- Nepal's government has ignored the National Human Rights Commission’s report on protest-related violations, missing a mandatory three-month legal response deadline.
- Investigations found evidence of excessive force, leading to recommendations for action against security commanders and high-level leaders who authorized the violent response.
- Accountability is hindered because several individuals named for further investigation currently hold government positions, creating potential conflicts in the justice process.
- The commission is preparing to formally demand a response while international bodies monitor the situation for potential implications on future diplomatic engagements.
Kathmandu, Nepal: A year after the Gen Z movement, the government's response to the National Human Rights Commission's investigation into human rights violations during the protests remains unclear.
The commission spent nearly six months investigating the incidents of September 8 and 9 last year and submitted its findings and recommendations to the government more than four months ago. But the government has yet to begin discussions on them, according to commission member Lili Thapa.
The investigation looked into the use of force by security agencies, the role of political and administrative leaders, the actions of protesters and measures needed to prevent similar incidents in the future.
The commission's main report is about 600 pages long. With annexes, witness statements and other supporting documents, the investigation file runs to nearly 10,000 pages, Thapa said.
She said the Office of the Prime Minister and Council of Ministers had not even formally informed the commission that it had received the recommendations.
Under the law, the government is required to inform the commission within three months about the steps taken to implement its recommendations. That deadline has already passed, and the commission is now preparing to formally seek a response from the government, Thapa said.
Use of force remains a major concern
The use of force by security personnel was one of the main issues examined by the commission.
Investigators looked into whether the police and other security agencies needed to open fire to control the protests, who ordered the firing and whether excessive force was used.
Thapa said the investigation found evidence of excessive use of force. The commission has recommended further investigation and appropriate action against commanders involved in the operation and those who gave the orders.
The findings therefore go beyond the personnel who were physically present at the protest sites and raise questions about those who made decisions at higher levels.
The commission also examined the role of the political and administrative leadership in the events of the first day.
Among the issues investigated were the failure of the then government to call a timely meeting of the National Security Council, the delay in the prime minister's public address and the response of the Home Ministry as the situation deteriorated.
Investigators also looked at the information available to security agencies, crowd estimates prepared by chief district officers, permission given to different groups to hold programmes at the same time in sensitive areas and the implementation of security plans prepared by district security committees.
Protesters also face scrutiny
The commission also investigated the conduct of protesters, particularly during the second day of the movement, when incidents of vandalism and arson were reported.
Damage to cultural heritage sites as well as government and private property was included in the investigation.
The commission has recommended further investigation into the roles of certain individuals and groups. However, it has not described all of them as human rights violators.
Thapa said the commission believes further investigation is needed to identify people who may have played an instigating role during the protests.
Where incidents fall outside the commission's jurisdiction and amount to criminal offences, the government has been asked to investigate them through the appropriate authorities.
Debate over releasing the main report
The commission has made its 29-page decision and recommendations public, but its roughly 600-page main investigation report has not been released.
Thapa believes the main report should be made public.
She said releasing all 10,000 pages would be difficult because the material includes personal information, confidential statements and conflicting accounts from different people.
That does not mean the main report itself should remain confidential, she said. The report contains the commission's findings and details of what happened during the movement, including the role of security agencies, the activities of protesters and damage to cultural heritage.
However, there is no agreement within the commission on whether the report should be released in full. The issue has raised a broader question of how to maintain transparency while protecting confidential information contained in witness statements.
Army statements changed the commission's assessment
Statements from senior Nepal Army commanders also became an important part of the investigation.
Thapa said the commission had sent written questions through the Ministry of Defence, but the military officials initially did not appear to give statements when summoned.
The commission initially treated their failure to cooperate as grounds for considering them human rights violators under the law.
Later, after the investigation committee had been dissolved, the Nepal Army provided the requested statements. The statements were subsequently submitted to the commission chairperson, prompting a reassessment of the earlier decision.
Thapa said the change also contributed to a delay in the commission's final decision.
Chief of Army Staff Ashok Raj Sigdel was not placed on the list of human rights violators. However, the commission recommended that he be cautioned and that the commission be informed of the warning.
According to Thapa, no previous chief of army staff had faced a recommendation of this kind. She said the commission viewed the matter in terms of institutional and moral responsibility rather than direct punishment.
Presence of government officials raises concerns
Thapa has expressed concern that implementation of the recommendations could be affected because some of the people named for further investigation are now holding government positions.
She said the fact that some individuals whose roles were questioned by the commission are currently in government could create difficulties in moving the process forward.
Some family members of people who died during the movement are also now ministers or lawmakers. Thapa said they should press the government to implement the commission's recommendations.
She stressed that the issue should not be viewed as a matter involving one political party. It is, she said, a question of justice, accountability and human rights.
Thapa also criticised the silence of some activists who were active during the movement.
Political change and the achievements of the movement continue to dominate public debate, but the human rights violations that occurred during the protests and the question of who should be held responsible should not be forgotten, she said.
Detained youths remain a concern
Thapa has also raised questions about young people who were arrested during the movement and remain in detention.
She said simply being present in a protest crowd does not mean a person was involved in violence or criminal activity. Each person's role should be examined separately, she said.
The failure to conduct fair and individual investigations into some of those detained even after a year could itself raise human rights concerns, according to Thapa.
The issue, therefore, is not only about identifying those responsible for the violence and damage but also about ensuring due process for those who were arrested.
International attention
Thapa said failure to implement the commission's recommendations could also have consequences beyond Nepal.
She said the commission's recommendations and reports have already reached international human rights mechanisms. Some diplomatic missions have also translated and taken copies of the commission's materials for study, she said.
Thapa said the status of individuals identified by the commission as human rights violators could be relevant to their future public responsibilities and international engagements.
If action is not taken domestically, she warned, the issue could still have implications at the international level.
Commission preparing to seek government response
With the legal deadline for the government to report on implementation already expired, the commission is preparing to formally ask the government for an update.
Some individuals named for further investigation have also filed applications seeking a review of the commission's decision. The commission will follow the legal process in dealing with those applications, Thapa said.
The commission will decide its next steps after receiving a response from the government.
Its role has now moved beyond investigation. The focus is increasingly on whether the government will act on the recommendations and whether those responsible will be held accountable.
A year later, accountability remains unresolved
One year after the Gen Z movement, questions about responsibility for human rights violations during the protests remain unanswered.
The government's failure to act on the commission's recommendations has also raised concerns about whether the findings of the investigation will lead to any meaningful action.
Thapa said the passage of time does not erase responsibility. There have been cases in Nepal where investigations and action over human rights violations have taken place years after the incidents, she noted.
For that reason, the current lack of action should not be seen as a permanent end to the matter.
Justice, from a human rights perspective, is not only about punishment. It also involves establishing responsibility and ensuring that those who held positions of authority answer for their decisions.
As the movement reaches its first anniversary, the debate is no longer only about its political impact. It is also about what happened during those two days, who was responsible, and whether the state will act on the findings of its own human rights watchdog.
The immediate question is when the government will begin examining the commission's recommendations and what action, if any, will follow.
Another important question is whether the roughly 600-page main investigation report will eventually be made public. The decision could have a significant bearing on public confidence in the commission's investigation and its commitment to transparency.
