Nepali bhotini ko hot thigh
The revised transitional justice bill, which was registered at Parliament last week, has once again come under criticism from human rights groups, including the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights. Among the concerns raised are amnesty provision loopholes even for serious human rights abuses, a provision that leaves prosecution to the discretion of the state Attorney General and a provision for reconciliation that only requires an application from either victim or perpetrator. In all this furore, the voices of victims have been largely unheard. Dewan Rai and Pranaya SJB Rana spoke to Ram Bhandari, founder of the National Network of the Families of the Disappeared and Missing, about the role of victims in the ongoing discourse, their concerns with the bill and what they would like to see from the transitional justice process.
What has the role of victims been in the transitional justice discourse?
From the very beginning, victims have not been part of the discourse. Transitional justice has become a national agenda but no one is taking a victim-centred approach. The Comprehensive Peace Agreement and the Interim Constitution both stated that transitional justice would be pursued but the approach was itself flawed. Victims were never consulted, nor given a stake in the process. NGOs that came to Nepal to work for transitional justice hijacked this agenda from victims. When it was time for elections, the political parties politicised this agenda because they needed votes. So the discourse has always been shaped from the top, whether by the NGOs and donors or political parties, as prescriptions from others. But a proper environment for transitional justice has not been created. This will require the participation of victims and for that, the state needs to be able to win the trust of the victims. There are some symbolic cases, like that of Bal Krishna Dhungel and Niranjan Basnet, who were both indicted by the courts. Perhaps if the state could put them in jail, that would send a positive message to victims.
How does the victim community see the current transitional justice bill?
The bill looks like a tool to satisfy donors. It was pushed through in a very hurried manner as there were many other forces at play here. The TRC taskforce included NGO members as ‘experts’ and Chuda Bahadur Shrestha, who was actively involved in Operation Romeo, in drafting the anti-terrorism act and in disappearing people.
There were no widespread consultations and discussions with victims or broader civil society. As a result, the parties are now divided over the bill as they are concerned about their own self-interest. So on the one hand, there is pressure to pass the bill quick from perpetrators and on the other, victims want amendments made to the bill immediately and then passed. In the middle are the human rights groups that want to scrap the entire bill and prolong the process indefinitely.
Another aspect that the transitional justice bill does not seem to have looked into is the safety of the victims and their willingness to speak. Many of the state perpetrators are still in the police and Army and they have been promoted. The DSP who took my father away is now an SP. My mother is afraid to speak when she encounters a man in uniform. And hers is not an exceptional case. Many people have been tortured; they have seen the police and Army come in and take their husbands and father away. Understandably, they are afraid to speak out. Victims do not trust the state to look after them. The question arises: who will this truth benefit? Take, for example, the rape clause in the transitional justice bill. Many donors’ reports mention ‘comfort women’. This changes the definition of rape and hampers women’s rights. Already, women are afraid to speak out about rape because of socio-cultural values. So rape has been tactically instrumentalised in the bill because the drafters of the bill know that many women will not come forward.
What specific amendments do victims want in the bill?
First, the disappearance clause has been weakened. In Nepal’s case, it is not just about disappearance but also abduction, extra-judicial detention, torture and extra-judicial killing. So it is not just about changing the name of the commission from bepatta bhayeka (people who disappeared) to bepatta pariyeka (people who were made to disappear). If the disappearance clause was made stronger, it would include all forms of serious human rights abuses, from abduction, torture to extra-judicial killing. It was because of this reason that the disappearance clause was tactically sabotaged. It is a result of collusion between all the parties who were involved in the conflict—the leadership of the political parties, the Army and police and the Maoist leadership. So we want disappearance to be criminalised in law. That will automatically bring murder and torture into the fold, and we already have provisions for rape in the bill. Another crucial demand is for a comprehensive reparation policy.
What do you wish to see in the reparation policy?
There is too much focus on prosecution when there needs to be focus on the victims’ needs. Prosecution is not a victims’ agenda. It is the agenda of those who have so far shaped the transitional justice discourse. Victims want transitional justice addressed in a very practical manner. Rights activists constantly threaten to make war-era cases international. Instead, why don’t they make these cases national or better yet, regional? Ask the victims what they want specifically. Create a family profile. Some families just want to know the fate of their loved ones so they can perform the last rites. Some want education for their children; others just want an old age pension. These are socio-cultural issues. It is not just a legal matter of ending impunity. A proper policy should address all kinds of reparations, including economic, social, educational, health and psychosocial. This is where consultation is most important.
