm added. "The MVP is a glaring human rights violation that is indicative of the widespread failures of our government to act on the climate crisis in service of the fossil fuel industry."
POWHR and activists representing frontline communities affected by the pipeline are set to take part in a May 8 demonstration outside project financier Bank of America's headquarters in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Appalachian Voices noted that MVP's request comes days before pipeline developer Equitrans Midstream is set to release its 2024 first-quarter earnings information on April 30.
MVP is set to traverse much of Virginia and West Virginia, with the Southgate extension running into North Carolina. Outgoing U.S. Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) and other pipeline proponents fought to include expedited construction of the project in the debt ceiling deal negotiated between President Joe Biden and congressional Republicans last year.
On Monday, climate and environmental defenders also petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, challenging FERC's approval of the MVP's planned Southgate extension, contending that the project is so different from original plans that the government's previous assent is now irrelevant.
"Federal, state, and local elected officials have spoken out against this unneeded proposal to ship more methane gas into North Carolina," said Sierra Club senior field organizer Caroline Hansley. "The time to build more dirty and dangerous pipelines is over. After MVP Southgate requested a time extension for a project that it no longer plans to construct, it should be sent back to the drawing board for this newly proposed project."
David Sligh, conservation director at Wild Virginia, said: "Approving the Southgate project is irresponsible. This project will pose the same kinds of threats of damage to the environment and the people along its path as we have seen caused by the Mountain Valley Pipeline during the last six years."
"FERC has again failed to protect the public interest, instead favoring a profit-making corporation," Sligh added.
Others renewed warnings about the dangers MVP poses to wildlife.
"The endangered bats, fish, mussels, and plants in this boondoggle's path of destruction deserve to be protected from killing and habitat destruction by a project that never received proper approvals in the first place," Center for Biological Diversity attorney Perrin de Jong said. "Our organization will continue fighting this terrible idea to the bitter end."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Seismic Win for Workers': FTC Bans Noncompete Clauses
Advocates praised the FTC "for taking a strong stance against this egregious use of corporate power, thereby empowering workers to switch jobs and launch new ventures, and unlocking billions of dollars in worker earnings."
Apr 23, 2024
U.S. workers' rights advocates and groups celebrated on Tuesday after the Federal Trade Commission voted 3-2 along party lines to approve a ban on most noncompete clauses, which Democratic FTC Chair Lina Khansaid "keep wages low, suppress new ideas, and rob the American economy of dynamism."
"The FTC's final rule to ban noncompetes will ensure Americans have the freedom to pursue a new job, start a new business, or bring a new idea to market," Khan added, pointing to the commission's estimates that the policy could mean another $524 for the average worker, over 8,500 new startups, and 17,000 to 29,000 more patents each year.
As Economic Policy Institute (EPI) president Heidi Shierholz explained, "Noncompete agreements are employment provisions that ban workers at one company from working for, or starting, a competing business within a certain period of time after leaving a job."
"These agreements are ubiquitous," she noted, applauding the ban. "EPI research finds that more than 1 out of every 4 private-sector workers—including low-wage workers—are required to enter noncompete agreements as a condition of employment."
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has suggested it plans to file a lawsuit that, as The American Prospectdetailed, "could more broadly threaten the rulemaking authority the FTC cited when proposing to ban noncompetes."
Already, the tax services and software provider Ryan has filed a legal challenge in federal court in Texas, arguing that the FTC is unconstitutionally structured.
Still, the Democratic commissioners' vote was still heralded as a "seismic win for workers." Echoing Khan's critiques of such noncompetes, Public Citizen executive vice president Lisa Gilbert declared that such clauses "inflict devastating harms on tens of millions of workers across the economy."
"The pervasive use of noncompete clauses limits worker mobility, drives down wages, keeps Americans from pursuing entrepreneurial dreams and creating new businesses, causes more concentrated markets, and keeps workers stuck in unsafe or hostile workplaces," she said. "Noncompete clauses are both an unfair method of competition and aggressively harmful to regular people. The FTC was right to tackle this issue and to finalize this strong rule."
Morgan Harper, director of policy and advocacy at the American Economic Liberties Project, praised the FTC for "listening to the comments of thousands of entrepreneurs and workers of all income levels across industries" and finalizing a rule that "is a clear-cut win."
Demand Progress' Emily Peterson-Cassin similarly commended the commission "for taking a strong stance against this egregious use of corporate power, thereby empowering workers to switch jobs and launch new ventures, and unlocking billions of dollars in worker earnings."
While such agreements are common across various industries, Teófilo Reyes, chief of staff at the Restaurant Opportunities Centers United, said that "many restaurant workers have been stuck at their job, earning as low as $2.13 per hour, because of the noncompete clause that they agreed to have in their contract."
"They didn't know that it would affect their wages and livelihood," Reyes stressed. "Most workers cannot negotiate their way out of a noncompete clause because noncompetes are buried in the fine print of employment contracts. A full third of noncompete clauses are presented after a worker has accepted a job."
Student Borrower Protection Center (SBPC) executive director Mike Pierce pointed out that the FTC on Tuesday "recognized the harmful role debt plays in the workplace, including the growing use of training repayment agreement provisions, or TRAPs, and took action to outlaw TRAPs and all other employer-driven debt that serve the same functions as noncompete agreements."
