Another reason the document was upheld was its provision to make public the status of the ‘disappeared’ people and other measures that committed both the sides to the conflict to honour human rights in the future. Since, many interactions, workshops, Bill review programs and trainings have been held in relation to TRC and Disappearance Commission (DC). Many national and international ‘consultants’ are still working on it. Moreover, millions of dollars have been granted both to the government and NGOs for the same purpose. But nothing has come out of them except reams of flashy reports published with the help of donor money.
The donors are surely not bemused at the legislature-parliament’s failure to pass the Bill related to TRC and DC, even though the work on them had started five years ago. This hints at the level of seriousness when it comes to enforcing rule of law and human rights. During the discussion at UN on the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) submitted by Nepal last June, many countries inquired about the government’s deadline for the passage of the Bill and about the formation of the two commissions. One of the major UPR recommendations for Nepal concerned prompt establishment of a mechanism to handle human rights cases in the conflict period, as agreed in the CPA. The US was especially vocal on this point.
Although TRC will have limited mandate, it could go a long way towards providing justice to conflict victims and instil mechanisms to foreclose future rights violations.
In South Asia only Sri Lanka has established such a commission, in the wake of the defeat of LTTE. In the draft Bill of Nepal government, both national and international rights bodies have given inputs and some of them are now busy reviewing existing laws. Many so-called ‘Nepal experts’ have visited numerous countries in order gain some insight into TRC/DC, but besides bringing home top-end alcohol, they seem to have achieved little. It is also not without reason that most star-hotels in Kathmandu are, only half jokingly, called ‘human rights hotels’, hosts to countless programs on human rights where although the organizers are different, the audience, guests and speakers remain the same.
The small human rights community of Nepal in fact seems to busy itself throughout the year in deliberating TRC. In such deliberations we often hear that TRC is the one and only medicine to improve the human rights situation in the country. Apparently, TRC would not only provide transitional justice to conflict victims but also bring the perpetrators to book; make government more responsible and stop another conflict from happening. In their reckoning, TRC will help initiate legal action against all perpetrators and provide reasonable social and monetary compensations for the victims. But they will do well to remember that the pending TRC Bill also has provisions on amnesty and compromises.
Is TRC/DC only mechanism to provide justice to the victims? Clearly not. The Bill only envisions a temporary TRC that will recommend necessary measures as mandated by the law. Neither can it take any action of itself, not it can it decide on compensations. I would like to ask these votaries of TRC: What makes them believe that the government will heed TRC’s recommendations when we have already seen how the recommendations of Mallik Commission (on Jana Andolan I) and that of the Rayamajhi Commission (on Jana Andolan II) have been wilfully ignored?
Many alleged perpetrators of rights violation are now being promoted in police and army. Some are now in the parliament and a few have even become ministers. Moreover, many of them have joined various political parties. I would like to know what recommendations TRC will make in these cases and if these recommendations, if made, will be implemented. Moreover, as the only statutory permanent rights body, the National Human Rights Commission has already made similar recommendations (which encompass 60 percent of work to be carried out by TRC) which are yet to be implemented.
Based on the present draft of the TRC Bill and international practises we the members of human rights community have to say clearly to the media and people that TRC/ DC will only be tasked with finding out the truth about human rights violation during the conflict period. It will not take any action against the perpetrators. Any such decision it up to the government. TRC/DC will give both perpetrators and victims an opportunity, where the perpetrators can beg for mercy and victims will duly forgive them. As the words ‘truth’ and ‘reconciliation’ suggest, its foremost job will be to bring reconciliation between the victims and the perpetrators. But the government, we hear, is planning blanket amnesty for all the cases relating to the conflict.
This stand should prompt the human rights community to speak more vocally against impunity and make them push for the ratification of the ICC Rome Statute. Without proper precautions, the TRC might turn out to be only a puppet show.
There is another tricky aspect to implementing TRC recommendations. Nepali court system in the past has often issued dubious decisions, some even contradictory ones. For instance in the case of Maina Sunuwar, the apex court issued a verdict ordering the government to take action against the alleged army officers. But in the case of killing of Guru Luitel in 2005 by Maoist cadres, the court decided to give clean cheat to the accused. So, how can we be sure the court system will be consistent in implementing TRC/DC recommendations?
It is all too obvious that the Bill on TRC/DC is being deliberately delayed by some whose might find themselves in the dragnet with its passage. But there is no doubt against the moral case of passing the Bill without delay. Even if TRC fails to stand up to the tall claims its vehement supports make, it will go some way towards delivering justice and peace of mind to thousands of Nepalis across the nation.
The author is associated with NHRC. The views expressed are personal
sramadhikari@gmail.com
Related story
Ex-ambassador Simkhada’s book on human rights unveiled