Sexy nepali mongolian girl in shorts
The revised transitional justice bill, which was registered at Parliament last week, has once again come under criticism from human rights groups, including the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights. Among the concerns raised are amnesty provision loopholes even for serious human rights abuses, a provision that leaves prosecution to the discretion of the state Attorney General and a provision for reconciliation that only requires an application from either victim or perpetrator. In all this furore, the voices of victims have been largely unheard. Dewan Rai and Pranaya SJB Rana spoke to Ram Bhandari, founder of the National Network of the Families of the Disappeared and Missing, about the role of victims in the ongoing discourse, their concerns with the bill and what they would like to see from the transitional justice process.
What has the role of victims been in the transitional justice discourse?
From the very beginning, victims have not been part of the discourse. Transitional justice has become a national agenda but no one is taking a victim-centred approach. The Comprehensive Peace Agreement and the Interim Constitution both stated that transitional justice would be pursued but the approach was itself flawed. Victims were never consulted, nor given a stake in the process. NGOs that came to Nepal to work for transitional justice hijacked this agenda from victims. When it was time for elections, the political parties politicised this agenda because they needed votes. So the discourse has always been shaped from the top, whether by the NGOs and donors or political parties, as prescriptions from others. But a proper environment for transitional justice has not been created. This will require the participation of victims and for that, the state needs to be able to win the trust of the victims. There are some symbolic cases, like that of Bal Krishna Dhungel and Niranjan Basnet, who were both indicted by the courts. Perhaps if the state could put them in jail, that would send a positive message to victims.
How does the victim community see the current transitional justice bill?
The bill looks like a tool to satisfy donors. It was pushed through in a very hurried manner as there were many other forces at play here. The TRC taskforce included NGO members as ‘experts’ and Chuda Bahadur Shrestha, who was actively involved in Operation Romeo, in drafting the anti-terrorism act and in disappearing people.
There were no widespread consultations and discussions with victims or broader civil society. As a result, the parties are now divided over the bill as they are concerned about their own self-interest. So on the one hand, there is pressure to pass the bill quick from perpetrators and on the other, victims want amendments made to the bill immediately and then passed. In the middle are the human rights groups that want to scrap the entire bill and prolong the process indefinitely.
Another aspect that the transitional justice bill does not seem to have looked into is the safety of the victims and their willingness to speak. Many of the state perpetrators are still in the police and Army and they have been promoted. The DSP who took my father away is now an SP. My mother is afraid to speak when she encounters a man in uniform. And hers is not an exceptional case. Many people have been tortured; they have seen the police and Army come in and take their husbands and father away. Understandably, they are afraid to speak out. Victims do not trust the state to look after them. The question arises: who will this truth benefit? Take, for example, the rape clause in the transitional justice bill. Many donors’ reports mention ‘comfort women’. This changes the definition of rape and hampers women’s rights. Already, women are afraid to speak out about rape because of socio-cultural values. So rape has been tactically instrumentalised in the bill because the drafters of the bill know that many women will not come forward.
What specific amendments do victims want in the bill?
First, the disappearance clause has been weakened. In Nepal’s case, it is not just about disappearance but also abduction, extra-judicial detention, torture and extra-judicial killing. So it is not just about changing the name of the commission from bepatta bhayeka (people who disappeared) to bepatta pariyeka (people who were made to disappear). If the disappearance clause was made stronger, it would include all forms of serious human rights abuses, from abduction, torture to extra-judicial killing. It was because of this reason that the disappearance clause was tactically sabotaged. It is a result of collusion between all the parties who were involved in the conflict—the leadership of the political parties, the Army and police and the Maoist leadership. So we want disappearance to be criminalised in law. That will automatically bring murder and torture into the fold, and we already have provisions for rape in the bill. Another crucial demand is for a comprehensive reparation policy.
What do you wish to see in the reparation policy?
There is too much focus on prosecution when there needs to be focus on the victims’ needs. Prosecution is not a victims’ agenda. It is the agenda of those who have so far shaped the transitional justice discourse. Victims want transitional justice addressed in a very practical manner. Rights activists constantly threaten to make war-era cases international. Instead, why don’t they make these cases national or better yet, regional? Ask the victims what they want specifically. Create a family profile. Some families just want to know the fate of their loved ones so they can perform the last rites. Some want education for their children; others just want an old age pension. These are socio-cultural issues. It is not just a legal matter of ending impunity. A proper policy should address all kinds of reparations, including economic, social, educational, health and psychosocial. This is where consultation is most important.
