National Human Rights Commission Recommends Action on Genji Movement

Kathmandu. The National Human Rights Commission, analyzing the Genji movement, has recommended to the government to take action against those directly or indirectly involved. The commission, releasing a brief report on Wednesday, recommended action against individuals ranging from political leaders to social activists. Specifically, it recommended criminal prosecution, even through the enactment of ex-post facto laws, against former Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli, former Home Minister Ramesh Lekhak, and former Communication Minister Prithvi Subba Gurung. The commission based its recommendation for action against them on the Supreme Court's verdict in the case of 'Advocate Madhav Basnet vs. Government of Nepal'. This case, filed regarding human rights violations during the 10-year conflict, was heard by a special bench of the Supreme Court including former justices Kalyan Shrestha, Girish Chandra Lal, and Sushila Karki. The special bench issued a mandamus to the government, stating that 'serious human rights violations and crimes against humanity are serious offenses, and when existing laws are insufficient to bring those involved in such crimes to justice, the impunity must be ended by enacting new laws.' The commission has now recommended action against them under Article 249, Sub-article 2(c) of the Constitution. Article 249 of the Constitution outlines the functions, duties, and powers of the National Human Rights Commission. Sub-article 2(c) of this article states, 'to recommend to the government to file a case in court in accordance with the law against individuals or organizations that violate human rights.' But how will this report from the commission be implemented? Former commission member Sudip Pathak says that the report needs to be implemented if it is deemed necessary. Secondly, the government can express its disagreement with the report and return it to the commission for clarification. 'The government can call the commission and ask on what basis and evidence the recommendations are to be implemented,' said former commissioner Pathak. 'If it is to be implemented, the government can send it back to the commission for clarification.' According to him, it is unclear whether the report published by the commission constitutes a human rights violation or a legal violation. Pathak argues that if the commission has conducted monitoring and prepared a factual report determining serious human rights violations, the government will be compelled to implement this report. 'The commission only recommends action, but how can it determine punishment according to the report and suggest punishment by enacting ex-post facto laws?' he questions. 'The commission cannot do this. Therefore, the commission's report appears to be in limbo.' The government can call the commission and return the report, questioning its independence and impartiality. Pathak states that this report will only be implemented if the commission can provide the facts and evidence. Pathak mentioned that the analysis section is extensive, but the recommendation for action section is not visible. He stated that the commission's report has legal and constitutional significance both within and outside the country, and claimed that the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights would also recognize it. 'The commission has investigated and prepared a report regarding serious human rights violations. This cannot be left as is,' said Pathak. 'The government also cannot leave this report as is.' He warned that if the government ignores this report, the international perspective could change. Pathak warned that this report could even lead to a ban on government employees participating in United Nations and discussions. The National Human Rights Commission's report is important not only nationally but also internationally. The question of implementing the commission's report can arise from the World Human Rights Periodic Review to UN forums. At these forums, the Nepali government will have to answer. The commission itself can also take action, including maintaining a 'blacklist.' According to Section 17 of the Commission Act, three months are available for the implementation of the commission's recommendations. What will happen to Rastriya Swatantra Party Chairman Rabi and 17 lawmakers? According to the National Human Rights Commission's report, it has been recommended to investigate and recommend action against 17 lawmakers, including Rastriya Swatantra Party Chairman Rabi Lamichhane, for their involvement in the Genji movement. The commission has recommended investigation and departmental action against the incumbent IGP and former IGPs. Recommendations have been made to bring MPs of RSP, Manish Jha and Hari Dhakal, Nakkhu Prison Administrator Satyaraj Joshi, and others under investigation. Police Inspector General Dan Bahadur Karki, Armed Police Force IGP Naryandatta Poudel, DIG Om Bikram Rana, SSP Bishwa Adhikari, Armed SP Jeevan KC, National Investigation Department Director Krishna Khanal, and Kathmandu Chief District Officer Chhabilal Rizal have been recommended for departmental action for suppressing the Genji movement. There is uncertainty about how these recommendations from the commission will be implemented. Objection after unilateral recommendation for action without taking statements. It appears that the commission has made recommendations for action against most of those recommended without taking their statements, making blanket recommendations. The National Human Rights Commission's report questions the dual role of Gauribahadur Karki. The most interesting aspect of this report is that the National Human Rights Commission has placed Gauribahadur Karki himself on the list of 'activists/leaders' who incited and provoked the protesters (point no. 30) and recommended investigation against him. Similarly, the commission has recommended action against former Supreme Court Justice Sushila Karki (who became Prime Minister after the Genji movement) and former Home Minister Om Prakash Aryal. However, questions have arisen as to on what basis the commission recommended action against those recommended without taking their statements. The commission has recommended action against former Home Minister Aryal, who has questioned the commission's report due to the unilateral and blanket recommendations. It appears that the commission recommended action against Aryal without calling him to the commission even once to give him an opportunity to be heard. Aryal himself is unaware of the basis on which the commission mentioned his name. 