Sandeep Vaheesan, legal director at Open Markets Institute, highlighted that the addition came after his group, SBPC, and others submitted comments on the "significant gap" in the commission's initial January 2023 proposal, and also welcomed that "the final rule prohibits both conventional noncompete clauses and newfangled versions like TRAPs."
Jonathan Harris, a Loyola Marymount University law professor and SBPC senior fellow, said that "by also banning functional noncompetes, the rule stays one step ahead of employers who use 'stay-or-pay' contracts as workarounds to existing restrictions on traditional noncompetes. The FTC has decided to try to avoid a game of whack-a-mole with employers and their creative attorneys, which worker advocates will applaud."
Among those applauding was Jean Ross, president of National Nurses United, who said that "the new FTC rule will limit the ability of employers to use debt to lock nurses into unsafe jobs and will protect their role as patient advocates."
Angela Huffman, president of Farm Action, also cheered the effort to stop corporations from holding employees "hostage," saying that "this rule is a critical step for protecting our nation's workers and making labor markets fairer and more competitive."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Discriminatory' North Carolina Law Criminalizing Felon Voting Struck Down
One plaintiffs' attorney said the ruling "makes our democracy better and ensures that North Carolina is not able to unjustly criminalize innocent individuals with felony convictions who are valued members of our society."
Apr 23, 2024
Democracy defenders on Tuesday hailed a ruling from a U.S. federal judge striking down a 19th-century North Carolina law criminalizing people who vote while on parole, probation, or post-release supervision due to a felony conviction.
In Monday's decision, U.S. District Judge Loretta C. Biggs—an appointee of former Democratic President Barack Obama—sided with the North Carolina A. Philip Randolph Institute and Action NC, who argued that the 1877 law discriminated against Black people.
"The challenged statute was enacted with discriminatory intent, has not been cleansed of its discriminatory taint, and continues to disproportionately impact Black voters," Biggs wrote in her 25-page ruling.
Therefore, according to the judge, the 1877 law violates the U.S. Constitution's equal protection clause.
"We are ecstatic that the court found in our favor and struck down this racially discriminatory law that has been arbitrarily enforced over time," Action NC executive director Pat McCoy said in a statement. "We will now be able to help more people become civically engaged without fear of prosecution for innocent mistakes. Democracy truly won today!"
Voting rights tracker Democracy Docket noted that Monday's ruling "does not have any bearing on North Carolina's strict felony disenfranchisement law, which denies the right to vote for those with felony convictions who remain on probation, parole, or a suspended sentence—often leaving individuals without voting rights for many years after release from incarceration."
However, Mitchell Brown, an attorney for one of the plaintiffs, said that "Judge Biggs' decision will help ensure that voters who mistakenly think they are eligible to cast a ballot will not be criminalized for simply trying to reengage in the political process and perform their civic duty."
"It also makes our democracy better and ensures that North Carolina is not able to unjustly criminalize innocent individuals with felony convictions who are valued members of our society, specifically Black voters who were the target of this law," Brown added.
North Carolina officials have not said whether they will appeal Biggs' ruling. The state Department of Justice said it was reviewing the decision.
According to Forward Justice—a nonpartisan law, policy, and strategy center dedicated to advancing racial, social, and economic justice in the U.S. South, "Although Black people constitute 21% of the voting-age population in North Carolina, they represent 42% of the people disenfranchised while on probation, parole, or post-release supervision."
The group notes that in 44 North Carolina counties, "the disenfranchisement rate for Black people is more than three times the rate of the white population."
"Judge Biggs' decision will help ensure that voters who mistakenly think they are eligible to cast a ballot will not be criminalized for simply trying to re-engage in the political process and perform their civic duty."
In what one civil rights leader called "the largest expansion of voting rights in this state since the 1965 Voting Rights Act," a three-judge state court panel voted 2-1 in 2021 to restore voting rights to approximately 55,000 formerly incarcerated felons. The decision made North Carolina the only Southern state to automatically restore former felons' voting rights.
Republican state legislators appealed that ruling to the North Carolina Court of Appeals, which in 2022 granted their request for a stay—but only temporarily, as the court allowed a previous injunction against any felony disenfranchisement based on fees or fines to stand.
However, last April the North Carolina Supreme Court reversed the three-judge panel decision, stripping voting rights from thousands of North Carolinians previously convicted of felonies. Dissenting Justice Anita Earls opined that "the majority's decision in this case will one day be repudiated on two grounds."
"First, because it seeks to justify the denial of a basic human right to citizens and thereby perpetuates a vestige of slavery, and second, because the majority violates a basic tenant of appellate review by ignoring the facts as found by the trial court and substituting its own," she wrote.
As similar battles play out in other states, Democratic U.S. lawmakers led by Rep. Ayanna Pressley of Massachusetts and Sen. Peter Welch of Vermont in December introduced legislation to end former felon disenfranchisement in federal elections and guarantee incarcerated people the right to vote.
Currently, only Maine, Vermont, and the District of Columbia allow all incarcerated people to vote behind bars.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular