KATHMANDU, May 4 (Reuters) - Leading global human rights groups urged Nepal's King Gyanendra to restore civil liberties after he lifted a state of emergency imposed three months ago.
Gyanendra stunned the world on Feb. 1 when he sacked the government, jailed political leaders and suspended civil liberties, saying the move was needed to quell a bloody Maoist revolt in which more than 11,000 people have died.
The Maoists have been fighting since 1996 to replace the monarchy with a single-party communist republic in the world's only Hindu kingdom wedged between Asian giants China and India.
Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) said in a statement late on Tuesday that though the king lifted the emergency at the weekend under international pressure he had not restored political freedom or released all politicians from jails.
"Now that the state of emergency has been lifted, the people of Nepal must be able to exercise their full range of rights," said Nicholas Howen, Secretary-General of the ICJ.
"The king has yet to spell out what the lifting of emergency regulations means in terms of the daily exercise of basic rights - is the press free, will those continuing to be held arbitrarily be released, can human rights defenders work without harassment? All of this is still unclear," he said.
Hours after the 57-year-old monarch withdrew the emergency rule on Saturday, his royal government banned public gatherings and rallies in the hill-ringed capital to stop pro-democracy protests by political parties.
On Tuesday, 1,000 Nepali editors and reporters took out a rally in Kathmandu on the occasion of World Press Freedom Day, demanding the release of 10 arrested colleagues and lifting of curbs on the media.
Gyanendra has drawn international flak for the move and Nepal's key allies, India and Britain, have suspended crucial arms supplies to persuade him to restore political freedom.
Brad Adams, Asia Director of Human Rights Watch, said the lifting of emergency rule could be a tactical ploy by the king to convince India to resume its military aid.
"Without specific and direct action by the king to an immediate return to full democratic, constitutional rule, this could simply turn out to be a cynical attempt to convince India and others, such as the United States, to resume their military aid," he said.