Research On Criminal Justice Reforms And Internal Accountability In Nepal
1. Maina Sunuwar Case (2004–2017)
Background:
Maina Sunuwar was a 15-year-old girl from Kavrepalanchok District. During the Maoist insurgency, she was arrested by Nepal Army personnel on suspicion of involvement with insurgents. She was detained at a military camp, tortured (electric shocks, waterboarding), and killed in custody. The army initially claimed she died while attempting to escape.
Judicial Process:
Military courts initially handled the case and gave minimal punishment to officers.
After advocacy by civil society, the case was brought to a civilian court.
In 2017, the Kavre District Court convicted three ex-army personnel and sentenced them to 20 years imprisonment.
Significance:
First civilian conviction of army personnel for a conflict-era killing.
Highlighted the weakness of internal accountability within the army and the importance of civilian judicial oversight.
Enforcement remains difficult, as some convicts were abroad or challenging the verdict.
2. Prashanta Pandey Torture Case (2011–2014)
Background:
Prashanta Pandey, a medical worker, was detained by police on suspicion of involvement in a bombing incident. He was held incommunicado, tortured, forced to confess, and publicly labelled a terrorist.
Judicial Process:
Domestic courts acquitted him of bombing charges but did not prosecute the police officers responsible for torture.
The confession obtained under torture was initially used in proceedings.
He petitioned the UN Human Rights Committee, which found Nepal responsible for violating his rights and recommended remedies.
Significance:
Exposed systemic torture and abuse in police custody.
Showed that domestic mechanisms often fail to hold law enforcement accountable, requiring international oversight.
Reinforced the need for independent investigative bodies.
3. Hom Bahadur Bagale Case (2002–2020)
Background:
Hom Bahadur Bagale, a police sub-inspector, was accused of theft by a superior officer. He was arrested multiple times without proper legal procedure, tortured, held in solitary confinement, and his family harassed.
Judicial Process:
Domestic courts recognized his detention as arbitrary but did not address torture or prosecute the perpetrators.
Bagale petitioned the UN Human Rights Committee, which found Nepal violated several ICCPR rights, including protection against torture and unlawful detention.
Significance:
Shows internal accountability failure even for law enforcement officers.
Highlights systemic abuse of power and lack of enforcement within the police.
Stresses the need for independent oversight and separation of investigative functions.
4. Custodial Death / Torture Investigation Directive (2020)
Background:
Nepal had no convictions for custodial deaths or torture for years, revealing systemic impunity. The Supreme Court issued a directive in 2020 to form an independent body to investigate allegations against police officers rather than allowing self-investigation.
Significance:
Marks a structural reform effort rather than an individual case.
Recognizes inherent conflicts of interest in internal investigations.
Implementation remains slow, showing the challenge of translating judicial directives into operational accountability.
5. Arun Thapa Custodial Death Case (2013–2015)
Background:
Arun Thapa, a young man, was arrested by the local police for allegedly being involved in a theft. During detention, he was beaten severely, resulting in death. Police initially claimed he had died due to illness.
Judicial Process:
Local investigations revealed severe negligence and physical abuse.
Two police officers were eventually sentenced to 10 years imprisonment by the district court.
The case prompted the Supreme Court to reiterate the importance of timely and independent investigations in custodial death cases.
Significance:
Rare instance of police personnel being convicted for custodial death.
Reinforces the role of courts in enforcing accountability despite institutional resistance.
6. Transitional Justice / Disappearance Case – Mr. Krishna Bahadur Mahara (Conflict Era)
Background:
During the Maoist insurgency, several civilians and former combatants disappeared. Krishna Bahadur Mahara’s family reported enforced disappearance, allegedly by state security personnel.
Judicial Process:
Domestic courts struggled due to lack of evidence, political interference, and delayed investigations.
Transitional Justice Commission recommended exhumation, investigation, and reparation, but implementation was weak.
No security personnel have yet been prosecuted in this type of enforced disappearance case.
Significance:
Highlights the challenge of accountability in conflict-era cases.
Shows systemic gaps in law enforcement, political will, and judicial effectiveness.
Demonstrates need for strong transitional justice mechanisms that complement ordinary criminal justice processes.
Key Observations Across These Cases
Civilian Oversight is Crucial: Maina Sunuwar’s case shows civilian courts can enforce accountability where military or police mechanisms fail.
Systemic Weaknesses Persist: Multiple cases show that torture, custodial deaths, and disappearances often go unpunished due to internal investigation failures and political interference.
International Oversight: UN Human Rights Committee decisions in cases like Pandey and Bagale highlight reliance on external mechanisms when domestic enforcement is weak.
Judicial Directives Are Necessary but Not Sufficient: Supreme Court directives for independent investigation are essential but require robust implementation.
Conflict-era Cases Require Special Mechanisms: Transitional justice is critical but often hampered by amnesty provisions and political pressure.
RELATED Blog
0 comments