CCPR/C/119/D/2184/2012
overall weakness and it was believed that he had died in 2004.4 The report also noted that
detainees were kept in cruel, inhuman or degrading conditions. 5
2.7
The author claims that, on 19 June 2006, she reported her husband’s disappearance
and made a second attempt to file a first information report before the District Police Office
in Hanuman Dhoka, Kathmandu, which was registered on 19 June 2006. In the report, she
identified five members of the Royal Nepalese Army who had allegedly participated in the
disappearance, torture and probable murder of her husband and requested their immediate
arrest and prosecution. She stated that they were responsible for what had happened to her
husband based on eyewitness testimonies and the information contained in the OHCHRNepal report. Despite her efforts, no investigation was carried out. On 25 December 2006,
the District Police Office in Kathmandu told her not to return as they were unable to call the
army’s officers to the Office or, therefore, to conduct an investigation.
2.8
Following the refusal of the police to take any action against the alleged
perpetrators, on 4 January 2007 the author filed a writ of mandamus before the Supreme
Court of Nepal against different governmental authorities and members of the Royal
Nepalese Army that had allegedly participated in the extrajudicial killing of her husband.
Within the proceedings, the District Police Office of Hanuman Dhoka, Kathmandu, stated
that the author had not filed a first information report before it. Other authorities, such as
the Ministry of Defence, the Chief of the Human Rights Cell of the Army Headquarters, a
Lieutenant Colonel at Bhairab Nath Barracks, the Minister for Home Affairs, the Chief of
the Army and two senior police officers at the Kathmandu District Police Office, did not
provide any relevant information to the Supreme Court and stated that they had not arrested
or seen the author’s husband.
2.9
On 1 June 2007, the Supreme Court ruled on the habeas corpus petitions of 83
disappeared persons. While a habeas corpus petition was never filed on behalf of Mr.
Nakarmi, the Supreme Court noted that, according to one of the writs the author’s husband
had died as a result of torture in the Bhairab Nath Barracks. It also noted that a former
detainee of those Barracks testified before the Court of Appeal in Patan that the persons
mentioned in the petitions had been kept there in detention.
2.10 In June 2009, the author received interim relief of Nr 100,000 under the Interim
Relief Plan set up by the Government.
2.11 On 18 August 2009, the Supreme Court sent a letter to the National Human Rights
Commission asking whether the Commission had any information pertaining the
disappearances allegedly committed in the Bhairab Nath Barracks. In reply, on 7 September
2009, the Commission submitted a report that described various methods of torture used
within the Barracks, including being submerged by water, electrocution and beatings with
different objects. It also stated that detainees in the Barracks were kept under poor
conditions and forced to watch and listen to torture being inflicted on others. The author
points out that the report mentioned her husband’s name and stated that he had been kept in
custody, that he had fallen ill as a result of torture inflicted on him, and that other inmates
believed that in the second week of February 2004 he had been taken to the Shree Birendra
Army Hospital in Chhauni, Kathmandu.6 The author underlines that Mr. Nakarmi is also
mentioned in the missing persons database of the Nepalese Red Cross 7 and in the National
Human Rights Commission’s list of missing persons. 8
2.12 On 26 August 2010, the Supreme Court quashed the author’s writ of mandamus on
the ground that there was no evidence that indicated that her husband had been arrested and
murdered by State’s agents. It stated that the author had relied upon statements made by
inmates who had been in custody for criminal proceedings and the report presented by the
National Human Rights Commission, and that her allegations were mere assumptions. The
4
5
6
7
8
Ibid., p. 65.
Ibid., p. 60.
The author refers to the report of an investigation by the National Human Rights Commission into
disappearances at the Bhairab Nath Barracks, which was ordered by the Supreme Court and submitted
to it on 7 September 2009.
The author refers to the International Committee of the Red Cross, “Missing persons in Nepal: the
right to know”, August 2008, in which the name of the author’s husband is listed.
National Human Rights Commission, “An appeal”, disappearance name list (2057-2060), in which
the name of the author’s husband is included.
3