The revised transitional justice bill, which was registered at Parliament last week, has once again come under criticism from human rights groups, including the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights. Among the concerns raised are amnesty provision loopholes even for serious human rights abuses, a provision that leaves prosecution to the discretion of the state Attorney General and a provision for reconciliation that only requires an application from either victim or perpetrator. In all this furore, the voices of victims have been largely unheard. Dewan Rai and Pranaya SJB Rana spoke to Ram Bhandari, founder of the National Network of the Families of the Disappeared and Missing, about the role of victims in the ongoing discourse, their concerns with the bill and what they would like to see from the transitional justice process.
What has the role of victims been in the transitional justice discourse?
From the very beginning, victims have not been part of the discourse. Transitional justice has become a national agenda but no one is taking a victim-centred approach. The Comprehensive Peace Agreement and the Interim Constitution both stated that transitional justice would be pursued but the approach was itself flawed. Victims were never consulted, nor given a stake in the process. NGOs that came to Nepal to work for transitional justice hijacked this agenda from victims. When it was time for elections, the political parties politicised this agenda because they needed votes. So the discourse has always been shaped from the top, whether by the NGOs and donors or political parties, as prescriptions from others. But a proper environment for transitional justice has not been created. This will require the participation of victims and for that, the state needs to be able to win the trust of the victims. There are some symbolic cases, like that of Bal Krishna Dhungel and Niranjan Basnet, who were both indicted by the courts. Perhaps if the state could put them in jail, that would send a positive message to victims.
How does the victim community see the current transitional justice bill?
The bill looks like a tool to satisfy donors. It was pushed through in a very hurried manner as there were many other forces at play here. The TRC taskforce included NGO members as ‘experts’ and Chuda Bahadur Shrestha, who was actively involved in Operation Romeo, in drafting the anti-terrorism act and in disappearing people.
There were no widespread consultations and discussions with victims or broader civil society. As a result, the parties are now divided over the bill as they are concerned about their own self-interest. So on the one hand, there is pressure to pass the bill quick from perpetrators and on the other, victims want amendments made to the bill immediately and then passed. In the middle are the human rights groups that want to scrap the entire bill and prolong the process indefinitely.
Another aspect that the transitional justice bill does not seem to have looked into is the safety of the victims and their willingness to speak. Many of the state perpetrators are still in the police and Army and they have been promoted. The DSP who took my father away is now an SP. My mother is afraid to speak when she encounters a man in uniform. And hers is not an exceptional case. Many people have been tortured; they have seen the police and Army come in and take their husbands and father away. Understandably, they are afraid to speak out. Victims do not trust the state to look after them. The question arises: who will this truth benefit? Take, for example, the rape clause in the transitional justice bill. Many donors’ reports mention ‘comfort women’. This changes the definition of rape and hampers women’s rights. Already, women are afraid to speak out about rape because of socio-cultural values. So rape has been tactically instrumentalised in the bill because the drafters of the bill know that many women will not come forward.
What specific amendments do victims want in the bill?
First, the disappearance clause has been weakened. In Nepal’s case, it is not just about disappearance but also abduction, extra-judicial detention, torture and extra-judicial killing. So it is not just about changing the name of the commission from bepatta bhayeka (people who disappeared) to bepatta pariyeka (people who were made to disappear). If the disappearance clause was made stronger, it would include all forms of serious human rights abuses, from abduction, torture to extra-judicial killing. It was because of this reason that the disappearance clause was tactically sabotaged. It is a result of collusion between all the parties who were involved in the conflict—the leadership of the political parties, the Army and police and the Maoist leadership. So we want disappearance to be criminalised in law. That will automatically bring murder and torture into the fold, and we already have provisions for rape in the bill. Another crucial demand is for a comprehensive reparation policy.
What do you wish to see in the reparation policy?
There is too much focus on prosecution when there needs to be focus on the victims’ needs. Prosecution is not a victims’ agenda. It is the agenda of those who have so far shaped the transitional justice discourse. Victims want transitional justice addressed in a very practical manner. Rights activists constantly threaten to make war-era cases international. Instead, why don’t they make these cases national or better yet, regional? Ask the victims what they want specifically. Create a family profile. Some families just want to know the fate of their loved ones so they can perform the last rites. Some want education for their children; others just want an old age pension. These are socio-cultural issues. It is not just a legal matter of ending impunity. A proper policy should address all kinds of reparations, including economic, social, educational, health and psychosocial. This is where consultation is most important.
