<<previous  |  index  |  next>>

IV. “Disappearances”

The current pattern of “disappearances” in Nepal had its origins in the late 1990s, when Nepali police forces launched large-scale operations against Maoist activists and their supporters. The crackdowns occurred in the country’s western and central regions, the areas most affected by the insurgency. The number of “disappearances” skyrocketed during the state of emergency (November 26, 2001–August 28, 2002), when the RNA was first deployed in the counterinsurgency and a number of constitutional rights were suspended. The most dramatic increase in “disappearances” occurred after the breakdown of the ceasefire in August 2003: according the United Nations Working Group on Enforced and Involuntary Disappearances (WGEID), for two consecutive years, in 2003 and 2004, Nepal “recorded the highest number of new cases” of enforced disappearances in the world.⁶⁵ From January to September 2004, the WGEID transmitted 117 cases as urgent appeals to the Nepali government—more than for any other country in the world during that period. ⁶⁶

Since May 2000, Nepal’s National Human Rights Commission (the NHRC) has received reports of 1,234 cases of “disappearance” perpetrated by security forces.⁶⁷ Informal Sector Service Center (INSEC), a prominent local human rights group that monitors the human rights situation all over the country, recorded 368 “disappearances” in 2003 alone, and 1,264 since the beginning of the conflict in 1996.⁶⁸

During its three-week-long mission to Nepal in September-October 2004, Human Rights Watch documented 203 cases of “disappearance”, the earliest of which dates back to the fall of 1997,⁶⁹ while the most recent occurred on September 17, 2004.⁷⁰

“Disappearances” occur throughout the country, affecting virtually all of Nepal’s seventy-five districts. The frequency of “disappearances” has closely mirrored the development of the fighting in Nepal, with the number of “disappearances” tending to be highest in areas where control is most actively contested between the security forces and the Maoists. In the late 1990s the most affected districts were Rolpa, Rukum, Jajarkot, Salyan, Gorkha, and Sindhuli, but the majority of recent cases documented by local and international human rights groups occurred in the vicinity of Nepal’s capital, Kathmandu, and in central districts, such as Lalitpur and Dhading.⁷¹ Of the “disappearances” documented by the NHRC, 43 percent happened in middle Nepal, 23 percent in the mid-western part of the country, and 17 percent in the eastern part.⁷²

Human Rights Watch has documented “disappearances” that occurred in fourteen districts: Kathmandu, Lalitpur, Nuwakot, Kavre, Dhading, Lamjung, Gorkha, Chitwan, Nawalparasi, Tanahu, Kaski, Dang, Bardia, and Banke. Most of the documented “disappearances” were registered in Bardia (eighty-nine cases), Dang (twenty-nine cases), Banke (twenty-five cases) and Kathmandu (twenty-two cases). The research clearly demonstrates that the problem is not confined to any particular part of Nepal, but is prevalent throughout the country.

Perpetrators

In conflicts throughout the world, “disappearances” are largely carried out by secret services, special military units, death squads, or paramilitary groups.⁷³ This significantly complicates the process of identifying the perpetrators—both those giving orders and those carrying them out—and often creates insurmountable obstacles for establishing the whereabouts of the “disappeared.”

In Nepal, however, the situation is quite different. Almost all arrests and detentions that lead to “disappearances” are carried out by regular army units, police, or Armed Police Force (APF) personnel. The army and the APF have been deployed in counterinsurgency operations since 2001. On November 4, 2003, after the collapse of peace talks and the Maoists’ withdrawal from the ceasefire, the government declared the formation of the so-called Unified Command, consisting of the army, APF, police, and the National Investigation Department, under the operational command of the army.⁷⁴

The overwhelming majority of witnesses interviewed by Human Rights Watch unhesitatingly identified perpetrators as “army men,” “police,” “APF,” or “a joint group of army and police.” In many cases the witnesses indicated that the security personnel wore uniforms, used military vehicles, and sometimes presented their official security forces identification.

Although in some cases soldiers and policemen were dressed in civilian clothes, or even disguised themselves as Maoists in an attempt to identify Maoist sympathizers in villages, they generally failed to deceive the villagers into mistaking their identity. For example, on April 11, 2002, a large group of RNA soldiers carried out a sweep in Manau VDC-8 in Bardia (described below).⁷⁵ They initially tried to fool some of the villagers into thinking they were Maoists, asking the villagers to join them in blowing up a local bridge.⁷⁶The RNA arrested eight people from the village, none of whom were seen again.⁷⁷

In a number of cases, the victims’ families knew exactly which army barracks, camp, or post a unit was coming from, and at times could even identify the soldiers or officers by name. For example, on August 17, 2002, RNA soldiers arrested twenty-six-year-old teacher Jilla Sandesh Tharu, along with two other villagers from Magaragadi, Magaragadi VDC-9 in Bardia. But a relative of Tharu recognized one of the officers from a nearby Rambhapur army post—Jamdar Mahendra Thapa—among the soldiers.⁷⁸ The relatives tried to use this information to locate the three “disappeared” men, but their efforts proved futile, and the three men remain missing.⁷⁹

Since at present Maoist forces control much of Nepal’s countryside, security forces typically operate out of heavily fortified positions at district headquarters, carrying out raids on villages from there. This makes it easier to determine which units are carrying out large-scale sweeps or targeted search and seizure operations in a given village. Moreover, as discussed below, the families of individuals taken into custody often receive credible information regarding their relatives’ detention in specific army barracks, which also helps to establish the identity of the perpetrators.

