Amnesty International’s Secretary General Agnès Callamard was in Nepal last week as a part of her first South Asian tour. During her four-day visit, she interacted with people from all walks of life, including the prime minister, in an attempt to gauge the human rights situation here. In this interview with Binod Ghimire of the Post, Callamard talked about the human rights situation in Nepal and the rest of the world. Excerpts:

You have been travelling this part of the world, interacting with people. How do you evaluate the human rights situation here?

Human rights are backsliding everywhere. It’s a global phenomenon. There is backsliding on civil and political rights, freedom of expression, press freedom and freedom of peaceful assembly. There is backsliding on women’s rights and non-discrimination on economic rights, and in terms of armed conflicts. The number of people dying in armed conflicts is increasing exponentially. We are in deep trouble as far as human rights protection is concerned. The South Asia region hasn’t been immune to the global trend.

For my mission, I am visiting Sri Lanka and Nepal. In the two countries, we observe the shrinking of civic space and greater weaponisation of laws to curtail freedom of expression, particularly online. The digital laws are often overbroad and disproportionate. Banning TikTok in Nepal, for instance, is a disproportionate overbroad measure of the violation of international laws.

We are observing a great deal of attacks in protests. The use of lethal force or disproportionate use of force by the police in response to even peaceful protests is increasing. There are incidents where protestors have died after the use of police force. There are issues of impunity for past crimes.

A study by a European research centre shows that fewer people live in democracies worldwide in 2024 than in 1986. This is a complete U-turn.

What do you see as the reasons for the backsliding?

There are several factors that explain the backsliding. One could be growing restlessness and anxiety due to economic downturns. There was a severe financial crisis in 2008, and we didn't really recover from it. The inequalities within states and between states have increased in the last decade. We have seen a sharp increase in the wealth of the super-rich. On the other hand, the poor are getting poorer. This is feeding anger and creating fertile ground for populism. The authoritarian leaders are feeding on that particular ground. The backsliding is also linked to Covid that had a terrible impact on the economy and society. During Covid, the governments adopted different emergency measures but, in many cases, those measures were never lifted.

In Europe, refugees, migrants and minorities are viewed as the reasons why the economy is not picking up and they are accused of stealing jobs. In every country, the minorities have been made the scapegoats.

There is a resentment that democracy has not delivered for the people. The expectations are high, but the governments have failed to act accordingly. Therefore, the people are prepared to listen to the authoritarian leaders. By authoritarian leaders, I do not mean those who are in power by force but those who are democratically elected. They are elected by the people, but they practise authoritarianism once they get into power.

In Nepal, the burning problem of authoritarianism has been reflected even in local politics. For instance, the mayor of Kathmandu has resorted to repeated attacks against street vendors and landless people. These are authoritarian moves. Such leaders target vulnerable groups who cannot protect themselves.

You are in Nepal at a time the government has arrested the owner of the largest media house. How does Amnesty International look at this situation?

We are very alarmed and upset. We call on the government to release him immediately. Even if the charges are valid, they certainly do not justify imprisoning him. Amnesty International believes that the use of those charges is politically motivated and is an attempt to stifle dissent. It is a response to the professional investigation and reporting about the policies and practices of those in power. This is an attempt to silence him, to silence the news media and to silence journalists. By so doing, the authorities are also violating the rights of the Nepali society to access information at a time when they need that kind of information. The attack on Sirohiya is an act of reprisal, censorship and violation of his own rights and the right of the Nepali people to freedom of information and freedom of press, which is also a collective form of rights.

We believe that he might have been arrested in relation to the reporting of financial fraud by people in power. Many people with whom I have interacted say that that safe space of expression is shrinking in Nepal. There are incidents where people have been arrested for criticising people in authority.

Unregulated generative artificial intelligence (AI) has emerged as a big threat. How can it be regulated?

Globally, information technology and AI present many opportunities for people. But they also present risks. Amnesty International has focused on the risks. We have identified discrimination and biases. Data upon which some of these AI tools are based are inherently biased. They are based on a sample of a certain group of people, which can not be the ground for effective policy making. We are campaigning against the use of AI for facial recognition for mass surveillance. It is a violation of the freedom of movement and freedom of privacy, and many communities around the world are disproportionately affected.

We have done several studies that show that mass surveillance and facial recognition are used in the most impoverished African-American communities in the United States, Muslim communities in India and Palestinian communities in Israel and occupied territories. Cyber surveillance and spyware are other problems which have been widely used to target journalists and human rights defenders, as well as opponents. We have been demanding that spyware be regulated. So far, this has been excluded from different regulations related to information technology.

