CCPR/C/126/D/2773/2016
2.11 On 15 October 2012, the author’s uncle filed an application before the police
headquarters in Naxal, Kathmandu, concerning the torture suffered by his nephew. No
response was ever received, and no action was ever taken to investigate the allegations.
2.12 On 21 May 2013, the author’s legal representative submitted a habeas corpus
petition before the Supreme Court of Nepal seeking the author’s immediate release. On 25
June 2013, the Supreme Court of Nepal issued a decision 10 ordering the author’s release and
holding that the decision to keep a minor in detention solely on the basis of his inability to
pay bail was unlawful and contrary to the principle of the best interests of the child
enshrined both in international treaties and in domestic legislation.
2.13 On 1 December 2013, the author’s father submitted a petition before the Kathmandu
District Court pursuant to the Torture Compensation Act regarding both the torture inflicted
on his son and his unlawful detention and seeking redress and the prosecution of those
responsible. However, on the same day, the Kathmandu District Court refused to register
the complaint, alleging that it did not meet the 35-day statute of limitations to report a case
of torture.11
2.14 On 10 June 2014, the Kathmandu District Court found the author guilty of stealing
valuables (i.e. a laptop) and sentenced him to one month’s imprisonment and a fine of
4,000 Nepalese rupees (approximately $34.40). The Court dismissed the claims of theft
concerning other items. Because the author was a child, the sentence was reduced by half,
pursuant to section 11 (3) of the Children’s Act. Given that he had already spent nine
months and 19 days in detention, the Court determined that he should not be further
detained, nor should he pay the fine. Owing to lack of financial resources, the author could
not file an appeal against the judgment.
2.15 On 27 August 2015, the author’s legal representative attempted to register a first
information report 12 before the Metropolitan Police Range, Kathmandu, to trigger the
investigation and prosecution of those responsible for subjecting the author to child labour
and forced labour. The police verbally refused to register the report, arguing that the police
had never received child and forced labour claims before and that such a case should
instead be referred to the Labour Office. On the same day, the author’s representative
sought an order from the Office of the Chief District Officer so that the report concerning
the child and forced labour would be registered by the police, but that Office also verbally
refused to register the complaint citing similar reasons. On 13 September 2015, the author’s
representative attempted to file a complaint before the Labour Office in Kathmandu seeking
the prosecution of those responsible for subjecting the author to child and forced labour and
compensation for the damage suffered. The Chief of the Labour Office refused to register
the complaint, allegedly because it did not meet the applicable statute of limitations of one
year set out in the Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act.
2.16 On 24 March 2016, the author’s representative filed two writ petitions before the
Supreme Court of Nepal concerning the submission of the author to child and forced labour
and torture, respectively. However, the Section Officer of the Writ Section of the Supreme
Court verbally refused to register the two writ petitions, alleging that they had no prospect
of success. He refused to provide any response in writing. On the same day, the author’s
representative sought to challenge the refusal to register the two writ petitions with the Joint
Registrar of the Petitions Unit of the Supreme Court of Nepal. However, the latter reiterated
that none of the complaints would be registered, because they both were time-barred, and
he refused to provide a written copy of his decision and the reasons therefor.
2.17 As a consequence of the torture, ill-treatment and abuse inflicted on him, the author
suffers from physical and psychological sequelae, including sleep disorders, continual
headaches, nightmares and depression.
2.18 Regarding the exhaustion of available domestic remedies, the author submits that, in
his case, the remedies offered by the State party’s legislation did not prove to be effective.
10
11
12
4
Ibid.
The author provides a copy of the decision of the Kathmandu District Court of 1 December 2013.
The first information report is a tool through which information is submitted to the police in the
context of reporting crimes and filing complaints.