The limits of justice in the shadow of Garima’s death

The streets of Simara echoed with grief and fury when a young life, blooming with innocence and potential, was brutally killed after being raped in mid-August this year. Three-year-old Garima Chaudhary, a student at a local early childhood development class in Jitpur Simara-1, Bara, went missing, only to be found dead after being subjected to unthinkable horrors. The incident once again laid bare a harrowing reality that the most vulnerable among us are not safe, even in our own neighborhoods. 

Although the devastating Bhotekoshi floods of August 26 later drew public attention away from the incident, Garima’s death remains a stark reminder of the need for stronger child protection, accountability and action against violence. With a minor’s implication, the case highlights the complexities of juvenile justice and Nepal’s human rights obligations. 

A failure of social protection

A three-year-old girl playing with her small group of friends falling victim to monstrous violence, including the reported attempt to conceal the victim's identity, raises troubling questions about the moral and social environment in which such violence occurs. It demands scrutiny of the effectiveness of existing child protection mechanisms, the role of families and communities in safeguarding children, and the broader institutional failures that leave them exposed to violence.

A raw grief and public outrage triggered by the tragedy of Garima’s death also brought to the frontline chants for extreme retributive punishment, such as public calls to ‘hang the rapist’.

However, analysis of Nepal’s existing constitutional and criminal legal framework reveals a complex intersection of human rights standards, statutory sentencing limits, and juvenile justice protections.

Abolition of death penalty in Nepal

Nepal’s legal system does not permit the death penalty for any crime. Article 16 (2) of the Constitution, under the fundamental right to live with dignity, provides that ‘No law shall be made providing for the death penalty to any one.’

Accordingly, the National Penal Code 2017 allows only for life imprisonment or long-term prison sentencing in cases of heinous crimes like rape resulting in homicide. 

Nepal is also a state party to the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which primarily aims for the abolition of the death penalty.

The death penalty is widely opposed internationally due to human rights concerns, the risk of executing innocent individuals and systemic inequalities that disproportionately disadvantage vulnerable groups. As former United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon remarked: ‘The taking of Life is too absolute, too irreversible, for one human being to inflict it on another, even when backed by legal process.’

Furthermore, assertions that capital punishment acts as a meaningful deterrent against crime have been heavily overstated, with several research showing no conclusive evidence that it lowers homicide rates more effectively than alternative punishments like life imprisonment.

The complication of a minor perpetrator

In cases like Garima’s where reports indicate that a primary suspect is a 16- year-old minor, the legal framework shifts from standard adult criminal prosecution to juvenile justice principles, which further limits the types and length of sentences.

The Act Relating to Children 2018 prioritises reformation, rehabilitation, and reintegration over retributive incarceration.

Under Nepal’s juvenile justice provisions, minors cannot be subjected to the same penal measures as adults. Even when a minor is convicted of a severe crime, the law mandates reduced sentencing designed to account for their age and developmental capacity for reform. Life imprisonment or maximum adult terms are strictly prohibited for defendants classified as minors under the law at the time of the offense.

Rather than being sent to standard adult prisons where they would face hardened environments, convicted minors are typically mandated to serve terms in specialised juvenile correction facilities geared toward counseling and rehabilitation such as juvenile correction homes.

The Global Standard: The Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC)

Under international law, the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), to which over 190 nations, including Nepal, are parties, children who commit crimes are designated as “children in conflict with the law.”

Article 37 of the CRC explicitly prohibits capital punishment and life imprisonment without the possibility of release for any offense committed by someone under 18 years of age. Even in instances involving horrific violence or murder, international tribunals and human rights bodies treat the execution or permanent incarceration of a minor as a violation of jus cogens norms (peremptory norms), a norm considered binding for all nations.

Article 40 mandates that juvenile justice systems must promote the child's “sense of dignity and worth,” taking their age explicitly into account with the primary goal of reintegration into society.

