"Though Article 151 of the Interim Constitution of Nepal states that the Council of Ministers may grant pardons to persons convicted, and suspend, commute or reduce any sentence imposed by any court, special court, military court or by any other judicial or quasi-judicial, or administrative authority or institution, this very provision cannot be interpreted as unlimited and discretionary, the release said, adding," If the provision is interpreted as unlimited discretionary power, there is the risk that perpetrators involved serious crimes under national and international law like extra judicial killing, involuntary disappearance, torture and rape could be pardoned and the perpetrators can escape without punishment."
  The highlighted text proves my point. The decision was in no way illegal, though it may be not be in the best interest of Baburam and may not be righteous and definitely not fair to the victim's family. Now interpretators may interpret it in any way so as to serve their interest. I do not want to get into that since I am not a constitutional law expert. Human rights group will never accept this decision because it lets a murderer walk free. Hence I understand the way they have interpreted Article 151 of our Interim Constitution. Moreover, do they have the final say on how our constitution should be interpreted? Do they have the highest authority on how our constitution can be and can not be interpreted?
  Vasudev, anyways I appreciate your cognitive style. This was the kind of response I was expecting from the participants of this thread. My understanding is this move is complicated but legal.