Hot nepali bhotini ko thigh
Puja khadka in shorts
Sexy nepali NRN girls. Janet rai
The revised transitional justice bill, which was registered at Parliament last week, has once again come under criticism from human rights groups, including the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights. Among the concerns raised are amnesty provision loopholes even for serious human rights abuses, a provision that leaves prosecution to the discretion of the state Attorney General and a provision for reconciliation that only requires an application from either victim or perpetrator. In all this furore, the voices of victims have been largely unheard. Dewan Rai and Pranaya SJB Rana spoke to Ram Bhandari, founder of the National Network of the Families of the Disappeared and Missing, about the role of victims in the ongoing discourse, their concerns with the bill and what they would like to see from the transitional justice process.
What has the role of victims been in the transitional justice discourse?
From the very beginning, victims have not been part of the discourse. Transitional justice has become a national agenda but no one is taking a victim-centred approach. The Comprehensive Peace Agreement and the Interim Constitution both stated that transitional justice would be pursued but the approach was itself flawed. Victims were never consulted, nor given a stake in the process. NGOs that came to Nepal to work for transitional justice hijacked this agenda from victims. When it was time for elections, the political parties politicised this agenda because they needed votes. So the discourse has always been shaped from the top, whether by the NGOs and donors or political parties, as prescriptions from others. But a proper environment for transitional justice has not been created. This will require the participation of victims and for that, the state needs to be able to win the trust of the victims. There are some symbolic cases, like that of Bal Krishna Dhungel and Niranjan Basnet, who were both indicted by the courts. Perhaps if the state could put them in jail, that would send a positive message to victims.
How does the victim community see the current transitional justice bill?
The bill looks like a tool to satisfy donors. It was pushed through in a very hurried manner as there were many other forces at play here. The TRC taskforce included NGO members as ‘experts’ and Chuda Bahadur Shrestha, who was actively involved in Operation Romeo, in drafting the anti-terrorism act and in disappearing people.
There were no widespread consultations and discussions with victims or broader civil society. As a result, the parties are now divided over the bill as they are concerned about their own self-interest. So on the one hand, there is pressure to pass the bill quick from perpetrators and on the other, victims want amendments made to the bill immediately and then passed. In the middle are the human rights groups that want to scrap the entire bill and prolong the process indefinitely.
Another aspect that the transitional justice bill does not seem to have looked into is the safety of the victims and their willingness to speak. Many of the state perpetrators are still in the police and Army and they have been promoted. The DSP who took my father away is now an SP. My mother is afraid to speak when she encounters a man in uniform. And hers is not an exceptional case. Many people have been tortured; they have seen the police and Army come in and take their husbands and father away. Understandably, they are afraid to speak out. Victims do not trust the state to look after them. The question arises: who will this truth benefit? Take, for example, the rape clause in the transitional justice bill. Many donors’ reports mention ‘comfort women’. This changes the definition of rape and hampers women’s rights. Already, women are afraid to speak out about rape because of socio-cultural values. So rape has been tactically instrumentalised in the bill because the drafters of the bill know that many women will not come forward.
What specific amendments do victims want in the bill?
First, the disappearance clause has been weakened. In Nepal’s case, it is not just about disappearance but also abduction, extra-judicial detention, torture and extra-judicial killing. So it is not just about changing the name of the commission from bepatta bhayeka (people who disappeared) to bepatta pariyeka (people who were made to disappear). If the disappearance clause was made stronger, it would include all forms of serious human rights abuses, from abduction, torture to extra-judicial killing. It was because of this reason that the disappearance clause was tactically sabotaged. It is a result of collusion between all the parties who were involved in the conflict—the leadership of the political parties, the Army and police and the Maoist leadership. So we want disappearance to be criminalised in law. That will automatically bring murder and torture into the fold, and we already have provisions for rape in the bill. Another crucial demand is for a comprehensive reparation policy.
What do you wish to see in the reparation policy?
There is too much focus on prosecution when there needs to be focus on the victims’ needs. Prosecution is not a victims’ agenda. It is the agenda of those who have so far shaped the transitional justice discourse. Victims want transitional justice addressed in a very practical manner. Rights activists constantly threaten to make war-era cases international. Instead, why don’t they make these cases national or better yet, regional? Ask the victims what they want specifically. Create a family profile. Some families just want to know the fate of their loved ones so they can perform the last rites. Some want education for their children; others just want an old age pension. These are socio-cultural issues. It is not just a legal matter of ending impunity. A proper policy should address all kinds of reparations, including economic, social, educational, health and psychosocial. This is where consultation is most important.
