Nepal had its Universal Periodic Review (UPR) before the Office of the High Commission of Human Rights (OHCHR) in Geneva in November 2015. All 193 member states are reviewed every five years. This means that Nepal’s next review will be in November 2020, and that Nepal has already reached the halfway point for its implementation time frame.

The UPR is often called the “Human Rights Exam”. Its objective is to improve the human rights situation on the ground in target countries. The State under Review (SuR), the member states, the UN and civil society all have the right to submit a report, and to make recommendations to the SuR. The SuR in turn then has an opportunity to respond and implement the recommendations before the next review in five years’ time. There are what can be considered “easy” recommendations, such as ratifying treaties and optional protocols and to bring policies in line with those treaties. There are also more challenging and complex human rights issues that demand serious attention, and this is undeniably the case in Nepal.

An important issue that has not been accounted for by the Nepali government, since the signing of the 2006 Peace Agreement, is the setting-up of a Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) and a Commission of Investigation on Enforced Disappeared Persons (CIEDP). The TRC has identified four objectives: to seek truth for grave human rights violations committed in the course of the armed conflict between the State Party and the then Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) between 1996-2006, ensure justice for those crimes committed, provide reparation for the victims and guarantee non-repetition. On the website of the CIEDP, no objectives have been formulated yet. In the Peace Agreement it was stated that the right of victims would be assured and the families of the disappeared obtain relief. “Both sides agree to make public the status of each individual disappeared and held captive and inform about this to their family members, legal advisors and authorized people.”

Recommendations to Nepal

Of the 195 recommendations formulated in 2015 that have been expressed by the UN member states, 15 recommendations are about the establishment of a Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) and a separate Commission on the investigation of Enforced Disappeared Persons (CIEDP), without further delay. These recommendations were expressed by 12 member states, and they were all accepted by the Nepali government. To summarise the 15 recommendations made by OHCHR members, they have been categorised into three main recommendations. In brackets you will first find the member state who made this recommendation followed by other states who made similar recommendations.

• Implement the decision of the Supreme Court (26th of February 2015) with regard to incompatibility of TRC and Commission on Disappearances with Nepal’s international obligations as soon as possible. (Switzerland, Denmark, Republic of Korea)
• Bring the 2014 Act on the TRC and CIEDP commissions into compliance with international norms, particularly with regard to the definition of amnesty, witness protection and the delays in processing complaints. (Belgium, Switzerland, India, Netherlands, New Zealand, Canada).
• Establish accountability for conflict-era human rights abuses through the formation of the TRC and CIEDP, as agreed to in the Comprehensive Peace Agreement. (United States, Australia).

Now at half time, what measures have been taken by the government of Nepal?

In 2016 the TRC collected 58,052 complaints from victims. However, it is unclear that these efforts fulfilled any of the above recommendations. According to the Conflict Victim Common Platform (CVCP) and the Accountability Watch Committee (AWC), a great deal remains to be done. In a position paper from February 2017, the AWC and CVCP summarized the status of the TRC and the victims’ complaints. Their conclusion is that in two years nothing happened except the collection of complaints. They conclude that the government has failed to follow recommendations from the United Nations and human rights organizations to put in place Acts and procedures (in line with the Supreme Court and international standards), and furthermore that the government has made no effort to win the trust of stakeholders. Also, no information has been made public about the existing procedures for victim reparation, if indeed any exist at all.

In taking stock we can see that a total of 195 recommendations were made by the OHCHR, of which 15 deal with setting up the two commissions (the TRC and the CIEDP). Of these 195, 115 are said to be either implemented or in the process of implementation, 30 are pending and 15 are noted.

When looking at the Treaties and Conventions that Nepal has not yet signed, there are a few that have been emphasized by OHCHR member states repeatedly. For example, the recommendation to “ratify the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture” has been recommended by nine different member states. The recommendation to “ratify the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Their Families”, has been expressed by five members states, and the recommendation to “ratify the Optional Protocol of the Rights of the Child” has been made by four states. This means that if Nepal ratifies these two Conventions and one Optional Protocol, Nepal will have implemented 18 recommendations.

So let’s take stock: 195 total recommendations were made by the OHCHR, of which 15 deal with setting up the two commissions (the TRC and the CIEDP). Of these 195, 115 are said to be either implemented or in the process of implementation, 30 are pending and 15 are noted. With half of the allotted time for implementation elapsed, it is clear that time is ticking and that there are still many challenges to overcome. A lot needs to be done, both in terms of ratification of Treaties, some of which have been pending for a long time, and in implementing some of the policies that are currently in existence but are outdated, or that have not been implemented so far.

When looking at the Treaties and Conventions that Nepal has not yet signed, there are a few that have been emphasized by OHCHR member states repeatedly. For example, the recommendation to “ratify the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture” has been recommended by nine different member states. The recommendation to “ratify the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Their Families”, has been expressed by five members states, and the recommendation to “ratify the Optional Protocol of the Rights of the Child” has been made by four states. This means that if Nepal ratifies these two Conventions and one Optional Protocol, Nepal will have implemented 18 recommendations.

Recently the High Commissioner of Human Rights addressed the Council on the responsibility of States to commit to the implementation of recommendations made.

He mentioned that while Nepal is a candidate for membership of the Human Rights Council, with elections taking place at the October session this year for membership starting from January 2018, it still has sixteen pending requests of Special Rapporteurs and UN Working Groups for country visits. One of those pending visits is that of Mr. Francois Crepeau (Canada), Special Rapporteur (SR) on the human rights of migrants. Another one is the Working Group on Enforced Involuntary Disappearances.

Nepal is not the only country who is on the list of requests. There are a total of 25 member states that have not yet responded to the request of the working group for a visit. Bangladesh, India, Indonesia, the Philippines, Thailand and China are among the countries on the list. Every one of these countries is a current member of the council, except Thailand. If Nepal, as a non-member, can lead the way on allowing access to special rapporteurs and working groups, it would set a strong example for future cooperation.

Structural violations, such as trafficking and enforced disappearances, are huge problems for Nepal but also for other countries in the region. It would make sense if the above mentioned countries accept the invitation of the Working Group in a coordinated way, and if the working Group (a group of independent experts on the subject) could make recommendations to these States, who in turn treat those recommendations jointly.

Nepal as a relatively small country and open country, geographically in the middle of the crossing border trafficking, could take the first steps towards a regional approach to stop trafficking.

Strong action by Nepal would show respect to its most vulnerable citizens, who suffer from these abuses disproportionately. Taking on these grave, and all too common, human rights violations is imperative for Nepal’s growth as a nation. Nepal can show commitment on the issue by engaging its neighbors, and by providing an example for tackling these challenges in the region and throughout the world. By implementing OHCHR recommendations, and by committing to real action, Nepal can also make a strong case to become a respected member of the Human Rights Council, and in 2020 during the next human rights exam, Nepal can show that it has gotten serious about fighting human rights violations at home and abroad.