NEPAL: The torturers of an 11-year-old child must be brought to justice

Dear friends,

The Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) has received information that two policemen from Pachuwarghat police station, Kavre District, tortured an eleven-year old boy, Lakpa Tamang, while interrogating him in relation to a theft case. After the torture was revealed, a case was filed at the Dulhikel District Court against the two alleged perpetrators under the Child Rights Act, 1992. Only limited departmental action has been taken against the two officers who are reported to have fled the district and whose whereabouts are unknown. Since the filing of the case, the child and his family have received threats and pressure from the police to withdraw the case. As a result from the absence of a victim and witness protection mechanism, threats against victims of torture seeking redress are a major concern in Nepal and frequently result in the impunity of the perpetrators. 

CASE NARRATIVE: 

According to the information we have received from the Center for Victims of Torture Nepal (CVICT), on 15 November 2010 police officers from Pachuwarghat police station summoned Mr. Maila Tamang to bring his eleven-year old son, Lakpa Tamang, to the police station to interrogate him in relation to an alleged case of a lost/stolen gold ring. In the morning of 16 November, Mr. Maila Tamang reported to the police station along with his daughter and his son, Lakpa.

There, Lakpa was reportedly separated from the rest of his family and Sub Inspector Purushottam Shrestha took him into custody and interrogated him about the lost ring. According to the information we have received, the Sub Inspector asked the child three times whether he had stolen the ring and the three times Lakpa replied that he had not.

The child was then taken to the interrogation room and was reportedly tortured for one hour. According to the information we have received, Sub Inspector Purushottam Shrestha asked him to crouch down and used a plastic pipe to beat his back five to six times. Then, his soles were reportedly subjected to falanga, an extremely painful form of torture consisting of beating the soles of the feet, 20 to 25 times. It is further alleged that Police Constable Bhishma Kumar Thapa then applied electric shocks behind the victim’s right ear.

As the police officers threatened that they would kill him if he did not admit having stolen the gold ring, the boy was forced to confess that he had done so and to sign a letter of confession. The police officers further threatened the boy with death should he say anything about the torture.

After having received the boy’s forced confession, the Sub Inspector went to the victim’s father, Maila, who was waiting outside the station. He reportedly asked him what he would do if his son had stolen the gold, to which the father replied that he would pay money. The Sub Inspector subsequently asked Lakpa to confess in front of his father that he had stolen the gold and wrote a paper stating that Maila Tamang would pay Rs. 19,000.00 to the complainant. After Maila signed the paper, Lakpa was released.

After coming back home in the evening, Maila noticed that his son’s back had numerous bruises and that walking was painful for Lakpa. He realized that his son had been tortured to force him to confess. He then brought him to a local photographic studio to take pictures of his injuries.

On 18 November, the child was brought to the CVICT center in Kathmandu where he stayed for five days to undergo medical examination and treatment. On 19 November, he was brought to the Tribhuwan University Teaching Hospital for a forensic examination.

The forensic report notes that the examinee’s left leg is injured, that the examinee shows difficulties when sitting and standing up and that the examinee’s left cheek is slightly swollen. The report further notes multiple brownish-red tram line contused abrasions on the upper back of the victim’s trunk showing a minimum of six impacts, an 8 cm x 1 cm faint tram line contusion on the lower back of the victim’s trunk, dark brown colored tender area on both soles which are consistent with deep contusion.

The report states that the injuries present are consistent with the history provided, that the age of the injuries is consistent with the alleged time of infliction. It further states that it is unlikely that the injuries have occurred after any kind of accident and it is impossible that they were self-inflicted. The report also concludes that there is evidence that “falanga”, one of the most common methods of torture in detention, was inflicted on the victim. It states that there are no visible signs of electrocution on ears but it does not exclude it as this method usually does not leave any trace on the victim. Eventually, the report indicates that the photographs provided by the examinee completely match with the findings of the medical examination.

A month after the events, the victim started to have sleepless nights and pain behind his right ear, for which he was cured at the centre for victims of torture.

On 6 January 2010, a case was filed against the two alleged perpetrators in Dhulikhel District Court under the Child Right Act, 1992. After the case was filed, Dhulikhel District Police Office (DPO) issued a notice that departmental action had been taken against the two perpetrators as per the article 85 of the police civil service rules 2059. Nevertheless, since the filing of the case, it is reported that both of the alleged perpetrators have fled the district and their whereabouts remain unknown.

Further, we are informed that unidentified police officers belonging to Pachuwarghat police station, the same police station as the alleged perpetrators, threatened the family and the boy to drop the case or to face the consequences. When contacted by the AHRC to ask for the protection of the victim against threats and intimidations, the Deputy Superintendent of Police of Dhulikhel DPO denied those threats and insisted that now that the case was pending in court, it was not the duty of the police to protect the victim anymore.

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: 

A report by Advocacy Forum published in June 2010 revealed that 22.3% of the juveniles in detention they interrogated between April 2009 and March 210 reported that they had undergone torture or other forms of ill-treatment at the time of arrest or detention. Nevertheless, to date, not a single police officer has been prosecuted for this offence. The section 7 of the Children Rights Act, 1992 states that “no Child shall be subjected to torture or cruel treatment” and contains provisions that whoever is found guilty of having inflicted torture on a child shall be liable to a punishment with a fine up to five thousand rupees or with imprisonment for a term that may extend to one year or with both, and may be liable to pay a reasonable amount of compensation to the child. Nevertheless, so far, not a single perpetrator of torture has been brought to justice under this act, as was pointed Human Rights Watch in 2008 and reiterated by Advocacy Forum in June 2010.

The lack of appropriate victim and witness protection mechanism is one of the obstacles which prevent the victims of torture from seeking legal redress under this act. Although the article 13 of the Convention against Torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment mandates that “each State Party shall ensure that any individual who alleges he has been subjected to torture in any territory under its jurisdiction has the right to complain to and to have his case promptly and impartially examined its competent authorities. Steps shall be taken to ensure that the complainant and witnesses are protected against all ill-treatment or intimidation as a consequence of his complaint or any evidence given”, stories of retaliations and threats against witnesses and victims of torture seeking justice are still numerous in Nepal and often act as a deterrent, preventing them from pushing for redress.

In 2005, the Committee against Torture expressed its concern about “alleged reprisals against and intimidation of persons reporting acts of torture, in the forms of re-arrests and threats, and the lack of witness protection legislation and mechanisms”. Similarly, the Committee on the Rights of the Child in 2005 recommended that Nepal should consider “Establishing effective mechanisms for receiving, monitoring and investigating complaints in a child-sensitive manner and ensuring proper prosecution of perpetrators of child abuse and neglect, as well as instituting appropriate witness and victim protection systems”. Since then, limited progress, to say the least, has been made in that regard. In a number of cases of torture, the victims do not dare to bring charges against the perpetrators or stop attending the court hearings after receiving threats from police officers, which allow the perpetrators to go free.

It is therefore very necessary and the state’s responsibility that immediate measures are taken to ensure the protection of the child and his family during the length of the legal process to make sure that their vulnerability to threats and abuse from the side of the perpetrators will not hinder their right to legal redress, once more allowing those who inflicted torture on an eleven-year old boy to remain unpunished.

SUGGESTED ACTION: 
Please join us in writing to the authorities listed below to ask for the protection of the victim and his family and immediate action to bring the perpetrators to justice.

Please be informed that the AHRC will write a separate letter to the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment and to the Field Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights in Kathmandu, calling for their intervention in the case.

To support this case, please click here: SEND APPEAL LETTER