Nepal's peace process, often celebrated for its pioneering approach to conflict resolution and peacebuilding, now faces a critical test. Eighteen years after the signing of the peace agreement, the victims of Nepal’s armed conflict are still struggling for justice, reparation, and dignity.

In a meeting held on August 1, 2024, political parties agreed on a legal arrangement that would reduce the punishment for serious human rights violations during the armed conflict by up to 75 percent. This proposed amendment to the Enforced Disappearances Inquiry, Truth and Reconciliation Commission Act, 2071 (2014), would allow the Attorney General to recommend reducing the punishment to 25 to 30 percent of what is mandated by prevailing laws.

Recent developments have cast a shadow over the already tumultuous journey of Nepal’s transitional justice. To ensure the integrity and success of this process, it is imperative that victims are placed at the heart of transitional justice. Three central arguments support this claim: the necessity of a victim-centered approach, the critical role of accountability, and the importance of inclusive and comprehensive justice mechanisms.

Need for a victim-centered approach

The above-mentioned “near agreement,” made in the presence of Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli and Nepali Congress President Sher Bahadur Deuba, threatens to undermine the foundation of justice for the conflict victims. A victim-centered approach is not just a moral imperative but a foundational element of any credible transitional justice process. This approach ensures that the needs, experiences, and perspectives of victims are at the forefront of all actions and decisions made during the transitional justice process.

Conflict victims in Nepal have diverse experiences and needs. Their demands range from truth, investigation and prosecution to reparations and reconciliation. They demand identification of prosecutors, adequate compensation, victim-friendly justice processes, public apologies from the government and top leaders, guarantee of non-repetition, and rehabilitation. All victims cannot be kept in a single bracket. Hence, it’s crucial that justice delivery mechanisms avoid blanket decisions and listen to cases individually.

Particularly for women who suffer sexual violence during the conflict and children born out of rape during war, societal stigma and inadequate legal protections add layers of difficulty in seeking justice. To uphold a victim-centric approach, it is imperative to implement confidentiality and privacy guidelines specifically for victims of conflict-related sexual violence (CRSV). This ensures their safety and dignity, preventing additional trauma from societal stigma.

A victim-centered approach is essential for the credibility and effectiveness of transitional justice processes. Yet achieving this approach has several challenges; limited data on CRSV victims and concerns about privacy and confidentiality. The stigma attached in our patriarchal society further deters the victims from coming forward. In order to address these issues, we must ensure the survivor's safety and privacy, and come up with robust data protection measures.

Critical role of accountability

Accountability plays a pivotal role in the success of any transitional justice process. Nepal’s peace process promised truth-seeking, reparations, and reconciliation. While there has been progress in areas such as constitution writing (albeit with protests and dissents from a section of society) and rehabilitation of Maoist fighters, the peace process has been riddled with obstacles. The issue has been politicized, victims are often ignored, and perpetrators aren’t held accountable. Political parties have issued ordinances and laws without effective implementation, creating a cycle of rejection and confusion among stakeholders. This inconsistency undermines the credibility of transitional justice efforts and leaves victims in a perpetual state of uncertainty.

To break this cycle and restore faith in the justice system, accountability is essential. The creation of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) and the Commission of Inquiry on Disappeared Persons (CIEDP) were significant steps forward. However, these commissions have been hampered by political interference, inadequate resources, and flawed legal frameworks.

The recent proposal to drastically reduce punishments for serious human rights violations exacerbates victims' frustrations and feelings of abandonment. Without holding perpetrators accountable, the transitional justice process risks becoming a hollow endeavor, incapable of delivering true justice or deterring future violations.

Ensuring accountability for perpetrators not only provides justice to victims, but also strengthens the rule of law and deters future crimes. By addressing the wrongs of the past, transitional justice mechanisms can help build a foundation of trust and legitimacy. This, in turn, fosters a more stable and just society. Therefore, Nepal’s political leaders must commit to an accountability-driven approach, demonstrating that justice is not merely a political tool but a fundamental right of the victims.

Inclusive and comprehensive justice mechanisms

Nepal’s journey towards transitional justice, especially in the cases of enforced disappearance, is hindered by its failure to adequately address the religious and cultural concerns of victims. Families of the disappeared, for instance, seek closure through traditional rituals, yet the judicial process has consistently overlooked these sensitive issues. This neglect has only deepened the disillusionment and distrust victims feel toward the system.

A transitional justice process that lacks inclusivity is fundamentally flawed. The failure to consult with victims and consider their unique experiences undermines the entire endeavor. Without their active involvement, justice mechanisms are seen as detached and bureaucratic, rather than responsive and empathetic. This disconnect fosters resentment and skepticism, eroding the legitimacy of the transitional justice process. It is not enough to merely establish commissions and pass laws; these actions must be grounded in the realities and expectations of those who suffered most during the conflict.

Way forward

Despite the myriad challenges, there have been notable positive developments in Nepal's transitional justice process. Victims and their advocates have emerged as a formidable force, applying consistent pressure on political parties and the government to address their concerns. Additionally, international communities and organizations have played a crucial role in supporting the victims’ cause. However, for Nepal’s transitional justice process to truly succeed, it must place victims at its core, ensuring their active participation and implementing a victim-centered approach to justice.

The proposed amendment to reduce punishments for serious human rights violations is a step in the wrong direction. It undermines the principles of justice and reconciliation and fails to address the victims' demands for accountability and reparation. Instead, political parties and the government must demonstrate a genuine commitment to transitional justice by taking several key actions.

The government must appoint qualified and impartial officials to lead the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) and the Commission of Inquiry on Disappeared Persons (CIEDP), and ensure these bodies are adequately funded and resourced to effectively carry out their mandates.

Nepal's transitional justice process must not be reduced to a mere political exercise. It is a national obligation that requires the collective commitment of all stakeholders. By placing the victims at the center of this process, Nepal can set a precedent for other countries emerging from conflict, demonstrating that true peace is built on the foundation of justice and reconciliation.

 
• justice
 
• reparation
 
• dignity
 
• transitional_justice
 
• TRC
 
• CIEDP