Given the relative ease in identifying individual perpetrators, as well as the army and police units routinely involved in violations, few obstacles stand in the way of authorities locating and punishing those responsible for abuses. Thus far, however, the authorities have chosen to overlook the overwhelming evidence of security force involvement in “disappearances.”

Victims

Among the victims of “disappearances” in Nepal are people of various occupations, including farmers, workers, students, teachers, journalists, lawyers, shopkeepers, housewives, and others. In cases documented by Human Rights Watch, twenty-one of the “disappeared” were women. The majority was young people between the ages of twenty and thirty-five, and twenty-five victims were minors under the age of eighteen.

Of the 203 “disappearances” documented by Human Rights Watch, twenty-three individuals were allegedly active members of CPN-M, and another seventeen were said to belong to groups affiliated with CPN-M, such as the All-Nepal Student Union (Revolutionary), the Laborers’ Union (Maoist), or the All-Nepal Women’s Organization Revolutionary. Eight persons were former members of CPN-M who, according to their relatives, had discontinued their party membership and had returned to civilian life prior to their arrest.

Significantly, however, in over one-third of the cases documented by Human Rights Watch, the “disappeared” appear never to have been involved with any aspect of the Maoist movement and, according to their relatives, were either not active politically or members of non-Maoist political parties, such as the Nepali Congress or the CPN (UML).⁸⁰

In a number of cases people were detained because of their personal friendship or family connection with a person known to be a Maoist. Thus, nineteen-year-old student Dilip Chandra Hadkhale, a university student and an active member of the Nepali Congress Party, was apparently “disappeared” by the RNA solely because of his personal friendship with a CPN-M activist whom the army had killed earlier. The RNA first detained Hadkhale in September 2003, after which he was released as the result of a direct intervention by the university administration. While he was in custody, Hadkhale was questioned about his CPN-M friend and severely beaten. On January 21, 2004, Hadkhale was apparently rearrested and subsequently “disappeared.”⁸¹ Another student, sixteen-year-old Bir Bahadur Thapa from Dang, “disappeared” after being arrested at home by a group of RNA soldiers on April 28, 2002. His family is adamant that Thapa was not involved in politics and believes that he was “disappeared” because of his father, who is active in the political structures of CPN-M.⁸²

In other cases security forces arrested and “disappeared” villagers who had done nothing more than provide food and shelter to Maoists traveling through their villages.⁸³ These villagers are caught in a nearly impossible position: refusing to supply food and shelter to Maoists can lead to retribution from the Maoists, but offering it can lead to attacks by government forces.

Modus Operandi

In almost all cases documented by Human Rights Watch, people who had “disappeared” were last seen by their relatives or other witnesses in the custody of governmental security forces. Such forces had detained them during large-scale operations or targeted raids, arrested them at checkpoints, or had simply taken them away from their places of work or study.

“Disappearances” after large-scale operations

Large-scale operations—some of them prompted by Maoist attacks in a given area and some having no apparent cause—often result in arbitrary arrests and “disappearances.”

Thus, at least sixteen people “disappeared” after being arrested by RNA and APF forces in the course of a large-scale operation on October 20-22, 2002, in Rajapur, Bardia. The security forces based at the Manpur Tapara temporary army camp launched the arrest spree in response to Maoist destruction of many government offices in the months before the operation. The Maoists had also given an ultimatum to the family members of security personnel to coerce their relatives to resign from the security forces or leave Rajapur.

