CCPR/C/119/D/2185/2012
second author met the two teachers who had been arrested with his brother. They told him
that Rajendra Dhakal had been arrested on 8 January 1999 and transferred to the Tanahun
District Police Office. Rajendra Dhakal’s whereabouts have remained unknown since then.
The second author kept the first author and her family regularly informed of the steps he
was taking to search for her husband.
2.5
On 21 January 1999, the second author lodged a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of
his brother, Rajendra Dhakal, before the Nepalese Supreme Court. The Court issued a show
cause order to, inter alia, the Ministry of Home Affairs, the Police Headquarters in Naxal,
Kathmandu, the District Police Offices in Gorkha, Kaski, Nawalparasi and Tanahun, the
Armed Police Battalion in Pokhara, Kaski, and Bel Chautara Area Police Office. The
authorities there responded by denying the detention. They also denied the second author’s
allegations that police officers had informed him that his brother had been moved from one
police facility to another (see paragraph 2.4 above).
2.6
On 23 March 1999, the Supreme Court ordered the Police Headquarters to search for
Rajendra Dhakal in all places of detention and to produce him before the Court. On 19
April 1999, the Police denied all knowledge of the case and stated that charges of homicide
had been pending against Rajendra Dhakal at Tanahun District Court since 1998 in
connection with the murder of a police deputy inspector, and that the police were searching
for him.
2.7
In December 1999, the affidavits of the two teachers who were arrested with
Rajendra Dhakal were presented to the Supreme Court. They confirmed that on 8 January
1999, Rajendra Dhakal had been arrested by policemen led by Inspector K.B.R. and
transferred to Tanahun District Police Office. Afterwards, the Ministry of Home Affairs
informed the Court that Rajendra Dhakal had not been found in custody.
2.8
In August 2000, the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary
executions issued a report on her mission to Nepal, in which she noted that she had been
briefed about Rajendra Dhakal’s case (see E/CN.4/2001/9/Add.2, para. 41). In 2001,
Amnesty International submitted his case to the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary
Disappearances.4 His name was also included in the list of disappeared persons maintained
by the National Human Rights Commission of Nepal,5 and in the missing persons database
of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC). 6
2.9
The authors claim that the first author had long been mildly involved in political
activities with the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist); that after Rajendra Dhakal’s
disappearance, she became very much engaged, along with the second author, in a group
called the State Enforced Disappearance Family Society; and that in early 2001, she was
arrested for having connections with the Maoist party. Policemen told her that her husband
had already been killed by the security forces and threatened that she would meet the same
fate if she continued her involvement in Maoist activities. She was held in detention and
repeatedly ill-treated during interrogation. She was blindfolded and constantly beaten about
the head with a stick. After 10 days, she was released but obliged to report to the police
post in Thantipokhari, Palungtar Village Development Committee, Gorkha district every
Saturday.
2.10 Due to the violence in Nepal, the judicial system was adversely affected and no
additional steps were taken concerning Rajendra Dhakal’s case until the end of the armed
conflict in 2006. On 28 August 2006, in order to follow through with pending habeas
corpus petitions concerning enforced disappearances, the Supreme Court decided to
establish a Detainee Investigation Task Force, led by a judge of the Appellate Court, to
inquire into four cases of disappearance, including that of Rajendra Dhakal. The
investigation concluded that he had been arrested by a police team comprised of 10-12
4
5
6
The authors point out that reference was made to Rajendra Dhakal’s case in the following reports:
E/CN.4/2002/79 (para. 231), E/CN.4/2003/70 and Corrs.1 and 2 (para. 198), E/CN.4/2004/58 (para.
222) and E/CN.4/2005/65 (para. 240).
The communication includes a copy of the citation from the Commission’s list.
The communication includes a copy of the ICRC document, “Missing persons in Nepal: the right to
know — updated list 2011”.
3