The brutal rape and killing of a three-year-old girl in Bara last week continues to shock the public. The case has raised questions not only about the government’s handling of the incident but also about Nepal’s existing legal framework.

Six days after the incident, the government on Saturday reached an agreement with the victim’s family. But throughout the episode, the government, news organisations, social media users and rights activists have repeatedly failed to protect the deceased child’s privacy.

Government ministers involved in the response themselves violated legal provisions requiring the victim’s identity to be kept confidential.

Even the agreement reached between the government and the victim’s family, which the government itself made public, contained details that exposed their identities. The official document—signed by Home Minister Sudan Gurung; Law Minister Sobita Gautam; Minister for Infrastructure Development Sunil Lamsal; Minister for Women, Gender and Sexual Minorities, and Social Security Sita Badi; and Minister for Agriculture, Forests and Environment Gita Chaudhary—named both the victim and her family.

In other words, five ministers responsible for making and enforcing laws signed a document that itself breached the law.

Section 6 of Nepal’s Crime Victim Protection Act, 2018 requires the privacy of victims to be fully protected while serious crimes are being investigated. The provision applies to cases involving rape, incest, human trafficking and sexual abuse, covering investigation, prosecution and court proceedings.

Subsection 2 of the same section states that no one may disclose the identity of a victim of such offences in any form.

Yet ministers and senior government officials themselves disregarded the provision by posting photographs of the victim’s family on social media.

Home Minister Gurung’s social media post not only described the incident but repeatedly identified the victim by name and age. Ministers Gautam, Badi and Chaudhary followed a similar approach, posting photographs of the victim’s family on their social media accounts.

In contrast, Minister for Information and Communication Bikram Timalsina was using social media to remind the public of the law.

“Publishing or broadcasting photographs or other material that reveals the identity of victims in serious crimes such as rape and sexual violence is an extremely sensitive and serious offence,” Timalsina wrote on Facebook. “Making the identity of child victims of sexual violence public is an even more serious offence.”

He urged media organisations, journalists and social media users not to publish, broadcast or repost photographs, videos or other material that could identify victims and called on them to remove material that had already been published.

Meanwhile, a video of a suspect being questioned is doing the rounds on social media.

Umesh Shrestha, chairperson of Press Council Nepal, also said making the video public was wrong.

“If a serious crime such as rape and murder is under investigation and legal proceedings are underway, it is natural for questions to be raised about the accused,” Shrestha wrote on social media. “The truth must come out, and those responsible must be punished in accordance with the law. But making public a video of a minor’s [suspect’s] statement before a court has delivered its verdict is not part of the judicial process. We must never forget one thing: a victim’s suffering is not content. An accused person’s statement is not viral material.”

Video of suspect’s hospital questioning goes viral

The video of the teenage suspect that went viral on social media was recorded while doctors at the hospital were questioning him in the presence of a district police officer and two police personnel stationed at the hospital, according to a hospital source.

The questioning was conducted by doctors Paniya and Saroj, along with a female hospital staff member, Shivani, the source said.

“Videos of doctors conducting questioning without police presence are kept confidential but who recorded this video and why is not our concern,” a hospital employee said. “If such a sensitive video needs to be submitted to a court, the hospital keeps it confidential.”

The video shows two uniformed police officers, one carrying a rifle, recording the handcuffed teenager’s statement on a mobile phone. Another uniformed officer, with a pistol holstered at his waist, is seen striking the teenager on the back of the head with his hand as he gives a detailed account of the incident. The officer is heard saying, “All right, that’s enough.”

The footage that was made public shows the teenage suspect giving a detailed account of the incident.

Police have already arrested the head constable who recorded the video.

“We have arrested the police head constable who recorded the video. Four others are also under investigation,” Naredra Kunwar, chief of the Bara District Police Office, told Kantipur. “Criminal proceedings will be initiated against the officer.”

Lawyer Prabin Bhatta says protecting a victim’s privacy means more than simply withholding their name.

“Showing the family’s photograph, identifying the village or naming the parents can also easily reveal the victim’s identity indirectly,” he said. “During an investigation, authorities must therefore ensure that parents’ names are withheld, voices are altered, and no material that could identify the family is released. Otherwise, legal protection of privacy will remain only on paper.”

