The Supreme Court has reminded the public that the necessary laws have not been enacted even 24 years after the ratification of OPAC.
We use Google Cloud Translation Services. Google requires we provide the following disclaimer relating to use of this service:
This service may contain translations powered by Google. Google disclaims all warranties related to the translations, expressed or implied, including any warranties of accuracy, reliability, and any implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, and noninfringement.
The Supreme Court has issued a directive order to the government to formulate a law to stop the military recruitment of children. The Supreme Court has issued a mixed mandate on a writ petition regarding child military abuse, reminding the state that it is its responsibility to formulate a law that completely prohibits the inclusion or use of children under the age of 18 in any military force and makes such activities a punishable offense. A directive order has also been issued to government agencies to take immediate steps in this regard. The full bench of Justices Sapana Pradhan Malla, Sunil Kumar Pokharel and Shantisingh Thapa issued the mandate on a writ petition filed by nine people, including Lenin Bista, who participated in the Maoist war but was later sent out of the camp as an 'unfit' combatant. The Supreme Court has also noted that Article 38 (3) of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, to which Nepal is a party, prohibits states parties from recruiting any person who has not completed the age of 15 into their armed forces.
The bench also reminded the parties concerned that 24 years after Nepal ratified the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child (OPAC) on the involvement of children in armed conflict, there has been no domestic law to classify the recruitment of children into armed conflict as a punishable criminal offence.
The bench found that the absence of such a law in itself constituted a continuing violation of Nepal's treaty obligations under Article 4(2) of the OPAC. This not only creates a policy gap, but also affects the right to effective remedies as required by Article 46 of the Constitution of Nepal, the order stated.
