/// Press Releases \\\

No Amnesty on Killing Crime

Our serious attention has been drawn on the news published regarding recommendation of the
name of former Maoist leader Bal Krishna Dhungel by the District Administration Office, Kathmandu
for his amnesty along with 800 convicts on the occasion of Republic Day. Bal Krishna Dhungle is
doing his jail term after being convicted on killing of Ujjan Kumar Shrestha of Okhaldhunga.
Pardoning, changing or reducing punishment Manual 2071 clearly states that a person can apply
clearly in a written form for reducing or for the pardoning of punishment if he wishes so. But section 3
of the manual has clearly stated that punishment on corruption, rape, government forgery, organized
crime, war crimes, heinous killing and drug smuggling etc. could not be reduced or given amnesty.
The constitution of Nepal, prevailing act and laws do not allow for the withdrawing case of any
kind. The Act 58 (2) of the constitution states that whether to progress the case or not will be the final
decision of attorney general on behalf of the government. But, there are no provision regarding
withdrawing the case.

The order issued by the bench of former SC justices Kalyan Shrestha, Sushila Karki, Baidhya
Nath Upadhyaya, Gopal Parajuli and Om Prakash Mishra on 7th January 2016 has described the legal
criterion that the government need to adopt while withdrawing the case.

Bal Krishna Dhungel is being given amnesty on a provision based on the prison regulation act.
Such act of giving amnesty will encourage the impunity and develops the ill-practices in Nepali
politics. Almost every government formed post -democracy is imprudent on withdrawing cases. If the
issue of withdrawing cases is seen attentively, most of the case withdrawn are of political cadres who
are involved in criminal activities.

Such activities will definitely encourages impunity. The government is not aware of the result
that giving amnesty to the convict involved in grave human rights violation and atrocities will
encourages impunity and weakens the democracy. The decision of giving immunity on heinous crime
challenging the constitution of Nepal, law and Supreme Court might full fill political vested interest for
a short run, but such incident will kill justice forever. The issue of Human Rights, good governance and
impunity is not only the issue of Nepal. We would like to draw the attention of the government that
such serious issue is also being watched by the international community.

It would be contextual to remind that former Maoist had announced to respect the common Act 3
of the Geneva Convention. The provisions of this convention still attracts the crime during armed
conflict. We would like to condemn the government’s attempt to withdraw the case against the hope of
thousands of conflict victims waiting for justice and we demand government to step back from this
process.

Subodh Raj Pyakurel