E/CN.4/2006/6/Add.5
page 2
Summary
The Special Rapporteur on the question of torture undertook a visit to Nepal from 10 to
16 September 2005, at the invitation of the Government. He expresses his appreciation to the
Government for the full cooperation it provided to him throughout the visit. The report contains
a study of the legal and factual aspects regarding the situation of torture or ill-treatment in Nepal.
On the basis of his interviews with current and former detainees, with the support of forensic
medical evidence, and interviews with government and military officials, lawyers and
representatives of non-governmental organizations, the Special Rapporteur concludes that torture
and ill-treatment are systematically practised in Nepal by the police, the armed police and the
Royal Nepalese Army. That the Government needs urgently to send a clear and unambiguous
message condemning torture and ill-treatment was made dramatically clear to the Special
Rapporteur when he was repeatedly told by senior police and military officials that torture was
acceptable in some instances, and was indeed systematically practised.
Over the last few years, the Special Rapporteur and his predecessors have received a
large number of allegations relating to torture and ill-treatment from Nepal, primarily in the
context of the armed conflict with the Communist Party of Nepal (CPN) (Maoist). He
recognized the obligation of the Government to ensure the security of the country’s inhabitants
and to prevent future violent attacks; however, he emphasized that such measures must respect
international human rights norms, in particular the absolute prohibition of torture, as contained in
the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or
Punishment. The Special Rapporteur also received shocking evidence of torture carried out by
the Maoists, as well as allegations of forced recruitment of women and children.
The gap between constitutional and legal provisions to safeguard the rights of suspects
and what actually happens in practice when a person is arrested was of concern to the Special
Rapporteur. Basic requirements are not respected, such as timely access to a lawyer, being
brought before a judge within 24 hours of arrest, or medical examinations upon arrest or transfer.
Detainee registers are poorly kept, if at all. In general, the Special Rapporteur was of the opinion
that there is a lack of confidence in the justice system and the rule of law on the part of torture
victims and their families.
According to the Special Rapporteur, preventive detention legislation, such as the Public
Security Act and the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities Ordinance, provide the police and the
military with sweeping powers to detain suspects for preventive reasons, sometimes for months
on end. Indeed, he has received a very large number of allegations relating to persons
involuntarily taken by security forces and held incommunicado at unknown locations. In the
experience of the Special Rapporteur, it is during this initial period in custody that the risk of
torture to extract confessions is greatest. Due process safeguards contained in these and other
pieces of legislation, and often cited by the authorities as effective safeguards against arbitrary
detention and torture are, however, largely illusory in practice; preventive detention is ordered
with almost no inquiry into the merits of the request for detention, or the physical condition of
the suspect.