CCPR/C/119/D/2245/2013
India, but did not have the financial means to go there. It was not until September 2005,
after selling a piece of land that she had inherited from her parents, that the author was able
to travel to Lucknow hospital in India and undergo a hysterectomy. The operation left her
with a serious infection, for which she was hospitalized in Surkhet district hospital for
another 10 days upon her return from India.
2.6
When the author’s husband heard the news about her being raped, he stopped
sending food allowances for her and their daughter. Since the author was suffering
flashbacks because she was near the place where she had been tortured, she moved with her
daughter to Surkhet district, where they lived first in a rented room and later in a hut built
by the author on her husband’s land.3
2.7. In March 2006, the author went to the District Administration Office to file a claim
for compensation as an internally displaced person. When she arrived at the Office, J.T.
was also present. She pointed at him and publicly denounced the torture and rape. A staff
member at the District Administration Office asked J.T. why he had tortured an innocent
person. The Chief District Officer, who was also present, remarked that “he should have
only tortured her after knowing her nature and personality”, to which J.T. remained silent
and looked down. The Chief District Officer then issued a letter recommending that the
author receive “interim relief” as an internally displaced person. However, no action was
taken regarding the torture allegations.
2.8. In November 2010, the author attended a rehabilitation programme run by Advocacy
Forum for women affected by the conflict. Through this organization, she also received
medical and psychological treatment. 4 After six months of treatment, she started to
gradually recover physically and psychologically and indicated her willingness to file a
legal action, for which she started to receive legal assistance from Advocacy Forum.
2.9. On 30 September 2011, the author filed a First Information Report (FIR) — a police
complaint to initiate criminal investigations — with the District Police Office in Dailekh for
the crime of rape and other inhumane and degrading acts. In her complaint, the author
stated that she had been unable to file a report until then owing to her lack of legal
representation and the serious mental trauma and physical illness that she had endured as a
result of torture. The Deputy Superintendent of the District Police Office refused to register
her complaint, invoking section 11 of the chapter on rape of the Muluki Ain (National Code
of Nepal of 1962), which provides for a 35-day statute of limitation for reporting the crime
of rape. The author then went to the Dailekh District Administration Office to file an FIR
under section 3 (5) of the State Cases Act (1992),5 but the Office upheld the refusal of the
District Police Office to register her complaint. The author’s representatives met the Chief
District Officer, in person, at the District Administration Office and informed him about the
case. The Chief District Officer orally confirmed the decisions of the District Police Office
and the District Administration Office.
2.10 Since the District Administration Office refused to register the author’s complaint,
the only recourse available to the author was the Supreme Court of Nepal. On 21 December
2011, the author filed a writ petition with the Supreme Court seeking certiorari and
mandamus orders under articles 32 and 107 (2) of the Interim Constitution of Nepal (2007),
alleging that the police decisions refusing to register her FIR violated her constitutional
rights to equality before the law, prohibition of discrimination, prohibition of arbitrary
detention, prohibition of discrimination against women and violence against women, the
right to be promptly brought before a judge, prohibition of torture and other cruel, inhuman
or degrading treatment against persons deprived of their liberty and the right of torture
victims to be compensated.6 The author requested the Supreme Court to nullify the district3
4
5
6
The author filed for a divorce, which was granted by the court in late 2009. She was awarded the right
to half of her husband’s property, although this still remains in dispute.
The author attaches to her complaint several medical and psychological reports from the Tribhuvan
University Teaching Hospital in Kathmandu on the treatment she received during 2011.
According to section 3 (5) of the State Cases Act (1992), if the police refuse to register a FIR the
complainant shall lodge such report with the Chief District Officer or the police office superior to the
one that initially refused to register the complaint.
Article 107 (2) of the Interim Constitution of Nepal (2007) directs the Supreme Court to issue
3