It has been 14 years since the armed conflict between Maoist insurgents and government forces ended in Nepal. Tens of thousands became victims of enforced disappearances, torture, rape, and unlawful killings in the decade of fighting between 1996 and 2006. They are still waiting for truth and justice. There have been hardly any successful prosecutions since the end of the conflict for severe violations. Resistance to address past abuses has entrenched impunity in the present and, combined with a failure to ensure security sector reform, has led to repeated lack of punishment in cases of serious human rights violations which still occur in Nepal. In a mounting number of alleged extrajudicial killings by the police, custodial deaths allegedly resulting from torture, and shootings of unarmed protesters in recent years, the authorities refused to take action despite strong evidence. We conclude that failure to provide justice for past crimes creates direct and tangible harms in the present: families who lost loved ones years ago continue to seek justice and are forced to live without closure. And as new cases of abuse by the police show, impunity for past crimes means that unaccountable and abusive individuals and institutions continue to claim new victims in post-conflict Nepal.

After having ignored victims, only recently both domestic and international law have begun to pay attention to them. As a consequence, different international norms related to victims have progressively been introduced. These are norms generally characterized by a certain concept from the perspective of victims, as well as by the enumeration of a list of rights to which they are entitle to; rights upon which the international statute of victims is built. In reverse, these catalogues of rights are the states’ obligations. Most of these rights are already existent in the international law of human rights. Consequently, they are not new but consolidated rights. Others are strictly linked to victims, concerning the following categories: victims of crime, victims of abuse of power, victims of gross violations of international human rights law, victims of serious violations of international humanitarian law, victims of enforced disappearance, victims of violations of international criminal law and victims of terrorism.

The Attorney General of the United States and the U.S. Department of Justice Office for Victims of Crime strive to pursue justice for criminal acts and that pursuit includes justice for the victims of and witnesses to crime. The 2011 Edition of the Attorney General Guidelines for Victim and Witness Assistance reflects current statutory provisions, recognizes the technological and legal changes that have taken place since the previous Guidelines were promulgated, and incorporates best practices that will benefit victims and enhance investigations and prosecutions.

This is a print on demand edition of a hard to find publication. Stalking is defined as a course of conduct directed at a specific person that would cause a reasonable person to feel fear. The Supplemental Victimization Survey identified seven types of harassing or unwanted behaviors consistent with a course of conduct experienced by stalking victims. The survey classified individuals as stalking victims if they responded that they experienced at least one of these behaviors on at least two separate occasions. In addition, the individuals must have feared for their safety or that of a family member as a result of the course of conduct, or have experienced additional threatening behaviors that would cause a reasonable person to feel fear. This report presents information on stalking victimization. Illustrations.

"Pursuing Justice for Mass Atrocities: A Handbook for Victim Groups" is an educational resource for victim groups that want to influence or participate in the justice process for mass atrocities. It presents a range of tools that victim groups can use, from building a victim-centered coalition and developing a strategic communications plan to engaging with policy makers and decision makers and using the law to obtain justice.

The demand for recognition, responsibility, and reparations is regularly invoked in the wake of colonialism, genocide, and mass violence: there can be no victims without recognition, no perpetrators without responsibility, and no justice without reparations. Or so it seems from law’s limited repertoire for assembling the archive after ‘the disaster’. Archival and memorial practices are central to contexts where transitional justice, addressing historical wrongs, or reparations are at stake. The archive serves as a repository or ‘storehouse’ of what needs to be gathered and recognised so that it can be left behind in order to inaugurate the future. The archive manifests law’s authority and its troubled conscience. It is an indispensable part of the liberal legal response to biopolitical violence. This collection challenges established approaches to transitional justice by opening up new dialogues about the problem of assembling law’s archive. The volume presents research drawn from multiple jurisdictions that address the following questions. What resists being archived? What spaces and practices of memory - conscious and unconscious - undo legal and sovereign alibis and confessions? And what narrative forms expose the limits of responsibility, recognition, and reparations? By treating the law as an ‘archive’, this book traces the failure of universalised categories such as 'perpetrator', 'victim', 'responsibility', and 'innocence,' posited by the liberal legal state. It thereby uncovers law’s counter-archive as a challenge to established forms of representing and responding to violence.