'I don't know on what basis the commission mentioned my name,' he said. 'Recommending someone's name based solely on suspicion without objective evidence is character assassination. Aryal argues that the commission has committed human rights violations by assassinating his character.' Past reports have also not been implemented. Past reports in which the Human Rights Commission recommended action have not been implemented. In 2076 BS, the commission concluded that the police had killed Kumar Poudel, the then-Sarlahi in-charge of Netra Bikram Chand 'Biplav' led CPN, after taking him into custody, and directed the government to investigate and take action against the high-ranking police officers who gave the order. Although the police claimed that Poudel was killed in an encounter, the commission concluded that he was killed after being taken into custody. According to the report of former commission member Govinda Poudyal, the commission stated that the police fired 9 rounds at Poudel after taking him into custody. Based on the site investigation report of the investigation team, the government was recommended to immediately suspend Police Inspector Krishnadevprasad Sah, who was directly involved in the incident and was also the commander, and police constables Shribinod Sah and Satyanarayan Mishra, and file a criminal case against them. Police Inspector Kiranprasad Neupane and Police Sub-Inspector Suryakumar Karki were recommended to be cautioned by the government and the Nepal Police for performing their duties in a flawed manner while preparing the scene of the incident. The commission had recommended investigating and bringing to justice and taking action in accordance with the law against the responsible officials and employees of the superior body that directed the police, the ordering officers, and those who instigated the act. The commission had recommended cautioning the then-Dr. Birendra Kumar Mandal of the District Hospital, Sarlahi, for not completing the minimum procedures during Poudel's post-mortem. It was informed that Poudel was shot by plainclothes police deployed under the leadership of a police inspector from the special bureau under the direct command of the then-Inspector General of Police Sarbendra Khanal. Although the commission recommended action within three months, the government has not implemented the report even after six years. The police directly involved in the incident have been defending themselves, claiming that Poudel was killed in 'self-defense' and 'crossfire.' Section 17 of the National Human Rights Commission Act, 2068, stipulates that the concerned officials, individuals, or bodies must implement the recommendations, decisions, or orders of the commission and provide information within three months. The same section states that if it is difficult to implement the recommendations, decisions, or orders received from the commission, the reason must be clarified and information provided within two months. While the government has not been implementing the report, the Supreme Court on February 28, 2082, issued a mandamus to the government to register a charge sheet for murder against 10 high-ranking officials, including the then-Chief District Officer Krishna Bahadur Raut (currently Secretary at the Election Commission), in the Poudel murder case. A joint bench of Supreme Court Justices Dr. Manoj Kumar Sharma and Srikanth Poudel issued the mandamus to the Ministry of Home Affairs, the Office of the Attorney General, the Sarlahi Police, and the District Government Attorney's Office, Sarlahi. Recommendations for action in decade-long conflict-era incidents still not implemented. The National Human Rights Commission's recommendations to take action against those who committed serious human rights violations during the armed conflict have not been implemented even after two decades. The government has shown indifference in investigating conflict-era incidents, linking them to transitional justice. Instead of taking action against those who committed serious human rights violations, they have been rewarded by being appointed as ministers and to various positions, which the Human Rights Commission has strongly objected to. The commission had recommended action against approximately two hundred people. Although recommendations were made for action against 33 army officials, including former Army Chief Pyarjung Thapa, in the case of 49 detainees disappearing from Bhairavnath Battalion, they have not been implemented. In the case of Arjun Lama's murder in Kavre Dapcha, action was recommended against former State Minister Suryaman Dong, but that recommendation was also not implemented. According to the commission's records, five students, including Durgesh Labh, who disappeared and were subsequently murdered in Janakpur during the conflict, were killed. Even after two decades, action has not been taken regarding the recommendations for action against then-Dhanusha DSP Kuber Singh Rana, then-Major Anup Adhikari working at the Bhiman barracks, then-Chief District Officer of Dhanusha Revatiraj Kafle, and then-SSP Chudabahadur Shrestha, among others, involved in that incident. Barracks Captain Ramesh Swar and Major Ajitsingh Thapa were among those recommended for action. Action proceedings have not moved forward regarding the recommendations for action against army officers involved in the murder of Sarala Sapkota in Dhading, security personnel implicated in the murder of 19 people in Doramba, Ramechhap, security personnel implicated in the rape and murder of Maina Sunuwar of Kavre, the action recommended regarding Surya Sharma of Baglung who disappeared from the barracks, and the police involved in the murder of human rights activist Dayaram Pariyar in Janakpur. The commission had recommended action based on complaints received since Jestha 2057 BS, and the names of the perpetrators of two hundred incidents were to be made public. Before the current committee of the commission came into office, 735 recommendations were made for action, and 82 have been made since then. The commission is preparing to include the names of those involved in serious human rights violations in a blacklist. Among them, recommendations for action and punishment for serious human rights violations are being processed for approximately two hundred people, but action has not been taken.