KATHMANDU, Oct 8: The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) is on the verge of losing its 'A' category status, a change that has drawn significant criticism from human rights activists and civil society groups. These critics argue that the government has failed to take adequate measures to safeguard the commission's reputation.
The NHRC, which has maintained its 'A' category standing since its inception, faces a potential downgrade to 'B,' a move that could seriously damage the country's international reputation. Rights activists and concerned stakeholders assert that despite recommendations to prevent this downgrade, the government has remained inactive.
Experts warn that if the NHRC is demoted to 'B' category, Nepal will find itself among the worst countries in terms of human rights on a global scale. Many argue that the commission has become a casualty of political interference, with the government showing little interest in strengthening its role.
Around two years ago, the Constitutional Council during the tenure of the then government led by CPN-UML Chairman KP Sharma Oli had appointed the chairperson and members of NHRC amid widespread criticism for its procedural irregularities. Rights activists and Senior Advocate Dinesh Tripathi along with Advocate Om Prakash Aryal had filed a case against these appointments in the Supreme Court, which remains pending.
It is a universally recognized fact that a Human Rights Commission should be constitutional, independent, and impartial. The Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions (GANHRI), the umbrella organization for Human Rights Commissions based in Geneva, initiated the process to downgrade the NHRC's status last year. The final decision is set to be made at the end of October.
The fate of the NHRC will be decided during the GANHRI meeting in the last week of October, where they will consider the recommendation made last year to downgrade its category to 'B.' An empowered sub-committee has already endorsed this downgrade, and the final decision will depend on the recommendations presented during the meeting.
The NHRC's 'A' category status is crucial for maintaining Nepal's international standing in terms of human rights. A downgrade to 'B' would signal a weakening of Nepal's human rights situation and could result in the suspension of its participation and speaking rights at UN events. Additionally, Nepal's voting privileges and eligibility for holding office in the GANHRI would be revoked.
NHRC's Retention of A status and Disability Rights Advancement
GANHRI has cited various concerns about the NHRC, including issues related to the appointment of officials, caste discrimination, marginalized communities, good governance, the rule of law, and transitional justice, as grounds for recommending the downgrade. The institution has also requested the submission of a comprehensive progress report and reasons justifying the NHRC's retention of its 'A' category status, after granting a one-year grace period.
In October of the previous year, GANHRI's sub-committee initially recommended the NHRC's downgrade to 'B' category due to concerns about the appointment process, as well as doubts regarding the commission's independence and fairness. GANHRI, as the body responsible for assessing global human rights standards, formally communicated these concerns to the NHRC, asserting that officials were appointed in violation of the Paris Principles.
Adhering to the United Nations' 1993 Paris Principles, the NHRC has been overseeing the structure, operations, and the enforcement of laws. GANHRI, in collaboration with the UN human rights system, actively monitors human rights commissions globally, and Nepal is a signatory to the Paris Principles. The evaluation primarily focuses on aspects such as the appointment of officials, the financial autonomy of the commission, administrative independence, and the commission's overall performance.
Despite the pressing need for a robust human rights commission, some human rights activists have expressed concerns about Nepal's historical shortcomings in this regard. They argue that the commission's demotion to 'B' category is a result of its own actions or lack thereof. According to these critics, the commission has struggled to foster trust and collaboration with civil society organizations.
Charan Prasai, a longstanding figure in the field of human rights, lamented that the NHRC has failed to function as a diligent "watchdog" in cases of grave human rights violations. He noted, "There is a growing apprehension within civil society that the commission might be permanently merged with the government."
Prasai added that had officials resigned on ethical grounds earlier, the NHRC's hard-earned international reputation might have been preserved. However, he lamented that even if officials were to resign now, it would likely be ineffectual, partly due to delays in the judicial process.
"Based on the Paris Principles, the decision by GANHRI could potentially be reversed if new legislation is enacted and officials are appointed in a transparent manner," Prasai suggested.
Notably, NHRC has seen a significant decline in the number of complaints filed in recent years, with only 282 complaints registered during the past two and a half years of the commission's tenure. As officials' morale has waned, awaiting court orders, the commission's overall effectiveness has diminished.
Two years ago, the United Nations Human Rights Council made 233 recommendations concerning Nepal in the Universal Periodic Review. The government pledged to follow up on 196 of these recommendations, with 37 still under consideration. The Council also monitors the commission's role in transitional justice, and the NHRC has submitted 12 suggestions, including amendments to the law, to the Office of the Prime Minister and the Council of Ministers. Among these proposals is the incorporation of the Paris Principles into the Human Rights Commission Act. The NHRC has formally requested the Prime Minister's Office to enact this amendment.
Surya Dhungel, a commission member, emphasized, "Our status needs not be lowered if a new law is introduced in accordance with the Paris Principles."
In response to the government's lukewarm reaction to GANHRI's decision, the NHRC met with both the prime minister and the president to brief them on the matter. Subodh Pyakurel, former chairman of INSEC, lamented that neither the government nor the commission has effectively addressed the prospect of downgrading.
He said, "The commission has failed to function effectively and collaborate with civil society even in cases of human rights violations. The burden of responsibility for the commission's decline falls upon the shoulders of indifferent state actors."
The prime minister should have addressed these issues at the United Nations, and there could also be the possibility of Parliament conveying its concerns to the relevant organization. Human rights activists have voiced their apprehensions regarding the government's apparent lack of interest and commitment in this matter.
It is imperative that the commission retains its 'A' category status under all circumstances. Kapil Shrestha, a human rights activist, emphasized, "Once downgraded, it becomes exceedingly challenging to regain the previous rank, no matter how strenuous the efforts are."
Sushil Pyakurel, another human rights activist, stressed the importance of continued collaboration between the state and civil society to maintain the commission's 'A' category status. He asserted, "The government, parliament, and civil society must collaborate effectively to uphold the commission's reputation."
A month ago, the commission appealed to President Ram Chandra Paudel to take decisive measures to safeguard its 'A' category status and urged for increased attention from both the parliament and the government. It was also pointed out that the Human Rights Commissions of Australia and India could face a similar downgrade.
Australia, in response, has been granted an additional 18-month grace period to reconsider the decision to downgrade, provided that they enact legislation in alignment with the Paris Principles and secure parliamentary approval.
