Dear friends,
The Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) has received information regarding a case of rape of a minor from its local partner, the Advocacy Forum based in Katmandu – Nepal. The incident happened when the 15-year-old schoolgirl, Bimala [the name changed to safeguard her identity] was in the forest near the District Police Office (DPO) Bhiman in Sindhuri district. The local police had repeatedly refused to register a case for the complaint and only proceeded to file a report following pressure from the Advocacy Forum.
On 3 June 2006, Bimala [the name changed to safeguard her identity], aged 15 years, was collecting dry leafs from the forest near her home. While Bimala was in the forest adjacent to the Joint Security Forces Base Camp a person approached her from behind. Bimala struggled in protest to break free but was overpowered and was raped. She was blindfolded with a handkerchief around her eyes and her arms were tied with ropes. Bimala was then molested and raped by two men.
After violating Bimala one of the perpetrators removed the handkerchief and ropes from Bimala asking her not to reveal the incident to anyone. Through a burst of emotions, Bimala held the man and began crying in hysteria. The man informed Bimala that he was a soldier personal stationed at the Joint Security Base Camp. The officer promised to marry her and asked her to stay with her friend. He also informed Bimala that his name was Saroj Thapa and showed her his bracelet with the letter ‘S’ engraved on it.
On the way to her friend's house Bimala cleaned herself at a nearby river. The next day Bimala waited for Saroj to come for her and when he failed to turn up, she went to the spot in the forest where she was raped and waited a while for the man to turn up. Confused, shocked and traumatised Bimala did not go home. In the meanwhile Bimala’s family lodged a complaint for a missing person with the local police since Bimala had been missing for a day. The police on receipt of the complaint began a search and soon found Bimala wandering in the forest. She was rescued from the forest and handed her over to the family.
Once back at home, Bimala informed the family what had happened to her. The family along with some other villagers immediately rushed to the local police station to lodge a complaint. The Police Inspector requested the family to submit an application for medical check-up in order to lodge a complaint. The villagers did not appreciate the idea of submitting Bimala for medical examination and forced Bimala’s grandfather who was supposed to lodge a complaint to return home without requesting for a medical check-up. At home Bimala was also treated badly as the family began to accuse her of spoiling the family name. On 6 June 2006 Bimala went to her aunt’s house to stay away from home. However, her aunt was afraid that the perpetrators would come looking for her and sent Bimala to her uncle’s house the next day.
On coming to know about her case the Advocacy Forum met with Bimala and arranged for lawyers to register a complaint at the Bhiman police station. When they approached the Bhiman police station, the Assistant Sub Inspector informed the lawyers that prior consent is required from the Deputy Superintendent of Police before the complaint can be registered.
The next day the lawyers went again to the police station to lodge the complaint. This time it was the Police Inspector who met with them and the officer wanted a few sentences deleted from the First Information Report (FIR) before registering it. The complaint stated that this particular case was not the first instance within the jurisdiction of Bhiman police station where security officers had molested women. The statement also mentioned that the security officers had threatened villagers in the past and in this incident the suspects were police and military officials respectively. The Inspector wanted all these references removed from the complaint and insisted that the local police and the military were no longer in a good relationship. He continued to explain that it was highly improbable for a police officer to have any sought of agreement with a military officer in committing the offence and refused to register the case. It was only through long persuasion and pressure that the police reluctantly filed a First Investigation Report under case number 33/2063 (Nepali year).
FACT IN ISSUE:
Section 24A of the Army Act Nepal 1959 provides that:
Not withstanding anything contained in current law, in case any person dies or suffers any loss as a result of any action taken by any person to whom this act is application (officers) while discharging his duties, no case may be filed in any court against him.
For the purpose of this Section, the term "any action taken while discharging duties" means any action to be taken for internal security or self-defense, including flag march, patrolling and guard duty.
In the context of Section 24A, it is clear that the language envisaged provides blanket immunity for military personnel. The definition of discharging duties has so loose a meaning that it is inevitably subject to abuse with the result of hindrance to justice. The decrees of this Section make it difficult for civilians to expect a fair trial when they initiate cases against members of the military as the burden of proof in showing that the officer was not in the course of discharging his duty would be overwhelming.
OTHER RELEVANT INFORMATION:
In the recent past when the security situation within Nepal was under threat, the army, armed police and the local police were brought under joint command to combat any hostility. Detachments from the joint command would be deployed at various police stations to help in maintaining law and order. Bhiman police station retains one such command post and the officers under this command come from various services, serving together as long as they are stationed at the common post. It is often the case that many officers form groups and engage in criminal activities including murder of anyone who opposes their authority.
The police have been reluctant to punish the police officer identified by Bimala as he had served with the local police, which posed a threat of turning informant against other offences committed by his colleagues. The police have always relied on Section 24 A of the Army Act Nepal 1959 as a blanket provision which the army takes refuge whenever a case of this sensitivity has to be registered on crimes committed by army officers. The local police also take cover under the Section to avoid registering cases against military and para-military officers to protect the image of the institution.
Whilst the resistance from authorities hinders justice, the conservative attitude of villagers also proves to be hindering a proper inquiry into the incident. Few residents from remote villages in Nepal still believes that even if the crime is that of rape of a minor girl, the accusation is upon the girl for exposing herself to danger. Various caste and other religious beliefs also play its role in prompting the villagers to observe such conservative and narrow attitudes.
SUGGESTED ACTION:
The AHRC is seriously concerned by these allegations of grave human rights violations by the Nepali security forces against innocent civilians and calls for you urgent intervention into this case. We ask that you send letters urging the government of Nepal to launch an immediate and impartial investigation into these events, bringing perpetrators to justice and award adequate reparation to the victims or their families. Please also urge the government authorities to take strong and genuine measures to prevent future violence and human rights abuses against civilians by the security forces.
To support this appeal, please click:
