International donors will cease funding, nd the NHRC will not receive international invitations. It's a shame that international fora has already started boycotting NHRC
The Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions (GANHRI), an umbrella institution of NHRIs, has recommended downgrading the status of the National Human Rights Commission of Nepal (NHRC) from A to B, as per the decision taken on November 8,2022.
GANHRI has expressed serious concern over the appointment of the NHRC's office bearers and has sent a clear message that it is not fully in compliance with the Paris Principles (UN General Assembly Resolution 48/134-1993) and is also not independent of the government's executive control.
During the final hearing in October 2022, the Sub-Committee of Accreditation (SCA) of GANHRI asked four questions to the NHRC. Those questions were: the status of the Supreme Court case challenging the appointment of the NHRC members and the ability of NHRC to protect and promote human rights in Nepal, credibility of the appointment process of the NHRC members, the mandate and visibility of the NHRC, and recent examples of concrete actions taken by the NHRC to demonstrate its independence in fulfilling its promotion and protection mandate.
Those questions were asked on the phone prior to the submission of a written response by the NHRC. Unfortunately, the NHRC failed to respond to these questions in a satisfactory manner with logic, evidence, fact and examples to justify the appointments, exercising mandate, and protection-related works. Subsequently, GANHRI recommended downgrading the NHRC's status. It is worth mentioning here that since the inception of the NHRC, it had been enjoying grade A status.
GANHRI in its recommendation showed especially serious concern about the appointment process. Such as, while appointing the NHRC officials, there was an absence of a public vacancy announcement for the post, which undeniably goes against the related clauses enshrined in the Paris Principles.
No open application procedure was adopted, and there was exemption of a parliamentary hearing.
It also pointed out that amendments were made in the Constitutional Council (Functions, Duties and Procedures) Act, and the appointments were made through an Ordinance following the dissolution of the parliament. The NHRC failed to prove, defend and respond to the allegations made by GANHRI and was unable to prove that the appointments were constitutional and parallel to the Paris Principles.
It is worth recalling that the former commission (7 years ago) appointments were made through an open vacancy announcement by the Constitutional Council, and a parliamentary hearing was also conducted.
By not fulfilling what is there in practice as per the Paris Principles, the NHRC's attempt to bypass such a precedent is outright questionable.
Interestingly, the NHRC was unsuccessful in convincing GANHRI that the appointment was aimed at preventing would-be irreparable damage to the protection and promotion of human rights if the commissioners were not appointed.
Neither was it able to give examples of other countries and precedents of GANHRI to retain A status nor could it give a list of human rights protection activities accomplished between the day of its appointment to the date of the restoration of parliament.
The NHRC did carry out numerous works for the protection of human rights that would not have been possible in the absence of the commission.
It also failed to present the number of victims who were provided justice while prosecuting the perpetrators of human rights violation.
This information was crucial for GANHRI to retain the status of the NHRC.
GANHRI also reported that the NHRC does not demonstrate adequate efforts in addressing rights issues, such as discrimination against women, castes, indigenous people and the LGBTIQ. It also mentioned the pervasive non-implementation of domestic laws. Additionally, inefficient staff and their poor knowledge of the issue and subject matter as well as a lack of learning and sharing are also factors contributing to the problem.
Arguably, NHRIs bearing B status do not have the right to speak at the GANHRI sessions, and their status is that of an observer, not a participant or voter. B status of the any NHRI is an index of poor human rights performance in the respective country and non-compliance with the Paris Principles. The NHRC will also miss an opportunity to elect GANHRI Bureau Members and will also not get an opportunity to hold the meeting of the Asia Pacific Forum of NHRIs (an umbrella institution for Asian NHRIs) in Nepal.
International donors will cease funding, and the NHRC will not receive international invitations. It's a shame that the boycott of NHRC-Nepal at international fora has already started. It is indeed unfortunate that despite Nepal's appointment to the UN Human Rights Council twice, the government will face awkward moments in the Council's next session and other UN human rights treaty mechanisms.
GANHRI in its report reads that NHRC maintains A status until the SCA's second session in October 2023. This allows an opportunity for the NHRC to provide the documentary evidence necessary to establish its continued conformity with the Paris Principles.
Now, within a year, NHRC must provide documentary evidence to prove that the appointments were constitutional and in compliance with the Paris Principles.
What types of documentary evidence can NHRC-Nepal provide in the days to come? It cannot hide the fact that the appointments were made through an ordinance, there was no public hearing and no public announcement for the appointment.
In this situation, even if the NHRC gets more years instead of one, it is impossible to provide the evidence and documents that they did not happen.
Adhikari worked at UNMISS & NHRC, did a fellowship at the Secretariat of the GANHRIs-Geneva sramadhikari@gmail.com
A version of this article appears in the print on December 23, 2022, of The Himalayan Times.
