Nearly two decades have passed since Nepal’s armed conflict concluded in 2006. However, a critical commitment from the peace agreement between the then insurgents—Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist)—and the government, namely, the implementation of a transitional justice (TJ) process, remains unfulfilled.
Truth and justice process addressing victims’ demands and strengthening the protection of rights for all Nepalis is the need of the hour.
At a time when the government appears to be taking the TJ process to a logical conclusion, a report titled “Peace without Justice and Accountability?” was published last week. Authored by an independent delegation of international lawyers who visited Nepal in 2024 on the request of Nepal’s civil society organizations, the report provides a comprehensive analysis of the challenges and opportunities facing Nepal’s TJ process. It critically examines the rule of law, access to justice, and the amendments which were proposed to the Enforced Disappearances Inquiry, Truth and Reconciliation Commission Act (2014), also known as the TJ Bill, within the context of addressing human rights violations committed during the armed conflict.
Commendably the report covers a wide range of issues relevant to TJ in Nepal, including legal frameworks, institutional capacity, victim participation, and the role of civil society. Further, it examines the historical context, legal developments, and the current state of the TJ process, providing a holistic understanding of the complexities involved. While offering an insightful analysis of the legal and practical challenges hindering Nepal’s efforts to achieve transitional justice, the report critically examines the provisions of the TJ Bill, highlighting its inconsistencies with international law and its potential to perpetuate impunity.
Several shortcomings in the Bill that undermine a victim-centered approach have been identified in the report. For example, the report mentions that the Bill’s framing and definitions are unclear, making it difficult for victims to understand the process and their rights. Additionally, the Bill appears to exclude certain victims from the TJ process, including those who may have been combatants, as well as victims of crimes that were not “targeted or planned”.
Worryingly, the Bill allows for amnesties for “human rights violations”. This raises concerns that perpetrators of serious crimes, such as murder, torture, and enforced disappearance, could escape accountability. Additionally, the Bill only provides a three-month window for victims of conflict-related sexual violence to register their complaints. This is a woefully inadequate amount of time, considering the stigma and trauma associated with these crimes. The international delegation’s report consistently emphasizes the need for a victim-centered approach, recognising the importance of prioritizing the needs and rights of victims throughout the TJ process.
Importantly, the report provides concrete and actionable recommendations to the Nepali government and the international community. These recommendations address key areas such as legal reform, institutional strengthening, capacity building and the protection of civic space. The report recommends the government to amend the Bill to clarify the legal framework and definitions of crimes and to ensure that all victims, including combatants and victims of crimes that were not “targeted or planned” have access to the process.
Its recommendation to the government to provide the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) and Commission of Inquiry of Enforced Disappeared Persons (CIEDP) with adequate resources and capacity is important. Similarly, the recommendation for safeguarding and protecting archives that contain evidence of conflict-era crimes needs careful attention. The recommendation to protect civic space and ensure that civil society organizations can operate freely and without fear of reprisal is also timely and relevant.
The delegation’s rigorous methodology involved consultations with a diverse range of stakeholders, including conflict victims, civil society organizations, government representatives, members of the judiciary, and international actors. This multifaceted approach ensures a holistic and nuanced perspective on the challenges and opportunities facing the process.
While the report makes strong suggestions in taking Nepal’s TJ process forward, it contains some weaknesses as well. The report extensively analyzes the legal framework and the proposed amendments but a more detailed discussion of practical steps for implementation would have served the cause better. A roadmap outlining specific actions, timelines, and responsible actors would enhance the report’s practicality and impact.
Another point is that the report relies heavily on qualitative data gathered through interviews and consultations with stakeholders. While this data provides valuable insights, the inclusion of more quantitative data, such as statistics on complaints, prosecutions and reparations, would strengthen the report’s empirical basis.
The report focuses primarily on the perspectives of victims and civil society organizations. While this focus is understandable given the victim-centered approach, a more nuanced engagement with the perspectives of alleged perpetrators, including their motivations, justifications, and potential for rehabilitation, could contribute to a more comprehensive understanding of the conflict and its legacies.
However, the report is a timely and valuable contribution to the ongoing debate on TJ in Nepal. Its comprehensive scope, in-depth analysis, and victim-centered approach provide a compelling critique of the current legal framework of TJ and the proposed amendments in the TJ Bill. The report’s detailed recommendations offer a roadmap for action for the Nepali government and the international community, outlining steps to ensure a TJ process that complies with international standards and delivers justice for victims.
Ultimately, the success of Nepal’s TJ process depends on the political will and commitment of the Nepal government to prioritize the needs and rights of victims, to uphold the rule of law, and to ensure accountability for past crimes. The international community has a responsibility to support these efforts and to hold the Nepal government accountable for its commitments.
Binesh Dahal is a Documentation and Communication Officer at Advocacy Forum-Nepal. [email protected]
Comment