On the night of October 20, 2002, the soldiers arrested twenty-six-year-old farmer Fula Ram Tharu,⁸⁴ seventeen-year-old student Ram Karan Tharu,⁸⁵ and thirty-year-old farmer Runchya Tharu⁸⁶ from Jamunabachi village, Manpur Tapara VDC-8. The same night, a combined group of uniformed RNA soldiers and APF officers also detained thirty-year-old farmer Radheshyam Tharu,⁸⁷ and thirty-three-year-old Raj Kumar Tharu⁸⁸ from a nearby Vikrampur village. Also on October 20, a combined force of RNA and APF soldiers carried out arrests in Badalpur VDC-9, detaining four persons—twenty-six-year-old mill worker Basantu Tharu,⁸⁹ twenty-year-old Lautan Tharu, who had returned from working in India just seven days before,⁹⁰ twenty-year-old student Bagale Tharu,⁹¹ and twenty-one-year-old farmer Pharek Tharu.⁹²

RNA soldiers further arrested four people from Harinagar village, Khairi Chandanpur VDC-8, during the day on October 21, 2002: forty-five-year-old Sunawa Chowdhury,⁹³ twenty-four-year-old Bagi Ram Chowdhury,⁹⁴ nineteen-year-old student Kessar Kumar Chowdhury,⁹⁵ and thirty-eight-year-old medical shop owner Pati Ram Chowdhury.⁹⁶ The same day RNA soldiers arrested the twenty-eight-year-old owner of a small shop, Mangru Chowdhury,⁹⁷ and seventeen-year-old student Gopal Chowdhury⁹⁸ in Chapti village, Badalpur VDC-4.

On the last day of the operation, October 22, RNA soldiers came to Pahadipur village, Badalpur VDC-3, and detained forty-one-year-old farmer and local-level CPN-M activist Moti Lal Tharu.⁹⁹

According to the families, aside from Moti Lal Tharu, none of the detainees was a member of CPN-M. Testimony from several witnesses indicates that the “disappeared” detainees were taken to the Manpur Tapara Secondary School, which the RNA had occupied as their “Manpur Tapara temporary army camp.” The relatives went daily to the school and saw the blindfolded detainees held in one of the school’s rooms. Many recognized their relatives from the clothes they were wearing at the time of arrest. After the Manpur Tapara temporary camp was dismantled on October 25, the sixteen detainees were never seen again.

Another ten detainees “disappeared” after two RNA operations carried out in February and April 2002. The operations were in response to the killing of a large landowner in Nauranga village in Manau VDC-8, Rajapur, Bardia in February 2002. RNA soldiers detained four people from the area on February 25, 2002, and another eight on April 11. Two detainees from the first group were released six days later, but twenty-two-year-old Nirmal Chowdhury¹⁰⁰ and thirty-eight-year-old Jagat Prasad Chowdhury¹⁰¹ “disappeared” after being last seen by the released detainees in the Thakurdwara army barracks. The eight persons detained in April—thirty-year-old Prem Bahadur Tharu,¹⁰² seventeen-year-old Dhani Ram and his seventeen-year-old brother Sani Ram Tharu,¹⁰³ twenty-year-old Radhu Lal Chowdhury,¹⁰⁴ twenty-one-year-old Mohan Chowdhury,¹⁰⁵ sixteen-year-old Lauti Tharu,¹⁰⁶ nineteen-year-old Kamali Tharu,¹⁰⁷ and Chillu Tharu (age unknown)—have not been seen since the arrest. Various security and government officials based in Tikapur Kailili district, Guleria, Thakurdwara, and Rajapur, have denied having any knowledge of the arrests.¹⁰⁸

Similarly, six people “disappeared” after each of the RNA operations in Dang district in April and September 2002. On April 19, 2002, a large contingent of uniformed RNA soldiers arrived at the Katberawa village, Bela VDC, supported by military helicopters. The villagers believe the operation may have been linked to a Maoist attack on the nearby Lamahi army barracks four months earlier. One person in the village, twenty-seven-year-old Chatak Bahadur Chowdhury, was killed by the soldiers as he was repairing a neighbor’s roof. The soldiers rounded up about fifty men from the area and took them to the nearby river, where they were interrogated. Six of them never came back: twenty-five-year-old Dani Ram Chowdhury,¹⁰⁹ twenty-eight-year-old Kedarnath Chowdhury, thirty-two-year-old Bhim Bhahadur Chowdhury,¹¹⁰ sixteen-year-old Hari Lal Chowdhury, his uncle Udaya Chowdhury,¹¹¹ and fifty-year-old Khim Bahadur Pun¹¹² “disappeared” without a trace. On several occasions relatives were told by officials that the men were killed in an “encounter,” but there has been no official confirmation of such an event. The men remain missing after last being seen alive in RNA custody.¹¹³

On September 6, 2002, RNA soldiers came to the village of Paharwa, Duduwa VDC, and arrested several men apparently at random, taking them to a riverbank where the villagers were taking part in the Guruain festival. The soldiers then blindfolded and tied the hands of thirteen of the captives, who were taken away. Several of the men were later released. However, one of the detained men, Shree Harsa Subedi, was found dead that night near the village, while six detainees—forty-one-year-old Sohan Lal Chowdhury,¹¹⁴ twenty-five-year-old Som Raj Chowdhury,¹¹⁵ thirty-seven-year-old Kuira Chowdhury,¹¹⁶ thirty-three-year-old Chanak Lal Chowdhury,¹¹⁷ twenty-three-year-old Jagi Chowdhury,¹¹⁸ and seventeen-year-old Khushi Ram Chowdhury¹¹⁹—“disappeared.” The families of those detained told Human Rights Watch that the men were not involved with CPN-M in any way.

