My interpretation of Dhakal’s argument was that he mentioned HRW’s American report titles as an example of a larger pattern among other countries. But Dhakal has clarified that he was talking only about America. So I admit I read too much into his statement, and I apologize.
The reason I interpreted Dhakal more broadly was that otherwise, his argument is incredibly weak when he limits it to America. Since Human Rights Watch has reported on 90 countries, singling out America and comparing to Nepal is not going to prove bias. I am amazed Dhakal still stands behind such a weak premise, and fixates on America as if other countries are not relevant to this discussion.