CCPR/C/130/D/2777/2016
2.6
On 20 December 2002, the author managed to escape from the Central Police Band
Company building and went to the Department of Forensic Medicine of the Maharajagunj
Campus of Tribhuvan University in Kathmandu. A doctor found that his injuries had been
produced by “blunt force impacts” compatible with the acts of torture reported by the author.3
2.7
On 24 December 2002, the author submitted a complaint to the police headquarters
alleging that the torture and ill-treatment he had been subjected to and the search of his house,
including the interference with his family, were illegal. However, the application was neither
formally registered nor did it produce any results. 4
2.8
On 10 January 2003, the author filed a complaint before the Kathmandu District Court
for compensation for the harm he had suffered and a departmental action against the
perpetrators pursuant to the Compensation for Torture Act 1996. 5 After the case was
registered, the author was threatened by various policemen and pressured to withdraw his
complaint.
2.9
On 5 February 2003, the author was taken by his colleagues from the Central Police
Band Company to the police headquarters, where he was questioned by his superiors and
intimidated to make him withdraw his complaint. Upon his refusal to comply, he was taken
to the quarter guard of Armed Police Battalion No. 1 in Kathmandu and detained there until
21 February 2003. During the entire period of detention, the author was chained and his head
was covered with a hood.6
2.10 On 21 February 2003, he was taken to the legal department at the police headquarters
and given a letter asking him for clarification within 24 hours about his involvement in the
theft of the gold. The author also learned from the letter that disciplinary proceedings were
being brought against him. On the same day, he managed to escape from the police
headquarters and went home.
2.11 On 24 February 2003, two human rights lawyers supported him in filing an injunction
petition before the Appellate Court of Patan. On 25 February 2003, the Appellate Court
issued a stay order (interim order) against the police headquarters, directing the police
department not to take any departmental action against the author. The court said that such
action would be illegal because the gold that had allegedly been stolen had not been found
and there was no evidence whatsoever indicating the author’s responsibility.
2.12 On 25 February 2003, however, the Appellate Court of Patan issued an order for the
author to be brought back to the premises of the quarter guard of Armed Police Battalion No.
1. The author was detained there, chained and his head covered with a hood, until 3 April
2003. During his detention, he was subjected to repeated threats in order to make him
withdraw his complaint and compensation claim, which he kept refusing to do. 7
2.13 On 4 April 2003, the author filed a complaint before the National Human Rights
Commission and a petition before the Chief District Officer of the District Administration
Office in Kathmandu for the protection of his life in view of the police threats, but no
measures were taken in response to his applications.
2.14 On 25 April 2003, after several failed attempts, the author managed to go back to work
and was assigned to the canteen, where he worked until March 2006. 8 During the entire
3
4
5
6
7
8
The author provides the medical certificate. After the author returned home and met his family, he
went back to the premises of the Central Police Band Company as he did not want to lose his job and
source of income, or his right to pensions, although he was scared to go back.
The author provides a copy of his complaint to the police headquarters legal department.
The allegation is based on sections 4, 5 (1), 6 (1) and 7 of the 1996 Compensation for Torture Act.
Between 5 and 8 February 2003, he was kept there alone. Subsequently, other policemen were briefly
detained with him and transferred elsewhere.
In testimony dated 31 October 2015, the author’s wife testifies to the physical and mental damage
suffered by her husband, which she witnessed after he managed to return home in April 2003.
From 4 to 7 April 2003, the author went to the police headquarters in his uniform to carry out his
duties as he was instructed, but he was not given any duties. On 7 April 2003, he filed a mandamus
writ petition before the Appellate Court of Patan to ask to be allowed to enter the office and perform
his duties. When he received the interim order from the Appellate Court, he was able enter the
premises, but was not allowed to register his attendance between 8 and 23 April 2003.
3