According to a released detainee, all of the arrested men were taken to the Tulsipur army barracks, where the soldiers photographed and then beat them severely with their fists, boots, and bamboo sticks. Four days after the arrest, the released detainee was transferred to the Ghorahi district police post and lost touch with the others.¹²⁰ In response to inquiries by the families and the VDC chairman, the army denied having the men in custody. Nothing has been heard about them since they were last seen alive at the Tulsipur army barracks.

Other major operations documented by Human Rights Watch include a May 23, 2002, raid in the village of Machaghar, Deudakala VDC-3, Bardia district, which resulted in the “disappearance” of five men;¹²¹ an August 23, 2001 operation in Pipal Tandi, Motipur VDC in Bardia, in which soldiers arrested a total of five persons from the village who were never seen again;¹²² the arrests of nine people in Pokhara area on November 4-10, 2003;¹²³ and others, as described in the Appendix to this report.

“Disappearances” after targeted raids

In addition to these large-scale operations, Nepali security forces have conducted numerous targeted raids, arresting hundreds of individuals in a seemingly arbitrary manner. This has happened across the country––at homes, on roads, and at places of work or study. Many of those arrested have never been seen again.

In some cases the security forces have been accompanied during the arrests by “witnesses,” such as neighbors or co-workers of the detainee, or persons completely unknown to them, who were supposedly present to identify the suspect or testify to his affiliation with the Maoists. Security officials also often lure people away by saying they only want to talk to them, promising the detainees’ relatives they will return soon.

For example, at around 11 p.m. on December 18, 2003, five RNA soldiers in civilian clothing came to the house of thirty-five-year-old farmer Rajendra Thapa in Imadol-9, Lalitpur district. A relative of Thapa who was accompanying the army called him out of the house “to see some friends.” Thapa followed him but did not return. A day later the relative informed the family that Thapa had been taken to the Bhairabnath Gulm (Maharajgunj) army barracks for inquiry and would be released in a few days. Thapa has not been seen or heard from since then, although his relatives have petitioned numerous authorities and human rights organizations. The family went to the Bhairabnath Gulm and Rajdal army barracks, but the army denied having Thapa in its custody.¹²⁴

In another case, five or six RNA soldiers in civilian dress came to Krishna Secondary School in Chhaimale, Kathmandu, at 11:30 a.m. on March 1, 2004. The soldiers approached the school’s headmaster, identified themselves as RNA soldiers, and asked to see seventeen-year-old student Parlad Waiba. After Waiba was brought to the headmaster’s office, the soldiers took Waiba away for what they indicated would be ten minutes of questioning, collected his books from the class room, and departed with Waiba. He has not been seen since then. Faculty and students recognized the soldiers as belonging to the nearby Farping army camp, but when a relative went to the camp, the guards at the gate told him not to worry, that Waiba was being provided with food and shelter and was fine. The family has received no other information. ¹²⁵

In the majority of cases documented by Human Rights Watch, security personnel did not identify themselves, gave no reasons for the arrest, and gave relatives no indication of where a detainee was being taken. Furthermore, the witnesses often stated that RNA or other forces carrying out the arrests broke into homes, severely beat and verbally abused detainees before taking them away, and kept the relatives at gunpoint, threatening to kill them should they attempt to follow the detainee.

A relative of thirty-two-year-old Tanka Sharma, who was arrested by RNA soldiers on January 22, 2002, in Dulegaunda VDC ward 7, Kaski district, and subsequently “disappeared,” described Sharma’s arrest as follows:

They came inside and started beating him with bamboo sticks. His head was bleeding. They pushed him out of the house, tied his hands behind his back and blindfolded him. They were cursing him, accusing him of destroying the police post.¹²⁶ 

Sharma was seen by other detainees at the Fulbari army barracks, and was then reportedly seen in the company of soldiers, presumably being used to point out suspected CPN-M members during army patrols. Later, the family was directed to the Bijayapur army barracks in Kaski district, where officials told them on numerous occasions that Sharma was “out with the army,” and refused to let them see him. The army battalion stationed at the Bijayapur army barracks was later transferred to Gorkha district, and when the family inquired there, the army denied having any knowledge of the case.¹²⁷

When RNA soldiers were arresting forty-eight-year-old CPN-UML member Jangu Tharu at his home in Sonpur in Magragadi VDC-5, in Bardia, on August 11, 2002, his eighty-five-year-old mother attempted to ask the soldiers where they were taking her son. She told Human Rights Watch:

I came out of the house, asked them where they were taking him, and begged them not to take my son away. But they pointed a gun at me and said they would shoot me if I did not go back into the house.¹²⁸

Jangu Tharu was taken away with three other men from the village, none of whom have been seen since his arrest, despite the families’ efforts at finding the detainees.¹²⁹

In one-third of the cases documented by Human Rights Watch, the families had knowledge of where their relatives were held at some point after being detained. Some received a letter or a phone call from the detainees, others were notified by released detainees who saw their relatives in detention, and some managed to get information through contacts within the military or police. Moreover, a number of detainees were initially kept in an acknowledged place of detention where their relatives visited them regularly, and were only afterward “disappeared.”