Bhotini ko navel
The revised transitional justice bill, which was registered at Parliament last week, has once again come under criticism from human rights groups, including the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights. Among the concerns raised are amnesty provision loopholes even for serious human rights abuses, a provision that leaves prosecution to the discretion of the state Attorney General and a provision for reconciliation that only requires an application from either victim or perpetrator. In all this furore, the voices of victims have been largely unheard. Dewan Rai and Pranaya SJB Rana spoke to Ram Bhandari, founder of the National Network of the Families of the Disappeared and Missing, about the role of victims in the ongoing discourse, their concerns with the bill and what they would like to see from the transitional justice process.
What has the role of victims been in the transitional justice discourse?
From the very beginning, victims have not been part of the discourse. Transitional justice has become a national agenda but no one is taking a victim-centred approach. The Comprehensive Peace Agreement and the Interim Constitution both stated that transitional justice would be pursued but the approach was itself flawed. Victims were never consulted, nor given a stake in the process. NGOs that came to Nepal to work for transitional justice hijacked this agenda from victims. When it was time for elections, the political parties politicised this agenda because they needed votes. So the discourse has always been shaped from the top, whether by the NGOs and donors or political parties, as prescriptions from others. But a proper environment for transitional justice has not been created. This will require the participation of victims and for that, the state needs to be able to win the trust of the victims. There are some symbolic cases, like that of Bal Krishna Dhungel and Niranjan Basnet, who were both indicted by the courts. Perhaps if the state could put them in jail, that would send a positive message to victims.
How does the victim community see the current transitional justice bill?
The bill looks like a tool to satisfy donors. It was pushed through in a very hurried manner as there were many other forces at play here. The TRC taskforce included NGO members as ‘experts’ and Chuda Bahadur Shrestha, who was actively involved in Operation Romeo, in drafting the anti-terrorism act and in disappearing people.
There were no widespread consultations and discussions with victims or broader civil society. As a result, the parties are now divided over the bill as they are concerned about their own self-interest. So on the one hand, there is pressure to pass the bill quick from perpetrators and on the other, victims want amendments made to the bill immediately and then passed. In the middle are the human rights groups that want to scrap the entire bill and prolong the process indefinitely.
Another aspect that the transitional justice bill does not seem to have looked into is the safety of the victims and their willingness to speak. Many of the state perpetrators are still in the police and Army and they have been promoted. The DSP who took my father away is now an SP. My mother is afraid to speak when she encounters a man in uniform. And hers is not an exceptional case. Many people have been tortured; they have seen the police and Army come in and take their husbands and father away. Understandably, they are afraid to speak out. Victims do not trust the state to look after them. The question arises: who will this truth benefit? Take, for example, the rape clause in the transitional justice bill. Many donors’ reports mention ‘comfort women’. This changes the definition of rape and hampers women’s rights. Already, women are afraid to speak out about rape because of socio-cultural values. So rape has been tactically instrumentalised in the bill because the drafters of the bill know that many women will not come forward.
What specific amendments do victims want in the bill?
First, the disappearance clause has been weakened. In Nepal’s case, it is not just about disappearance but also abduction, extra-judicial detention, torture and extra-judicial killing. So it is not just about changing the name of the commission from bepatta bhayeka (people who disappeared) to bepatta pariyeka (people who were made to disappear). If the disappearance clause was made stronger, it would include all forms of serious human rights abuses, from abduction, torture to extra-judicial killing. It was because of this reason that the disappearance clause was tactically sabotaged. It is a result of collusion between all the parties who were involved in the conflict—the leadership of the political parties, the Army and police and the Maoist leadership. So we want disappearance to be criminalised in law. That will automatically bring murder and torture into the fold, and we already have provisions for rape in the bill. Another crucial demand is for a comprehensive reparation policy.
What do you wish to see in the reparation policy?
There is too much focus on prosecution when there needs to be focus on the victims’ needs. Prosecution is not a victims’ agenda. It is the agenda of those who have so far shaped the transitional justice discourse. Victims want transitional justice addressed in a very practical manner. Rights activists constantly threaten to make war-era cases international. Instead, why don’t they make these cases national or better yet, regional? Ask the victims what they want specifically. Create a family profile. Some families just want to know the fate of their loved ones so they can perform the last rites. Some want education for their children; others just want an old age pension. These are socio-cultural issues. It is not just a legal matter of ending impunity. A proper policy should address all kinds of reparations, including economic, social, educational, health and psychosocial. This is where consultation is most important.
No comments:
Post a Comment