Lawyer Biraj Thapa warned that such negligence by state authorities could create a false narrative around the case.

“Our criminal justice system and laws clearly require the victim’s privacy to be protected in every respect,” he said. “It is completely wrong for the home minister or other responsible officials to publish photographs or videos of victims or disclose their real names in agreements. Such actions can create a false narrative.”

Article 28 of Nepal’s constitution guarantees every citizen the right to privacy, while Article 39 guarantees children the right to special protection. The Children’s Act, 2018 further specifies this protection. Section 11(3) requires the names, addresses, ages, sex, family background and any other information that could reveal the identity of children accused of or victimised by an offence to be kept confidential.

Nepal is also a party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Article 17 of the ICCPR and Article 16 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child protect the privacy and dignity of children and their families.

Government agencies were not alone. Members of the public and media organisations also violated the victim’s privacy. Her name and photographs have appeared across social media feeds and on placards carried in the streets.

Many media organisations have abandoned editorial judgement by using the victim’s name and photograph in their reports. The Child-Friendly Media Directive, 2016 prohibits the disclosure of the identity of children who have been subjected to sexual violence or abuse. Section 4(h) bars the disclosure of their identity, while section 4(e) prohibits the use of photographs, drawings or audio-visual material that could reveal it.

The Journalist Code of Conduct, 2016, as amended in 2019, also prioritises the protection of victims’ identity and privacy. Sections 5(5)(2) and 5(4)(2) prohibit the publication or broadcast of photographs that reveal a victim’s identity.

For serious violations, the Press Council Nepal has the legal authority under section 7 of the code to take action ranging from issuing warnings to blacklisting media organisations.

Some may ask: if the victim has already died, why does privacy still matter?

Menuka Thapa, president of Raksha Nepal, an organisation that has worked for years to protect rape survivors, rejects that argument.

“Privacy must be protected to ensure that a victim’s right to live with dignity is not violated,” she said. “A person’s body may die, but their dignity and their family’s dignity remain. Respect for the law also requires that photographs and videos of victims not be broadcast.”

Lawyer Biraj Thapa agrees.

“Victims’ privacy must be protected so that, if they survive, they can live freely, safely and with dignity as adults without social stigma,” he said. “Even when the victim has died, photographs and personal details that remain online can cause lifelong psychological suffering to surviving family members. That makes privacy an essential requirement.”

Nepal’s legal framework for protecting privacy is not particularly weak. The bigger problem is enforcement.

International practice shows that many countries treat the disclosure of sexual assault victims’ identities as a serious offence.

In neighbouring India, the Supreme Court issued a landmark ruling in 2018 holding that protecting the privacy and dignity of victims of rape and sexual violence is an obligation of the state, the media and society. The court held that victims’ identities should not be disclosed even if they have died or their families have given consent.

Interviews with minor victims are prohibited, and photographs cannot be published even after being blurred.

Section 72 of India’s Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (criminal code) prohibits the publication of information that could reveal the identity of adult victims, while section 23 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act prohibits disclosure of the identity of child victims. The Press Council of India’s norms of journalistic conduct also instruct media organisations to protect victims’ identities and privacy.

In the United Kingdom, the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992 gives victims of sexual offences lifelong anonymity from the moment an allegation is made. Publishing any information that could identify a victim, including their name, address, school or photograph, can constitute a serious criminal offence, whether the victim is alive or dead.

Australian courts can issue suppression orders preventing the media from publishing details of a case or identifying victims. Strict protections also apply to children, including after their death, to shield families from media intrusion and further psychological trauma.

Canada’s Criminal Code provides for mandatory publication bans in sexual offence cases. The Supreme Court of Canada, in R vs Adams, held that the central purpose of such restrictions is to provide victims with a lasting guarantee of privacy.

In the high-profile Homolka-Bernardo case, Canadian courts not only barred the public and media from accessing graphic videos of sexual abuse but later ordered the destruction of all such video evidence in 2001.

The United States takes a different approach. Because the First Amendment to the Constitution gives strong protection to press freedom, the country relies more heavily on voluntary media codes of conduct than on legal restrictions on publishing victims’ identities.

Even there, however, privacy advocates argue that publishing a victim’s name without consent can amount to another grave violation and humiliation of the victim.