CCPR/C/117/D/2164/2012
1.
The author of the communication is Sabita Basnet, who submits the communication
on behalf of herself and her husband, Milan Nepali. They are Nepalese nationals, born on 8
August 1970 and 22 May 1968, respectively. The author claims that the State party has
violated Mr. Nepali’s rights under articles 6, 7, 9 (1-4), 10 (1) and 16, alone and read in
conjunction with article 2 (3), and her rights under article 7, in conjunction with article 2 (3)
of the Covenant. The Optional Protocol entered into force for the State party on 14 August
1991. The author is represented by counsel.
The facts as submitted by the author
2.1
As a result of the armed conflict that started in 1996 in the State party, there was a
marked deterioration of the human rights situation in the country. The number of arbitrary
arrests and detentions, torture and enforced disappearances increased significantly.
Although the Communist Party of Nepal-Maoist was not declared an illegal “terrorist
organization” by the State party until 2001, persons suspected of involvement with it were
detained by the Nepal Police under the Public Security Act 2046 (1989), held
incommunicado and disappeared. According to the Working Group on Enforced or
Involuntary Disappearances, the majority of the outstanding cases of disappearance
reported to it occurred between 1998 and 2004 in the context of counter-insurgency
operations launched by the security forces against members and supporters of the Party.1
2.2
The author and her husband lived in Kathmandu Municipality, Dhapasi VDC, Wead
No. 3, at the time of the events. They had two children, born in 1994 and 1995. The author
claims that her husband worked as journalist for a left-wing (Maoist) daily newspaper
Janadesh since 1992. She worked as an administrative assistant for a private firm. Both
were active members of the Communist Party of Nepal-Maoist and frequently participated
in its activities. The author’s husband had been arrested and detained by the police as a
suspected Maoist on two previous occasions: in July 1995, together with the author, and in
March 1997. He was released after 17 days and one month, respectively.
2.3
On 21 May 1999, the author and her husband went together to the main shopping
district in central Kathmandu. While they were in Sundhara, six or seven unarmed
policemen, some of them wearing uniform, approached them, arrested the author’s husband
and informed him that he had to come with them for questioning. The author claims that at
the time of his arrest, her husband was not accused of any offence. He was put into a van
and driven away to an unknown destination. She further claims that she did not say
anything to the policemen as he had been arrested and released on two previous occasions.
She also did not want to be identified as his wife to avoid being arrested. Over the next few
days, she went several times to every police station and substation in Kathmandu in search
of her husband, without success. On an unspecified date, the Hannumandhoka District
Police Office, Kathmandu, told her that her husband was not allowed to receive visits,
including from his family, by order of the police and the Ministry of Home Affairs.
2.4
On 26 May 1999, a friend of the author’s husband, A.M., filed a writ of habeas
corpus before the Supreme Court in favour of Mr. Nepali. It was claimed that Mr. Nepali
had been illegally arrested and taken away in a van by policemen on 21 May 1999; and that
despite requests to the police, no one, including his relatives, had been able to see him.
2.5
The author claims that on 4 June 1999, she received an anonymous phone call from
a man who told her that her husband was being held in the Nepal Police Headquarters in
Naxal, Kathmandu. The next day she went there and asked to see her husband. The police
refused her request, but allowed her to hand over some clean clothes for him. The author
1
2
The author refers to the report of the Working Group on its visit to Nepal, E/CN.4/2005/65/Add.1,
paras. 7-9 and 27, and an appeal launched by Amnesty International in relation to the “disappearance”
of Dandapani Neupane in 2000, AI Index: ASA 31/03/2000, p. 2.