When Nepal’s security forces opened fire on demonstrators in September 2025, killing at least 75 people, they exposed a fundamental flaw in how international human rights law operates across South Asia. Police fired 2,642 live rounds into crowds that included schoolchildren, starting barely five minutes after declaring emergency curfew, aiming for heads and chests. Yet four months later, as Nepal prepares for its Universal Periodic Review on January 21, 2026, not a single officer has faced prosecution. This gap between what the law requires and what states face when they violate it reveals how treaty obligations can exist on paper while enforcement remains absent in practice, particularly where no binding adjudication exists to compel compliance. 

Article 6(1) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) forbids arbitrary deprivation of life. The Human Rights Committee’s General Comment 36 clarifies that ‘arbitrary’ means more than ‘illegal’; it encompasses actions that are inappropriate, unjust, or disproportionate. Potentially lethal force qualifies as an extreme measure permissible only when strictly necessary to protect life or prevent serious injury from an imminent threat. Nepal’s actions failed every element of this test. The protests began over social media restrictions and governance concerns, posing no imminent threat justifying lethal force. The demonstrations were peaceful, protected under Article 21 of the ICCPR. 

Security forces gave protesters no meaningful chance to disperse. The UN’s Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials require clear warnings and adequate compliance time (Principles 10 and 14). Amnesty International’s investigation documented structural failures: no operational planning to minimize casualties, dangerous misuse of less-lethal weapons, tear gas fired from elevated positions violating UN guidance, and gas used inside hospitals, causing breathing difficulties. One emergency room doctor described the scene as feeling like a butcher’s house. This wasn’t poor training, but rather an institutional failure to internalize treaty obligations. 

The International Law........

© E-International