Nepal’s review under the the UPR is impending. Report preparatory phase has been over and Civil Society and the stakeholders have already submitted their reports to the HRC. In this context, INFORMAL had talked with the concerned responsible persons and the convener regarding the report preparatory process, the issues raised in the reports, the recomendations following the review and the implementation aspect. Edited version of the interview:
How has the National Human Rights Commission perceived the impending review of Nepal under the Universal Periodic Review?
The Universal Periodic Review (UPR) has been perceived by the Human Rights Commission as an important mechanism. Before this mechanism was introduced by the UN, there also existed mechanisms to assess whether or not the state parties were domesticating the international instruments.
However, these mechanisms failed to assess the overall rights situation in a country at one given time. The UPR assesses the overall rights situation of a country once every four years. It reviews the overall situation including the achievements and challenges of a country on human rights issues, the domestication of the international instruments and the ways ahead for the improvement of the human rights situation in the country. Nepal is in a transitional justice delivery phase now. In terms of the human rights situation, it is also undergoing a very challenging situation even after the end of a decade long armed conflict. Given that bringing the persons involved in crimes against humanity to justice and proceeding with the ongoing peace process safely are equally important, we are in need of establishing an inclusive democratic set up by addressing the rights of the people of all the sectors and strata. The UPR has to be instrumental in this regard. Many other countries were reviewed prior to Nepal so we have had the opportunity to study the reports of these countries while preparing our own reports. At least three reports have been sent to the UN. After the interaction and synthesis of these reports we will certainly receive proper recommendations for the improvement of the human rights situation in the country. So, the review is a wonderful opportunity for Nepal.
There are comments that the Government of Nepal didn’t hold adequate interactions and consultations with the stakeholders while preparing governmental report for the UPR. What’s your opinion regarding this?
I have also heard such comments. The draft report for the UPR was sent to the National Human Rights Commission as well for the commentary. The commission was mentioned as one of the members draft report committee. We couldn’t be involved while preparing the governmental report because the commission itself, being an independent and autonomous organization, was preparing a separate report. However, we do submit our commentary and suggestions on any human rights related reports prepared by the Government of Nepal. This is our duty as well. So, we gave suggestions to the government on the basis of the report that was prepared by the NHRC after holding interactions amongst the human rights activists and the concerned stakeholders. Reports, regardless of who drafts it, have to be made only after holding ample discussions with the stakeholders. Reports made in this way are process oriented, not mere intellectual write ups. The reports should include and reflect the facts and not be overly flowery. The governmental report has to be broader and because of this we have to understand that a wide-range of people and stakeholders have to have access while preparing the report. People have to be able to feel like they have ownership of the report prepared by the government.
Don’t you think that the government is reluctant to present the true realities of Nepal in its report as they are?
Governments, everywhere in the world, tend to bring their positive works to publicity and conceal the matters of human rights violations. We all are aware of the human rights situation in Nepal. While studying the governmental report we have to take three perspectives into consideration. Firstly, compared to the period of conflict we have a better human rights situation in the country. Secondly, from the standpoint of transitional justice delivery, the victims are not provided with justice effectively in practice. And thirdly, if Nepal is considered as a country with a normal rights situation, there are many human rights challenges. However, we are not in a normal situation now. We do have problems regarding law and order, peace building, transitional justice and increasing impunity in the country. Facts have to be reflected in the report.
What will be the implementation of the recommendations that are made following the review?
This is an important question. There are many mechanisms under the UN to know the situation of its member countries. We can’t conceal the reality, neither can we destroy it. Situations are verified and following the verification of facts, a country gets an opportunity to improve the human rights situation as well. So, while implementing the recommendations that are made following the review, the government of Nepal has to have implementing agencies. The government being a permanent implementing agency, the office of the prime minister or any other concerned bodies has to form a permanent mechanism to implement the recommendations. Probably, one of the objectives of the UPR is to set up such mechanisms in the member countries to monitor the democratic and developmental process through the human rights approach. If the government of Nepal is able to establish such a mechanism, we can be hopeful regarding the implementation of the recommendations.
People doubt that the government of Nepal has readiness and capacity to develop infrastructure for implementing the recommendations. What do you say regarding this?
The question whether or not Nepal has the infrastructure to implement the recommendations received following the review haunts me as well. As I said earlier, we need to establish a permanent infrastructure and this has to be done in coordination with the National Human Rights Commission and other human rights organizations. Both the governmental and non-governmental agencies have to follow up the implementation level. In this connection we have felt the necessity to strengthen the capacity of the National Human Rights Commission. Similarly, the government has to implement the recommendations made by the commission in course of implementing the recommendations made following the review under the UPR.