R.R. v. Nepal
CASE BACKGROUND
The armed conflict between the Communist Party (so called Maoist groups) and the government in Nepal took place between 1996 and 2006. During the conflict, human rights violations against the civilian population were commonplace, including torture, deprivation of life, enforced disappearance, arbitrary arrest, massacres, and sexual violence. The conflict resulted in the deaths of 17,000 people and the internal displacement of hundreds of thousands. In light of the armed conflict, documenting, reporting, and providing any form of reparations for victims of Conflict-Related Sexual Violence (CRSV) was extremely complex and difficult. Furthermore, there was and continues to be a deep-rooted stigma surrounding sexual violence in Nepal. Indeed, to this day, CRSV survivors frequently face social ostracization and exclusion from their communities and families, preventing them from reporting their cases or seeking reparation for fear of losing their livelihoods.
R.R.’ STORY
R.R. was born in Nepal in 1987. R.R. lived in a small village in Nepal throughout the internal armed conflict between the Government of Nepal and the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist). She was attending secondary school and working as a social worker when a Maoist gathering to celebrate the eighth anniversary of the start of the “People’s War” took place near her school. R.R. attended the compulsory Maoist Student Union gathering, but was not involved in any other Maoist activity.
On 13 February 2004, when R.R. was 16, 20 uniformed, armed soldiers of the Royal Nepali Army stormed into her family home and pulled her out of the house. The soldiers interrogated her about her involvement with the Maoists and hit her repeatedly with the butt of a gun when she replied that she was unaware of Maoist activities. One soldier then took R.R. out of sight of any witnesses and raped her. After one soldier instructed another to kill R.R., multiple soldiers forced her to walk to an empty field where they raped, shot and killed her.
The day following her death, R.R.’s parents attempted to file a report with the police, who showed no interest and refused to file a report. A year later, her parents again attempted to file a report with the police in a different regional office, but no effective investigation of the events was conducted. The alleged perpetrators were not arrested, despite the police’s and prosecutor’s duty to investigate following the filing of a report. R.R.’s family filed a writ for mandamus and certiorari with the Supreme Court, which ordered the police and District Attorney’s Office to conduct a prompt and full investigation into the alleged rape and murder of R.R.
In September 2010, the soldier who allegedly shot and killed R.R. was arrested. He denied all involvement in R.R.’s death, but acknowledged that a group of soldiers raped R.R. In December 2013, the Kavre District Court acquitted the soldier, as none of the witnesses had seen him shoot R.R. The Court of Appeal upheld the soldier’s acquittal, leaving R.R.’s family without any avenues to seek justice in Nepal.
ACTION FOR JUSTICE
In 2015, Advocacy Forum-Nepal and REDRESS brought a complaint before the United Nations (UN) Human Rights Committee, alleging that Nepal was responsible for serious violations of R.R.’s human rights under the International Covenant for Civil and Political Rights ( ICCPR).
Advocacy Forum-Nepal and REDRESS argued that R.R.’s killing represented an arbitrary deprivation of life, torture and other cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment, arbitrary detention, and discrimination.
Nepal contested the admissibility and merits of the case. The State denied that R.R. was tortured and raped but instead asserted that she confessed to her involvement in terrorist activities and that a soldier shot her as she tried to escape the interrogation. The State party also claimed that R.R.’s family had not exhausted domestic remedies, citing a failure to file a rape complaint within the prescribed statute of limitation. The State party also referred to the Nepal’s transitional justice mechanisms, such as the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, as appropriate avenues for R.R.’s family to seek redress.
THE OUTCOMES
The Committee rejected these arguments and found that Nepal committed multiple violations of the Covenant. The Committee concluded that Nepal had arbitrarily deprived R.R. of her life, subjected her to torture including rape, and violated her rights as a child. The Committee further found that the sexual violence inflicted on R.R. constituted gender discrimination, and that her arrest was arbitrary and unlawful.
The Committee emphasised in its decision that sexual violence was systematically widespread against women during the armed conflict. Also, the committee noted the gender-discriminatory nature of rape as a form of torture.
The Committee argued that Nepal’s failure to investigate and prosecute the soldiers, along with the application of a 35-day statute of limitation for rape complaints, denied R.R. and her family access to an effective remedy. According to the Committee, the statute of limitation for cases of CRSV was “flagrantly inconsistent with the gravity and nature of the crime,” and had a disproportionately negative effect on women. The Committee held that transitional justice mechanisms cannot substitute for a judicial remedy that is required in cases of serious human rights violations.
The Committee called on Nepal to conduct a thorough investigation, to prosecute and punish those responsible, and to provide full reparations to R.R.’s family, including through compensation, rehabilitation, measures of satisfaction including an apology and memorial, and guarantees of non-repetition through legal reforms, such as amending the statute of limitations for bringing forward rape complaints. To date, R.R.’s case has not been effectively investigated; no perpetrators have been held accountable, and the family has not received adequate and comprehensive reparation.
IMPLEMENTATION
REDRESS, Advocacy Forum Nepal, and other organisations, including the Conflict Victim Women National Network, HRJC, and ICJ Nepal have developed a comprehensive advocacy, communications, and legal action strategy to promote the implementation of the decision. The strategy includes engagement with key stakeholders, promoting the meaningful participation of survivors, communication campaigns, and social mobilisation.
QUICK FACTS
Case name: R.R. v. Nepal
Court/Body: UN Human Rights Committee
Date filed: 10 December 2015
Current status: Decision Reached, 14 March 2022
Legal representative: REDRESS and Advocacy Forum
ORGANISATIONS
Advocacy Forum – Nepal (AF) — Advocacy Forum is a non-governmental organization working to promote the rule of law and uphold human rights standards in Nepal. AF provides legal aid to victims of human rights violations, conducts monitoring and documentation of violations, and works to combat impunity and promote transitional justice mechanisms.
Photo by: Gita Rasaili