Generative AI has huge implications for the world, societies and human beings. Currently, only the European Union has made attempts to regulate it by adopting an AI Act last December. This is imperfect but is a first step. We have criticised it because it excludes cyber surveillance and the use of AI for security purposes, and it doesn’t stop the use of AI targeted at refugees and migrants. Nevertheless, other aspects of the law are positive.

Do you think other countries should follow the European Union’s footsteps?

Yes, they can build on it without going below the benchmark. We encourage all countries to prepare and enact better laws. We are calling on governments to take it as an example, but after correcting the shortcomings.

Why do you think Nepal’s transitional justice process has been stuck? What can human rights organisations like Amnesty do to push it forward?

Sadly, the transitional justice process hasn’t progressed in several countries. I think the leaders are so keen to preserve the peace that they are prepared to give up on justice. They fear that if they open the gate to judicial reparation and investigation, what has been achieved so far will be dismantled. That’s the fear that I have seen everywhere. Everywhere, including in Nepal, the leaders create opposition between peace and justice.

You can see many governments are opposing the International Criminal Court prosecutors’ arrest warrant in relation to Gaza, saying it will create problems in agreeing on a ceasefire. This is nonsense.

Peace and justice are two sides of the same coin. In fact, peace is not sustainable without justice. When justice is not delivered, the conflict is bound to recur. It is just a matter of time. We often hear the excuse that if a particular leader or a person is prosecuted, that would affect peace. On the contrary, not investigating the perpetrator is a real challenge to peace. Many people who are in power after a peace deal themselves are guilty of war crimes. They don’t want to be held accountable. It is not in their interest to deliver transitional justice. It takes an incredible, highly moral and principled leadership to take the process ahead.

We have seen here that the transitional justice process has been paralysed. Successive governments have failed to act on the Comprehensive Peace Accord. They haven’t acted on what the Supreme Court told them in 2015. It had directed them to review, revise and reform the Transitional Justice Act.

Here I have seen the categorisation of crimes as serious and non-serious, which is very strange. It is shocking to me that some killings are considered non-serious, and could lead to de facto amnesty for those responsible for them, even though these crimes fall under international law. If someone was killed after torture then two crimes have been committed—torture and killing. Right to life is the most important right. The investigation should be done accordingly. The same is the case with sexual violence with rape and without rape.

What is alarming is that people are losing trust. If people do not trust the systems that are supposed to deliver justice, that will cause a big problem. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission and the Commission of Investigation on Enforced Disappeared Persons couldn’t undertake proper investigation and prosecution. Not all have received the government’s relief, which has led to much frustration and animosity. There is political interference on transitional justice, which also lacks independence and transparency.

We are calling on the authorities to act as directed by the Supreme Court, ratify the statute on the International Criminal Court as well as the International Convention on Disappearance.

Do you see chances of international interference if Nepal continues to delay justice delivery?

There is no doubt that some crimes committed during the war fall within universal jurisdiction. If the perpetrators of those crimes travel to countries where a framework of universal jurisdiction has been enacted, they could be arrested there. We are seeing the multiplication of universal jurisdiction cases in Europe.

Cases of custodial deaths, torture and extrajudicial killings are common in Nepal. How can they be checked?

Different organisations like Amnesty International should be monitoring the abuse of power by the police and state authorities. There must be impartial and fair investigation of such incidents. But there is a regime of impunity. The police are not very keen to investigate themselves. I wanted to mention the case of Ajit Mijar, which is an example of justice being denied. It also shows the complicity of the institution in denying justice.

Nepal is ranked the fourth most vulnerable country due to climate change though it contributes negligibly in greenhouse gas emissions. The largest polluters haven't fulfilled their responsibilities towards Nepal. How can organisations like Amnesty advocate for countries like Nepal?

Amnesty International has long been advocating for climate justice. We have a set of demands. We are advocating at the United Nations level and also at the COP. We are pushing through COP our message of loss and damage, about the responsibilities of industrialised countries to cut their reliance on fossil fuel industries and so on. The impact of global warming will lead to loss of lives in places like Nepal and Pacific Islands.

We saw very timid steps taken in COP in UAE last year. These steps are far from sufficient. We see countries multiplying their investments in fossil fuel while big fossil fuel companies are also violating their written commitment to decrease the reliance on fossil fuels. This is alarming.

However, we have made some progress on loss and damage. Governments are recognising the principle of loss and damage for the countries that are least responsible for climate change. They can rely on some kind of global financial system to protect and support them in case of a sudden climate related crisis. We are now advocating for the responsible countries to set aside the necessary funds.

Nepal is at the receiving end of climate change though the country is not responsible for it. However, the Nepali government also has a responsibility towards its people. The extreme weather risk faced by Nepal demands urgent acts from the authorities. The most vulnerable communities are at particular risk. The government must have instruments to protect them.