For example, after twenty-two-year-old farmer Tribhuwan Giri was arrested by the police on December 18, 2001, in Khohalpur, Pipalchautara in Bardia, his family visited him regularly, first at the Guleria police office where Giri was kept for over two months, and then in the Guleria prison, where he was transferred on February 13, 2002. Giri told his family that he was accused of being a Maoist, but assured them that he was innocent and would come home soon. The family saw him last on May 2, 2002; when they came to the prison on May 7, prison officials said that Giri was not there anymore and showed them a document indicating that nine people, including Giri, were released on May 2. A detainee released from the prison later told the family that on May 2 all nine had been taken from the prison in an RNA truck. Prison officials told the family that Giri “might have been taken” for interrogation to the Guleria district police office, but the police confirmed that Giri had been taken from prison by the army, although they did not know where exactly he was being held. The family has not received any information about Giri since.¹³⁰

A relative of twenty-nine-year-old carpenterSom Bahadur Bishwokarmawas also able to visit him in detention. Bishwokarma was arrested by the RNA on July 7, 2002, while visiting his aunt in Gandaki regional hospital in Pokhara. He was taken to the Fulbari army barracks and for the first three months a relative was allowed to visit him there. Soon after, he “disappeared.” His relative told Human Rights Watch:

I came to see him, and the army at the barracks told me he had been transferred to jail, but did not say which one. I searched every jail in the area, but could not find him. Then I inquired at the district police office in Pokhara, and the police said they had received his case, and were expecting him to be brought there. They told me he would come home soon, but he never did. Two months ago [in July 2004] INSEC inquired at the barracks again, and they said he was still alive, but they would not tell them where he was.¹³¹

“Disappearances” after re-arrest

The army has also become notorious for re-arresting the detainees released after investigation by the police or on the order of a judge. Such cases were frequently reported in the Nepali media, as well as in the “urgent appeals” of Amnesty International and the Asian Human Rights Commission.¹³² Human Rights Watch has also documented several cases where detainees “disappeared” after allegedly being released from detention. The relatives believe they were arrested again by the army.

Twenty-year-old Gita Ghartimagar was arrested together with twenty-five-year-old Nanda Bahadur K.C. on February 22, 2002, in Chandanpur, Gadawa VDC-9, in Dang district. She was first taken to Lamahi APF barracks, and then to Tulsipur prison, where a relative visited her several times. Three months after the arrest and a few days after the relative’s last visit to the prison, local newspaper Naya Yugbodh reported the release of twenty-one detainees, including Gita Ghartimagar and Nanda Bahadur K.C., but neither detainee returned home. Officials at the Tulsipur prison told K.C.’s family that they had transferred the detainees to the district police headquarters, but staff at the headquarters told the family they had no knowledge of the detainees. A year later the prison authorities told the ICRC, which was inquiring on behalf of Ghartimagar’s family, that they had handed her over to municipal authorities. Ghartimagar’s family believes the detainees were rearrested by security forces after their release.¹³³

In a small number of cases, persons who had “disappeared” for several months after the security forces had taken them into custody have suddenly “reappeared” in detention. In one such case, twenty-eight-year-old journalist Maheshower Pahadi and his friend, forty-seven-year-old Gyan Bahadur Koirala, were arrested on January 2, 2004, in Liwangkhalek VDC, Kaski district, and taken to the Fulbari army barracks. Four days later, Pahadi and Koirala were seen wearing army uniforms and being led by RNA soldiers, after which relatives of Pahadi were able to meet with him briefly. Following that episode, the family heard no news for four months. They continued to write to the Chief District Officer’s office and to various army barracks for information without result. After four months, the family heard on a local radio broadcast that the men were transferred to Kaski prison, and that they were being detained under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Control and Punishment) Act (TADA), the successor to TADO. Since then, the family has been able to visit the detainees regularly.¹³⁴

Such cases support the conclusion that most of the “disappeared” are being held incommunicado in army detention for months, and that the army’s denials of any knowledge of their whereabouts cannot be taken at face value. It is equally likely that a significant number of the “disappeared” have been summarily executed in government custody, as documented later in this report.

