17. Mr. DHAKAL (Nepal) thanked the Committee for its conclusions and recommendations, which he would communicate to his Government. He was sure that no effort would be spared to improve his country's record of compliance with the Convention.
18. He had earlier omitted to respond to questions from members of the Committee regarding reports by non-governmental organizations, including Amnesty International, on alleged cases of torture or maltreatment in Nepal. Most of the cases referred to in the communication distributed by Amnesty International had been dealt with by his Government in a series of replies sent to the United Nations Special Rapporteur, who had acknowledged receipt of those replies at the fiftieth session of the Commission on Human Rights. He urged the Committee to investigate very carefully the veracity of the reports submitted to it by non-governmental organizations, since he was firmly convinced that many were unfounded.
19. In reply to Mrs. Iliopoulos-Strangas, he said that under Nepal's Constitution foreigners were accorded freedoms equivalent to those of Nepalese citizens. However, the latter had certain additional rights in respect of movement within the country, occupations and professions, and residence, all of which related to economic matters. The right to information was accorded to foreigners but property rights were confined to Nepalese citizens. Foreigners had equal rights under the criminal justice system, regarding for example the right to a counsel of one's choice and the right to take action against pre-trial detention.
20. Cases under the Public Offences Act 1970 were heard by the Chief District Officer, a quasi-judicial body, but proceedings were subject to the same rules as those of full judicial bodies. The Chief District Officer could not hand down a sentence of more than six months' imprisonment. Moreover, all persons charged under the Act were released on bail during the proceedings and there was no provision for arbitrary detention. Appeal was to the Appellate Court, a full judicial body. Under section 118 of the Civil Court Act, no court or quasi-judicial body could keep a person in detention if the maximum sentence for the charge against him was three years' imprisonment.
21. The CHAIRMAN thanked Mr. Dhakal for the additional information he had provided and for his constructive and spirited cooperation.
22. Mr. Dhakal (Nepal) withdrew.