---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: ACHR REVIEW <achr_review@achrweb.org>
Date: Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 1:09 PM
Subject: OHCHR-Nepal and the log frame of impunity
To: achr_review@achrweb.org
Asian Centre for Human Rights
[ACHR has Special Consultative Status with the UN ECOSOC]
C-3/441-C, Janakpuri, New Delhi-110058, India
Tel/Fax: +91-11- 45501889 25620583
Website: www.achrweb.org; Email: achr_review@achrweb.org
Embargoed for: 3 June 2011
Dear Sir/Madam,
Asian Centre for Human Rights has the pleasure to share its latest report
titled "OHCHR-Nepal and the log frame of impunity".
The report is available at:
http://www.achrweb.org/countries/nepal/OHCHR-NEPAL2011.pdf
The summary of the report has been published today in an article titled
"Flawed approach", The Kathmandu Post and available at:
http://www.ekantipur.com/the-kathmandu-post/2011/06/02/oped/flawed-approach/222428.html
This latest 21-page report provides comprehensive analysis of the
performance of the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for
Human Rights in Nepal.
On 10th May 2011, the government of Nepal announced a plan to withdraw
murder charges against Mr Agni Sapkota, Minister for Information from the
Maoists. Sapkota is alleged to have direct involvement in the abduction
and killing of Arjun Bahadur Lama in June 2005 in Kavre District. In March
2008, the Supreme Court of Nepal issued an order to the police to register
the case. The police registered the First Information Report but three
years later, nothing has been done. In the Nepal context, this
announcement is an effective declaration of an amnesty. The announcement
leaves the rule of law and the transitional justice process in tatters.
There has been no public comment from the United Nations Office of the
High Commissioner for Human Rights in Nepal (OHCHR-Nepal). This only
underlines questions over the performance of OHCHR as it approaches the
end of its mandate on 9 June 2011. With the government of Nepal proposing
to extend the term of the OHCHR only for six months with the same mandate,
it is unlikely that OHCHR will speak up. Repeated evaluations have
underlined that the High Commissioner (HC) Navi Pillay must address
increasingly visible lack of political skills, leadership and strategy. It
is difficult to conclude that she has acted appropriately and there is
sufficient evidence to suggest that she has actively denied the Nepal
Office the support it needs.
The HC's mishandling of the mandate negotiations in 2010 is case in point.
Prior to the negotiation, OHCHR-Nepal had a powerful mandate, strong field
representation outside Kathmandu and, enjoyed a formal place in the peace
process; an agreement that the Nepal Government had no power to change
unilaterally. Yet, in defiance of the peace accords, and the prevailing
human rights situation, the HC conceded everything. The field offices
outside Kathmandu were abandoned. And, what is less well understood, all
new monitoring handed over to Nepal's imploding National Human Rights
Commission (NHRC).
Yet another emblem of dysfunction has been the recent decision, in January
2011 to place Nepal's National Human Rights Action Plan (NHRAP) at the
centre of OHCHR-Nepal strategy. It is now clear that OHCHR-Nepal gave its
political support to the NHRAP without actually understanding the content,
as they did not have an English translation of the NHRAP when they
announced support.
When an English copy became available, the scale of the blunder became
clear. The NHRAP is terminally flawed: poorly defined (indeed
non-existent) problems, ill-defined outcomes, ill-defined and vague
activities, activities that have little link to the problems and, little
link between activity and result. The approach to measuring progress is
almost uniquely process oriented, addressing 'number of attendees' and
training etc'. ACHR recognizes that development indicators in some cases
are well developed but the NHRAP is particularly lacking on civil and
political rights.
Impunity is mentioned only in passing; entirely consistent with the
current political environment. The interest in not addressing
accountability is a rare example of cross party consensus amongst the
major parties. The new government is no different, as the announcement to
provide amnesty to Sapkota and many others, demonstrates.
If OHCHR-Nepal is to have any meaningful role it must now demonstrate
willingness to undergo urgent reform. This should be signalled with the
immediate announcement of an expedited process for the appointment of a
suitably experienced and high level Country Representative. Technical
support should be immediately suspended. And supported by the
international community OHCHR-Nepal must now insist on concrete measures
of progress on impunity before engaging in any human rights initiatives
with the authorities.
Despite OHCHR's performance, it would be wrong for OHCHR to withdraw now as
this would imply that the concerns over human rights in Nepal had been
addressed. The reality is the opposite; national institutions to promote
and protect human rights are as weak as or weaker than in 2005, the time
commonly believed to mark the lowest ebb of the rights situation in Nepal.
We thought you would find this report of interest.