Places of detention

Testimonies of relatives of the “disappeared” and of detainees released from custody suggest that while a small number of detainees are initially taken to police stations and then transferred to prisons, the overwhelming majority are held incommunicado in unofficial places of detention, such as army and APF barracks and camps across Nepal. Although the army is not legally authorized, as explained below, to keep persons in detention, the practice has been prevalent throughout the country since the deployment of the RNA and APF in the conflict.

Human Rights Watch identified numerous places of detention where large numbers of detainees are reportedly being held. The facilities most frequently mentioned by witnesses as the places where their relatives had been held at some point before “disappearing” are presented in the table below. The names of the “disappeared” are listed next to a given place of detention in cases where they had been visited in the facility by their relatives, seen there by other detainees or NHRC representatives, or notified their families—by phone, letters, or through messengers—of their whereabouts. Some of these detainees may have been executed in custody or transferred later to another facility, yet these are the places (unless otherwise indicated) where they were last seen or reported to have been alive.

As mentioned above, many of the sixteen people who “disappeared” as a result of the RNA and APF operation in the Rajapur area of Bardia RNA on October 20-22, 2002, were last seen in detention in the Manpur Tapara temporary army camp, which was later dismantled.

Other places where the detainees have been held in custody before their “disappearance” include Balazu police station and Balazu army camp (Kathmandu), Shorakutte police station (Kathmandu), Farping army camp (Kathmandu), Bijayapur army barracks (Kaski), Pokhara police post (Kaski), Bharatpur police post (Chitwan), Rajdal army barracks (Lalitpur), Suryabinayak army barracks in Bhaktapur (Kavre), Mahedra Gand army barracks (Gorkha), Choprak police station (Gorkha), Gorkha district police headquarters (Gorkha), Nawalparasi army barracks (Nawalparasi), Bhansar police post (Tanahu), Rajpur area police post (Dang), Tulsipur prison (Dang), Ghorahi regional police station (Dang), Ghorahi army barracks (Dang), Guleria district police office and Guleria prison (Bardia), Kohalpur army barracks and Kohalpur police post (Banke), and Rajha Airport Army Barracks (Banke).

The fact that so many different detention facilities have been directly implicated in “disappearances” demonstrates that the problem of “disappearances” in Nepal is not caused by a few rogue soldiers and officers, but is rather a nationwide epidemic and an institutional problem.

Evidence of killings in custody

While enforced disappearances themselves constitute an egregious violation of human rights, they also greatly increase the risk of extrajudicial killings, torture, and ill-treatment of detainees in custody.¹⁴⁹ The practice of holding people incommunicado in unacknowledged detention in unofficial facilities, maintaining no records of arrest and detention, and refusing to grant access to detainees by relatives and lawyers, creates ample opportunity for further abuses.

Many of the “disappeared” may have been killed in custody. Nepali security forces have been implicated in thousands of summary and extrajudicial executions; according to the National Human Rights Commission, they have been responsible for over 2,000 extrajudicial killings since 2001, when the RNA and APF were deployed in counterinsurgency operations.¹⁵⁰ INSEC reported that in 2003, 166 people were “killed by [the] State after arrest.”¹⁵¹ An earlier Human Rights Watch report documented numerous unlawful killings both by the Maoists and government forces.¹⁵²

During its latest visit to Nepal, Human Rights Watch obtained convincing evidence of extrajudicial killings of captured Maoists and civilians. Twenty-nine of the families interviewed for this report believe their “disappeared” relatives were killed after being taken into custody by security forces. Reports of the killings came from eyewitnesses to executions, media stories, human rights and humanitarian organizations, or unofficial contacts in the military. However, in only one of the cases was the body returned to the family. In five other cases, the families believe their relatives were killed in custody, although they were unable to cite a basis for their suspicion.

Some people were executed by security forces almost immediately after arrest. Thus, on the night of October 2, 2002, about five hundred RNA troops, some uniformed and some in civilian clothing, surrounded the village of Madaha in Motipur VDC-5 in Bardia. At around 1 a.m., a group of soldiers came to the parental home of thirty-four-year-old Khagga Tharu and his twenty-three-year-old brother Kala Ram Tharu. The soldiers entered the house and started beating and yelling at Khagga. They then ordered him to put his clothes on and brought him to a nearby field. His elderly relatives told Human Rights Watch:

Shortly after they left, we heard two gunshots from across the field, and wanted to go, but other soldiers were still in the house and they did not let us. They had their flashlights and guns pointed at us. The soldiers [that left with Khagga] then came back and took a wooden bed from our house… Next morning we went to the field and found Khagga’s small sleeping veil that he took with him, all covered in blood.¹⁵³

