National 9 (Spotlight Weekly)

National Human Rights Commission Presses for a Human Rights Agreement

By Bipin Adhikari

With the declaration of ceasefire on January 29, 2003, and finalization of the Code of Conduct between His Majestyís Government and Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist), the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) of Nepal has started persuading both these parties to sign a human rights agreement applicable during the period of ceasefire and peace negotiation.

At the invitation of Prime Minister Lokendra Bahadur Chand on April 29, the members of the negotiating team of His Majesty's Government and office bearers of National Human Rights Commission had a fruitful discussion on these matters. During the discussion NHRC put forth the opinion that Human Right issues should be included in the negotiation process in an integrated manner. Since His Majestyís†Government had frequently expressed commitment to comply with internationally recognized principles of human rights, the Commission reminded that the Government should start fulfilling the commitment immediately. Even as the code of conduct held between the Government and Maoists include some of the points relating to human rights, there is nothing in it about the implementation procedure and applicable mechanism. As the NHRC asked the government to have separate human rights accord with the Maoist, to fill this gap, the government responded†in affirmative, and assured that the issue will be taken up soon. A similar meeting was held at the Commission with the Maoist leaders as well.

The Commission had also pointed out to both the Government and Maoist side, on these occasions, that a separate mechanism should be made to monitor the implementation of the human rights norms set forth in the code of conduct including search of the persons disappeared during the conflict, identification of the persons killed in the process, and an appraisal of the victim of torture and wounded persons. It also emphasized that both the Government and Maoists should guarantee supply of necessary information and ensure access for the same when necessary. The Commission had also asked that the negotiators should give importance to economic and social rights at par with the political rights.

However, it must be noted that the present ceasefire situation has a major weakness. It continues to be based on the decisions taken unilaterally by the Government and Maoist. The Code of Conduct which was signed later is not comprehensive in any sense. This would mean that each party would give its own interpretation to what the code has inadequately expressed. This leaves room for potential misunderstanding and even deliberate exploitation by one side, or by a recalcitrant faction within it, to embarrass the other.

During the second round of peace talks, held on May 9, the negotiating parties decided to form a 13-member Committee to monitor the implementation of the Code of Conduct for the period of cease-fire they agreed on March 13 and the ongoing peace process. The monitoring committee will consist of one representative each from six institutions such as National Human Rights Commission, Nepal Bar Association, the Federation of Nepalese Journalists, National Women Commission, Nepal Dalit Association, the Association of Nepalese Nationalities and the Federation of Nepalese Chamber of Commerce and Industries. The Committee also includes other six members represented in their individual capacity.

The NHRC representative has been entrusted with the responsibility to head the Committee. The meeting also formulated a code for the monitoring committee "with a view to make its functions systematic." As per the code of conduct made at the talks, the monitoring team will be responsible for interpreting the Code in case of differences. The Commission has also urged that the monitoring mechanism be provided with the necessary powers and resources to carry out prompt, thorough and impartial investigation into any reported case of human rights abuse.

As the minor incidents continue to take place, this new development brings enormous hope to the people living in the conflict areas, not to mention far away district centers, where the tension caused by the prospect of a sudden attack has not altogether diminished. The parties to the conflict too have benefited by making these commitments known to the people. They are now able to rest and recuperate from their years of fighting. For the Government in particular, which was not a legitimate creation, the ceasefire has been of great importance. It is able to show that it has delivered results to the people and honored one of its key promises.

In any case, maintaining the stability of the present ceasefire arrangement would be of utmost importance to the government, Maoists and people. The weakening of the economy and society in general caused by the past years of war and political mismanagement can only be remedied in a situation of peace.

The Sri Lankan experience has shown that after years of war and bad faith maintaining peace on all fronts is likely to be difficult. There is a danger of small scale localized events suddenly spiraling out of control. If and when such localized breakdowns occur it is imperative that the leadership of both the Government and the Maoists take immediate steps to prevent the problem from spreading. It is also important that media and civic leaders be prepared to exert a calming influence on the general population rather than mobilize political tensions to the point that they fatally undermine the peace process. Society needs to be prepared to resist this danger and give their fullest cooperation to efforts to maintain the ceasefire.

A human rights agreement between the parties to protect the people in this transition process thus has become essential. The Amnesty International also recently welcomed the initiative taken by the National Human Rights Commission by presenting a draft human rights agreement to the Government and the CPN (Maoist) for their perusal. The fact that the Commission thinks the human rights agreement is necessary suggests a priori that there are difficulties in the peace process without it.

[Adhikari is a lawyer]