KATHMANDU, March 11: UCPN (Maoist) Chairman Pushpa Kamal Dahal and CPN-Maoist Chairman Mohan Baidya have jointly opposed the Supreme Court (SC) verdict regarding the jurisdiction of the newly-formed Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) and the Commission for Investigation of Enforced Disappeared Persons (CIEDP).
Chiefs of the two Maoist parties in a joint statement accused the apex court of limiting the jurisdiction of the two transitional justice bodies.
Court cannot look into wartime incidents, they fall under TRC’s...
“It is our conclusion that the apex court’s interpretation in this connection has curtailed the commissions’ jurisdiction against the principles and values of transitional justice system,” read the statement jointly issued by Dahal and Badiya on Tuesday.
They said the court’s verdict has created further complications for the commissions in carrying out independent and fair investigations. “Therefore, we strongly demand that the government, political parties and other stakeholders take necessary initiatives to ensure that such cases are investigated only by the two commissions in accordance with the Comprehensive Peace Accord.”
The former rebel parties have been demanding that all the conflict-era cases be investigated only by the TRC and CIEDP even if such cases are sub-judice in courts. But the SC in its verdict a few weeks ago said that the cases taken up by any court can’t be transferred to the commissions and that the two transitional bodies can’t grant amnesty to the perpetrators of serious human rights violations.
Dahal and Baidya have claimed that the apex court’s interpretation of some of the provisions of the TRC and CEIDP Act against giving amnesty to even those involved in cases of general nature showed that court didn’t accept the values and principles of transitional justice system. “Therefore we demand that such confusions caused by the court’s interpretation be cleared ,” read the statement.
The two leaders claimed that the court’s verdict may obstruct the peace process and further complicate the situation.
They argued that since the insurgency-era cases had taken place “in course of fighting for certain political goals, such cases should be withdrawn from the courts and transferred to the commissions.”
They have also claimed that such “political cases” should invoke special legal provisions and not the regular criminal laws.