The soldiers brought Khagga’s body back to the village, although his relatives were not allowed to see it. That night, they arrested four other men, including Kala Ram Tharu, and ordered them to carry Khagga’s body away from the village on the wooden bed they had taken from his house. The body of Khagga Tharu was never returned to his family, while three of the detainees—Kala Ram Tharu, forty-nine-year-old Badhu Tharu, and twenty-six-year-old Babu Ram Tharu—have not been seen since that night. The fourth detainee was released a week after the arrest and told the families that after the four men brought Khagga Tharu’s body to a military van parked in a neighboring village, they were blindfolded and brought to the Rambhapur army post. He was transferred to the Chisapani army barracks together with the other men, and reported to the families that the missing men were still being detained at Chisapani Army Barracks at the time of his release.¹⁵⁴ The families’ efforts to locate them have proven futile.¹⁵⁵

In a number of cases, according to witnesses, soldiers provoked the detainees to attempt an escape during the arrest—a common tactic used by RNA soldiers, who then shoot the detainee and claim he was trying to run away. A released detainee who was arrested together with five other men, who subsequently “disappeared”¹⁵⁶ during the May 23, 2002, RNA operation in the village of Machaghar, Deudakala VDC-3, Bardia, told Human Rights Watch:

The soldiers first took us to a nursery in the village—there they interrogated and beat us with their boots… Then they walked us to a riverbank, and said, ‘OK, now run away.’ We told them: ‘If we run away, you’ll shoot us,’ and we stayed.¹⁵⁷

The villagers who saw sixteen-year-old Bir Bahadur Thapa (see above) as he was taken away by RNA soldiers later told the family that the soldiers had ordered Thapa to run away, but that he refused, and was then blindfolded and handcuffed.¹⁵⁸

Other testimonies confirm that some of the “disappeared” were executed by RNA in unofficial places of detention, such as army barracks. Thirty-five-year-old Sita Ram Tharu, from Magarghadi VDC-4, Bardia district, was detained by RNA soldiers who arrived in his village at about 4 p.m. on December 16, 2001 (Poush 1, 2058). The soldiers also arrested three other villagers, including two relatives of Tharu, all of whom were later released. One of the released detainees told Human Rights Watch that they had all been taken to the Chisapani army barracks, where she witnessed what appears to have been the execution of her relative Sita Ram Tharu:

I was there when they killed him. They interrogated him for some time. Then, after a while, he was taken away by the soldiers, into the forest. His hands were tied and he was blindfolded. Three or four minutes after they took him into the forest, I heard two gunshots. Then the same soldiers came back to us and took us into a room.¹⁵⁹

The case of Sita Ram Tharu, whose execution remains unconfirmed by the government to date and whose body was never handed over to his family, provides strong evidence that executions of detained people have taken place at the Chisapani army barracks, the very location where a large number of persons have “disappeared,” and raises the possibility that many other “disappeared” persons were similarly killed.

On a number of occasions, the Unified Command issued statements indicating that certain individuals—invariably categorized as “Maoists”—were killed in “encounters” with security forces, despite strong evidence suggesting that the persons had been previously detained and “disappeared” in governmental custody. The “disappearance” and execution of four persons in Gorkha district in late 2002 illustrates this tactic.

On December 4, 2002, several police officers and RNA soldiers in civilian dress came to the home of twenty-one-year-old student Niru Pokhrel in Pritihivi Narayan Municipality of Gorkha, where they showed their security force identification cards. They said they wanted to take Pokhrel in for questioning, but that they would return her the next morning. Pokhrel was never seen again; however, relatives brought Pokhrel clean clothes several times over the next few weeks at the District Police Headquarters in Gorkha, and were given her dirty clothes for washing, strongly suggesting that Pokhrel was alive and for a time was kept at the district police headquarters.¹⁶⁰ 

The next day, December 5, 2002, a group of RNA soldiers came to the Choprak VDC, Gorkha home of Keshar Bahadur Nepali, a fifty-year-old teacher who had been appointed head of the local village committee of the Maoists’ “People’s Government.” Nepali was arrested from his home and taken to the Lakeside army camp, where he was used by the RNA to identify other CPN-M members over the following days.¹⁶¹

A high school teacher who had been in detention at the Gorkha district police office from December 28, 2002 to January 17, 2003, confirmed to Human Rights Watch that he had seen Niru Pokhrel and nineteen-year-old Durga Pokhrel, both of whom had been his students, in detention there. He also heard the voice of Keshar Bahadur Nepali, who was from his home village, at the police station. Other detainees also pointed out to him a fourth detainee, forty-seven-year-old Khadanada Pande.¹⁶²

About one month after the arrest, local radio stations and newspapers carried a government announcement that Pokhrel and Nepali, together with Durga Pokhrel, a nineteen-year-old student from Choprak VDC-6 in Gorkha district, and Khadanada Pande, identified as a CPN-M activist, had been killed in an “encounter” with security forces.¹⁶³ Given the fact that at least two of the victims were known to have been in detention prior to the killings, the “encounter” appears to have been staged, and a more credible conclusion is that the four were killed while in police custody. Because the Nepali government has never formally acknowledged the killings or handed over the bodies to the relatives, the four remain “disappeared” to date.