With kind regards,
Yours sincerely
Suhas Chakma
Director
From: ACHR REVIEW <achr_review@achrweb.org>
Date: Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 1:09 PM
Subject: OHCHR-Nepal and the log frame of impunity
To: achr_review@achrweb.org
Asian Centre for Human Rights
[ACHR has Special Consultative Status with the UN ECOSOC]
C-3/441-C, Janakpuri, New Delhi-110058, India
Tel/Fax: +91-11- 45501889 25620583
Website: www.achrweb.org; Email: achr_review@achrweb.org
Embargoed for: 3 June 2011
Dear Sir/Madam,
Asian Centre for Human Rights has the pleasure to share its latest report
titled "OHCHR-Nepal and the log frame of impunity".
The report is available at:
http://www.achrweb.org/countries/nepal/OHCHR-NEPAL2011.pdf
The summary of the report has been published today in an article titled
"Flawed approach", The Kathmandu Post and available at:
http://www.ekantipur.com/the-kathmandu-post/2011/06/02/oped/flawed-approach/222428.html
This latest 21-page report provides comprehensive analysis of the
performance of the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for
Human Rights in Nepal.
On 10th May 2011, the government of Nepal announced a plan to withdraw
murder charges against Mr Agni Sapkota, Minister for Information from the
Maoists. Sapkota is alleged to have direct involvement in the abduction
and killing of Arjun Bahadur Lama in June 2005 in Kavre District. In March
2008, the Supreme Court of Nepal issued an order to the police to register
the case. The police registered the First Information Report but three
years later, nothing has been done. In the Nepal context, this
announcement is an effective declaration of an amnesty. The announcement
leaves the rule of law and the transitional justice process in tatters.
There has been no public comment from the United Nations Office of the
High Commissioner for Human Rights in Nepal (OHCHR-Nepal). This only
underlines questions over the performance of OHCHR as it approaches the
end of its mandate on 9 June 2011. With the government of Nepal proposing
to extend the term of the OHCHR only for six months with the same mandate,
it is unlikely that OHCHR will speak up. Repeated evaluations have
underlined that the High Commissioner (HC) Navi Pillay must address
increasingly visible lack of political skills, leadership and strategy. It
is difficult to conclude that she has acted appropriately and there is
sufficient evidence to suggest that she has actively denied the Nepal
Office the support it needs.
The HC's mishandling of the mandate negotiations in 2010 is case in point.
Prior to the negotiation, OHCHR-Nepal had a powerful mandate, strong field
representation outside Kathmandu and, enjoyed a formal place in the peace
process; an agreement that the Nepal Government had no power to change
unilaterally. Yet, in defiance of the peace accords, and the prevailing
human rights situation, the HC conceded everything. The field offices
outside Kathmandu were abandoned. And, what is less well understood, all
new monitoring handed over to Nepal's imploding National Human Rights
Commission (NHRC).
Yet another emblem of dysfunction has been the recent decision, in January
2011 to place Nepal's National Human Rights Action Plan (NHRAP) at the
centre of OHCHR-Nepal strategy. It is now clear that OHCHR-Nepal gave its
political support to the NHRAP without actually understanding the content,
as they did not have an English translation of the NHRAP when they
announced support.
When an English copy became available, the scale of the blunder became
clear. The NHRAP is terminally flawed: poorly defined (indeed
non-existent) problems, ill-defined outcomes, ill-defined and vague
activities, activities that have little link to the problems and, little
link between activity and result. The approach to measuring progress is
almost uniquely process oriented, addressing 'number of attendees' and
training etc'. ACHR recognizes that development indicators in some cases
are well developed but the NHRAP is particularly lacking on civil and
political rights.
Impunity is mentioned only in passing; entirely consistent with the
current political environment. The interest in not addressing
accountability is a rare example of cross party consensus amongst the
major parties. The new government is no different, as the announcement to
provide amnesty to Sapkota and many others, demonstrates.
If OHCHR-Nepal is to have any meaningful role it must now demonstrate
willingness to undergo urgent reform. This should be signalled with the
immediate announcement of an expedited process for the appointment of a
suitably experienced and high level Country Representative. Technical
support should be immediately suspended. And supported by the
international community OHCHR-Nepal must now insist on concrete measures
of progress on impunity before engaging in any human rights initiatives
with the authorities.
Despite OHCHR's performance, it would be wrong for OHCHR to withdraw now as
this would imply that the concerns over human rights in Nepal had been
addressed. The reality is the opposite; national institutions to promote
and protect human rights are as weak as or weaker than in 2005, the time
commonly believed to mark the lowest ebb of the rights situation in Nepal.
We thought you would find this report of interest.
With kind regards,
Yours sincerely
Suhas Chakma
Director
--
Palash Biswas
Pl Read:
http://nandigramunited-banga.blogspot.com/
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment