Interview with UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Louise Arbour

United Nations Human Rights Commissioner Louise Arbour has just completed a four-day visit to Nepal to assess the human rights situation in the country. Kathmandu had been fighting a Maoist insurgency since 1997, more than 6,000 people have lost their lives in the conflict. Both sides have been accused of serious ongoing human rights abuses. Arbour is best known as chief prosecutor at the Tanzania tribunal into the genocide in Rwanda. She also indicted the former Yugoslav president, Slobodan Milosevic, for war crimes. During her stay in Nepal, Arbour met the king, prime minister and other senior government officials as well as members of human rights groups. QUESTION: You had meetings with a number of very influential Nepalis, what was your overall impression? ANSWER: My general impression is that the government is taking human rights seriously. There is no ambiguity about that. Most of them expressed serious concerns. They were very willing to listen seriously. But we didn’t necessarily all agree at every meeting about the seriousness of certain issues or how to go forward. Q: You were quite outspoken about human rights abuses committed by both the state and the rebels while in Nepal. Is it because the abuses are getting worse? A: There is no sign of turning for the better. Despite hopes after the national [human rights] commission was formed last year and commitments by the government, I think the security forces have not yet demonstrated that they are prepared to be more accountable. There have been very few serious investigations and transparent prosecutions, let alone convictions in cases of very serious abuses. Yes, there is sense that one has to raise the tone of conversations if the messages are not coming through. Q: What was the response of the army chief after you raised the issue of abuses with him? A: With the army chief of staff, I raised in particular the question of unhindered access to detention places without prior notice. He acknowledged that there were difficulties in cases where people were detained in army barracks. I told him if it is difficult, you have to overcome it. At the end of the day, there has to be access to people, particularly [those] who might expect to be vulnerable to the methods of questioning that may not be appropriate for those whose arrest and detention has not been recorded. That’s where we have to be worried, careful and vigilant. So on that, he acknowledged that access was not forthcoming in the army barracks. He said that there is not enough space elsewhere but I pressed that others might have, and that is not good enough and access has to be provided. I also raised with him very directly the question of using military courts too much, [as] the investigations are not accessible to the public. Q: Abuses have continued from both sides despite warnings from human rights groups. In that context, is your office going to be more active in Nepal as an international body? A: The forum through which we can be active is the National Human Rights Commission [NHRC]. Our memorandum of understanding with them is that the commission is the core of what our efforts will be. We will provide our international advisers and the commission will deploy its regional offices all over the country. We will then have international human rights advisers in these regional offices. So it’s important for my office that the commission remains viable, a vehicle through which we can also have a presence and an impact. So we hope to be able to continue. That’s why I am calling on the government to give assurances. Q: Shouldn’t you be meeting the rebel leaders as well? A: Obviously I haven’t had meetings with them. There is no point in speculating whether they would have agreed. The only vehicle I have is to address them through public statements. It’s not as efficient as when one can sit privately and explore ideas that are more difficult to do publicly. When you speak publicly, there are of course a lot of interpretations that are not in tune with what you say. Through a private dialogue it is easy to be extremely focused. But at this point I have no other means of trying to engage them in this position. Q: Both the state and the rebels have refused to sign the national human rights accord, that would allow for independent and professional investigations into alleged human rights violations. What does this imply? A: It may imply different things from both sides. The concern of the government is like two steps. They say we don’t need to sign it, we’ve already made the commitment and we don’t want to validate the other side by being a party in an agreement with them. It’s that argument which some people find very appealing. But to me, the symbolism of not wanting to sign a document doesn’t weigh very much in the face of such a terrible situation. The question now is what initiative can be taken to move forward. It seems to me you have to overcome some of symbolic positions and take action. On the side of the Maoists, signing this would be a major expression of willingness to move forward in a positive fashion. It would prove that were prepared to embrace, embark within the framework of international humanitarian face. This would imply that they are ready to commit publicly, to put themselves up for scrutiny and monitoring by the human rights commission. In a sense, that is why I think it is an important document. In both ways, it would yield something that is very positive for the international community, a sense of seriousness on the government’s part, the willingness to do something that is hard for them to do. And the same goes for the Maoists who would be doing something very positive. Q: Is there a need for more international pressure on parties in conflict in Nepal to respect human rights? A: Frankly, it may be that there has not been enough genuine international attention on this issue. The diplomatic corps here, I’m sure is very engaged and that is what they do. But to engage their capital when they are all busy with the crisis caused by the tsunami, the crisis in Sudan, it is very hard to compete for their level of attention that you need for the capital to be engaged in. I hope that my presence will give them an initiative to try to raise the profile on what I consider a very grave situation in this country.