The killing of these four persons in detention is not the only suspected execution case in Gorkha. According to local human rights activists, on January 2, 2003, just five days later, Nepali security forces executed another five detained Maoists suspects: twenty-one-year-old Bishnu Marahatta; twenty-two-year-old Kalika Poudel; twenty-two-year-old Purna Chandra Acharya; nineteen-year-old Kumar Thapa; and twenty-year-old Nabin Shirestha. The disappearance of all nine persons remains unresolved, and the substantiated allegations that they were all killed in custody have not been investigated by the authorities.¹⁶⁴

Human Rights Watch has also received unexpectedly candid confessions regarding custodial killings from several soldiers and a policeman interviewed at checkpoints in Bardia district. When Human Rights Watch researchers asked a young soldier at one of the checkpoints what they generally did with the Maoists they captured, he bluntly responded: “We kill them.”

In a separate interview with a policeman and an RNA soldier, the policeman said that they interrogate the detained Maoists and, when asked what happened afterwards, also said: “We kill them.” The soldier corrected him, saying “No, we take them to jail,” but the policeman continued: “Yes, we take them to jail and then we kill their asses.”¹⁶⁵

Evidence of torture in custody

Despite Nepal’s obligations under international law, and the explicit prohibition of torture in the Nepali Constitution, torture and ill-treatment in custody are prevalent throughout the country.¹⁶⁶ Based on a nation-wide survey conducted by Nepal’s Center for Victims of Torture (CVICT), the National Human Rights Commission reported that up to 70 percent of persons arrested by state authorities are likely to be tortured.¹⁶⁷ The NHRC observed that “most of the persons who are ‘disappeared’ go through extreme torture in captivity.”¹⁶⁸

Human Rights Watch interviews with individuals who were released after the government denied holding them in custody, as well as with families who visited their relatives in detention before their “disappearance,” consistently show the prevalence of ill-treatment and torture in custody. Many individuals who subsequently “disappeared” were beaten during arrest, and in twenty-three cases evidence suggests that the persons were subjected to severe beatings or other forms of torture while in detention. In a majority of the cases where relatives were able to obtain information about the “disappeared" person's treatment in custody, beatings and torture were reported.

For example, when relatives visited thirty-eight-year-old Satya Narayan Prajapati in detention in Suryabinayak army barracks in Bhaktapur, Kavre, he told them he had been severely tortured and complained of two broken teeth and pain in his kidneys. Prajapati, a Kathmandu-based lawyer and an activist in the CPN-M front organization, United People’s Front party, was arrested by security forces in Sangachowk, Kavre district, on April 26, 2002. The relatives saw him in detention a month after his arrest, after which he “disappeared.” The soldiers at Suryabinayak army barracks told the family Prajapati had been transferred to Kathmandu, while at the Balazu army camp in Kathmandu the family was told that he had been detained there briefly but was then transferred again. Since then, the family has been unable to obtain any information of his whereabouts.¹⁶⁹

Thirty-four-year-old Arjun Ojha “disappeared” after being arrested on March 25, 2004, by two plainclothes RNA soldiers while he was buying groceries in the Kalimati market of Kathmandu. A second person who was arrested with Ojha¹⁷⁰ and released three months later told the family that while they were held together at Chaunni army barracks for thirty days, Ojha was severely beaten by RNA soldiers and suffered injuries to his chest. In September 2004 Ojha managed to speak with his family in a one-minute phone call, but was unable to state where he was being kept.¹⁷¹

Twenty-eight-year-old journalist Maheshower Pahadi also told his family that he had been severely tortured in army custody, and that one of his fingers had been broken (see case description above).¹⁷²

In at least one case, involving a fourteen-year-old boy, the torture inflicted by RNA soldiers resulted in death. Fourteen-year-old Narda Ram Gharti was arrested from Jammunitole village, Kohalpur VDC-6, Banke district, together with thirteen other men by police officers on June 10, 2002 (Jestha 27, 2059). The detainees were transferred to Chisapani Army Barracks, where they were regularly beaten with heavy bamboo canes during interrogation. After eleven days of beatings, fellow detainees saw Narda Ram Gharti close to death and “swollen all over his body.” He died from his injuries soon thereafter (see case description in Appendix).

Witness testimonies strongly suggest that the detainees are often kept blindfolded throughout the entire time of their detention. In one such case, a released detainee who was held in unacknowledged detention for seven months told Human Rights Watch that after his arrest on October 1, 2003, he spent three months in the Bhairabnath Gulm (Maharajgunj) army barracks in Kathmandu, and another four months in the Bahini Bareni army barracks in Dhading. He was blindfolded throughout that time, and only discovered his place of detention from other detainees.¹⁷³