Khabarmala Correspondent
Reports published by a country’s National Human Rights Commission are widely regarded by the international community as important and credible documents. Such reports are used as reference materials by organizations ranging from the United Nations to foreign courts when assessing human rights conditions, state conduct, and civil liberties.

While commissions formed directly by governments generally receive recognition only from the respective government, constitutional commissions derive legitimacy under international laws and treaties recognized or signed by Nepal.

Experts say National Human Rights Commissions gain international credibility because they are independent constitutional bodies established under the “Paris Principles” set by the United Nations. According to these principles, commissions must remain independent from political interference, impartial, and investigation-oriented.

National Human Rights Commission of Nepal has regularly published reports on killings, torture, excessive use of force, enforced disappearances, press freedom, women’s rights, and minority rights. These reports are studied not only by the United Nations but also by international human rights organizations, foreign governments, and refugee-related agencies.

Human rights experts say the Commission’s findings are especially influential in international assessments involving political violence, deaths in police custody, freedom of expression, and conflict-era incidents. During the Universal Periodic Review process of the United Nations, reports from National Human Rights Commissions are treated as key source materials when evaluating a country’s human rights situation.

Similarly, immigration courts and asylum hearings in countries such as the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom frequently cite National Human Rights Commission reports to verify allegations of human rights abuses in a particular country.

Another basis for international recognition is “A-status accreditation.” Commissions granted this status are allowed to directly participate in United Nations human rights forums.

According to human rights activists, however, the credibility of a commission ultimately depends on its independence, the impartiality of its investigations, and whether the government implements its recommendations. They warn that increased political influence or controversial appointments could damage the Commission’s international reputation.

Because the Human Rights Commission is a constitutional body established under Nepal’s Constitution, public interest has grown regarding the legal significance of its reports and whether the government is obligated to implement its recommendations. Former Commission member Gaurishankar Lal Das says recommendations made by constitutional commissions are binding in nature.

Commissioner Lily Thapa stated that the investigation committee examined the incidents that occurred on Bhadra 23 and 24. She emphasized that the Constitution assigns the Commission the responsibility of ensuring respect for, protection of, and promotion of human rights, along with effective implementation.

The Constitution authorizes the Commission to investigate human rights violations and recommend action against those responsible. If necessary, the Commission may also recommend legal prosecution against individuals or institutions involved in violations. Under Article 249(2) of the Constitution, officials or institutions that fail to implement the Commission’s recommendations may be officially recorded as human rights violators.

The constitutional provision states: “The National Human Rights Commission may publicly disclose and maintain records of officials, individuals, or institutions that fail to comply with or implement its recommendations or directives concerning human rights violations.”

Despite this constitutional mandate, the government has often been criticized for failing to implement the Commission’s recommendations. Commission members have repeatedly complained of government indifference regarding recommendations related to conflict-era incidents, the Madhes movement, the Gaur incident, the Tikapur case, and other political movements involving human rights violations.

“We have conducted investigations and recommended action in many previous cases. We have fulfilled our constitutional responsibility. But the government has remained indifferent toward implementation,” Commissioner Thapa told Setopati. “We have also investigated the Gen Z movement incidents and submitted recommendations to the government. Let’s see what happens this time.”

Commissioner Thapa further warned that failure by the government or relevant authorities to properly implement the Commission’s recommendations sends a negative message internationally.

“The Commission is an internationally recognized institution,” she said. “Its activities are closely observed by the United Nations and other international organizations. They take the Commission’s recommendations and decisions seriously.”

According to her, individuals identified by the Commission as human rights violators often face reputational damage in the international community.