Practices around the globe

When minors commit extreme offenses, such as sexual assault and homicide, different legal systems resolve the friction between public outrage and juvenile protection through specific mechanisms:

Specialised family and youth courts (e.g., UK, Germany, Canada):

In many European jurisdictions, even severe cases involving adolescent perpetrators are kept entirely out of adult criminal courts. For example, under German and Croatian youth justice systems, trials are held in specialised youth courts behind closed doors to protect the identities of both the victim and the perpetrator. The focus remains on an intensive assessment of psychological maturity, background trauma, and reform potential.  

Indeterminate sentencing with mandatory detention:

Rather than fixed punitive terms, jurisdictions like Canada (under the Youth Criminal Justice Act) mandates specialised youth sentences that combine custody with community supervision. In case of severe violent offenses, courts can impose “intensive rehabilitative custody and supervision orders,” which dictates rigorous psychological, psychiatric, and behavioral therapy within secure youth facilities.

The “Transfer/Waiver” debate (e.g., United States)

The United States represents a distinct outline where juvenile offenders can, under certain state laws, be ‘waived’ or transferred to adult criminal court for capital or heinous felonies. However, even the US Supreme Court in landmark cases like Roper v. Simmons and Miller v. Alabama progressively outlawed the death penalty and mandatory life-without-parole sentences for juveniles, ruling that the developmental immaturity, impulsivity, and lack of brain maturity in adolescents must constitutionally exempt them from harsh penalties.

Lessons from countries that have reduced these crimes

Countries that have successfully reduced these crimes such as parts of Scandinavia (eg, Sweden and Norway) and targeted developing regions monitored through longitudinal data (like national child protection tracking in Kenya, Zimbabwe, and Eswatini) rely on systemic prevention models rather than relying on reactive penal severity alone. The primary strategies deployed by countries that have successfully driven down the rates include:

1. Moving from “Punitive Reaction” to “Primary Prevention”

Historically, states treat rape and sexual assault strictly as a criminal justice issue waiting for the crime to happen and then punishing the offender. Countries that have reduced rates shifted heavily toward primary prevention (stopping violence before it ever occurs).

In nations with lower youth sexual violence rates, school curriculums introduce concepts of bodily autonomy, mutual consent, and respect starting at early developmental ages. This dismantles entitlement and normalises boundaries long before adolescence.

2. Systematic data collection and empirical tracking (e.g VACS Framework)

Countries like Kenya and Zimbabwe reduced rates of child sexual violence over decade-long periods (documented through empirical tools like the Violence Against Children and Youth Surveys) by utilising granular data.

Instead of guessing where crimes happen, these governments tracked risk environments, mapped vulnerable demographics, and used that data to deploy community watchtowers, fund local social workers, and establish specialised child protection management systems.

3. Specialised judicial and child-friendly legal infrastructure

Victims often suffer secondary victimisation through cold, intimidating, and lengthy court procedures, which historically caused high dropout or non-reporting rates. Countries like Eswatini, and various European states introduced specialised courts, streamlined investigation protocols, and dedicated judicial magistrates trained specifically in trauma-informed handling. This ensures that victims do not have to recount deeply upsetting details repeatedly in hostile environments.

4. Reforming toxic social norms through community programs

Programs modeled after initiatives like Stepping Stones and Men As Partners have been scaled nationally in parts of Africa, Asia, and Latin America.

Rather than just telling communities ‘rape is bad’ these programs use localised, peer-led workshops to challenge toxic masculinities, restructure communication between genders, and train community leaders to actively intercept gender-based violence before it escalates into physical or sexual assaults.

Way Forward

No society is entirely immune to crime as heinous offenses occur across the globe. Yet, nations that have successfully curbed violence do so through a multi-pronged approach like pairing strict legal accountability with early childhood education, data surveillance, structural community intervention, and specialised judicial systems. For Nepal, progress requires localised action across every single one of these fronts. But true prevention starts upstream, stopping a criminal mindset from taking root through communal accountability, heightened societal awareness, and a robust, specialised legal framework.

It is time to build a society where toxic digital echo chambers no longer thrive, and where women and girls of any age group are never again reduced to objects for fleeting sexual gratification.