ISSN 2330-717X

Serving Justice: Would Transitional Justice Meet Its Goal In Nepal? – Analysis

By

By S. Binodkumar Singh*

In Nepal, to probe instances of the serious violation of human rights and find the status of those who were disappeared in the course of the armed conflict between the state and the then Communist Party of Nepal-Maoist (CPN-Maoist) from February 13, 1996, to November 21, 2006, two transitional justice mechanisms – Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) and Commission of Investigation on Enforced Disappeared Persons (CIEDP) were formed in February 2015 in the spirit of the interim constitution of 2007 and the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) of 2006. According to the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) Nepal Conflict Report 2012, between February 1996 and November 2006, the conflict between the government of Nepal and the CPN-Maoist left over 13,000 people dead and 1,300 missing.

On June 16, 2016, the TRC, which had started recording testimonies regarding insurgency-era rights’ violations and crimes from April 17, 2016, at District Peace Committee offices in all 75 districts, and was supposed to wrap up the collection of complaints on June 16, 2016, decided to continue complaint collection until July 16, 2016, after it learnt that hundreds of victims are yet to lodge their complaints related to the war-era. The TRC had distributed 40,000 forms to victims and, as of June 15, 2016, had received 33,592 complaints.

Earlier, on June 13, 2016, another transitional justice mechanism, the CIEDP, which started receiving complaints on April 14, 2016, extended the time period for registering cases related to conflict-era disappearances by another month, as complaints continue to pour in. As many as 4,000 forms were circulated in all 75 districts, where disappearance incidents occurred during the decade-long Maoist insurgency. The Commission had received 2,084 complaints as of June 12, 2016.

On May 19, 2016, in a major development in Nepal’s prolonged process of transitional justice, TRC started preliminary investigation on complaints received from conflict victims. TRC commissioner Madhavi Bhatta, stated on the occasion, “we have distributed 14,581 complaint forms from our office and the local peace committees and received 7,789 complaints so far. Therefore going through all the complaints is a crucial step toward investigation”.

However, at a time when the victims and international human rights agencies have been urging the government to bring the Transitional Justice Act on par with international standards, five Maoist parties – Naya Shakti Nepal led by Baburam Bhattarai, CPN-Revolutionary Maoist led by Mohan Baidya, CPN (Maoist) led by Matrika Yadav and Revolutionary Communist Party Nepal led by Mani Chandra Thapa, besides ruling Unified Communist Party of Nepal-Maoist (UCPN-M) led by Pushpa Kamal Dahal – in a joint statement on April 21, 2016, called on the government to scrap conflict-era cases, claiming that such cases violated the CPA of November 12, 2006.

Further, on May 19, 2016, ten Maoist parties at a joint convention in Kathmandu united to form a new force under the former rebel commander Pushpa Kamal Dahal to give birth to what they have decided to call the Communist Party of Nepal-Maoist Centre (CPN-Maoist Centre). Addressing the function organized to announce the unification, chairman Dahal declared, “the days of conspiracy against the revolutionary agenda of republic, secularism and proportional representation are over. This unification is a message loud and clear that the days of people’s victory are here. This unification guarantees that the transitional justice mechanisms will function in line with the CPA”.

Earlier, on May 5, 2016, UCPN-M signed a pre-emptive nine-point agreement with the Communist Party of Nepal-Unified Marxist Leninist (CPN-UML), the senior partner in the ruling alliance. The fact that five of the nine points in the agreement address issues of transitional justice shows just how worried the Maoists are to answer for the crimes they committed between 1996 and 2006. One of the points of the agreement obliges CPN-UML and the Maoists to amend the laws on transitional justice within 15 days, so that they ‘reflect the spirit of the CPA’. The two leaders also agreed to register the ownership of the lands that were transacted on the strength of household papers during the conflict era on the basis of those same documents. They also agreed to immediately initiate the process to withdraw or give clemency on insurgency-era cases and other ‘politically-motivated’ cases filed on various occasions.

Expectedly, expressing their fear at a discussion programme held at Mahendranagar of Kanchanpur District on June 16, 2016, conflict survivors said that they were still fearful of lodging complaints, as no assurance of maintaining confidentiality of personal information had been given. The participants claimed that most the families of conflict victims had not yet registered their complaints after it was found that the responsible agencies were disclosing the names of the complainants. Conflict Victim Society Kanchanpur chairperson Dharma Singh Chaudhary noted, “many victim families have not come to lodge their complaints with the rise in threats and intimidations after the disclosure of confidentialities of personal information of complainant (sic)”.

However, on June 7, 2016, Professor Bishnu Pathak, spokesperson of CIEDP, claimed, “initially, there were fears among victims and human rights defenders that the commissions might not be victim-centric. There was mistrust initially but we have overcome that situation. The way we are receiving complaints has encouraged us”. Similarly, TRC chairperson Surya Kiran Gurung noted, “political comments on transitional justice could create some confusion for the victims but TRC is firm in its intention of carrying out its tasks as per the provisions of the CIEDP and TRC Act. TRC is clear that any amendment to the existing act should be only for meeting international standards and adhering to court verdicts. We are not bothered by politicians’ comments or actions as we are governed by the laws”.

The former combatants are not the only ones under the scanner of transitional justice mechanisms; complaints have also been filed against various high ranking officials, including former Prime Ministers. Moreover, around 70 to 75 per cent of complaints received by the TRC and CIEDP have been lodged against the State. However, despite the political developments in the country, CIEDP Chairman Lokendra Mallick, speaking at a function organized by the Social Justice and Human Rights Committee of Parliament on June 17, 2016, claimed that the Commission will try to complete all the investigations in the remaining eight months before its deadline. Speaking at the same function TRC Chairperson Gurung observed, “a situation might arise tomorrow when our leaders cannot visit foreign countries freely if conflict-era cases are internationalized by the victims”.

Indeed, after the end of the internal conflict, there was demand for transitional justice measures in Nepal. However, as high profile figures are dragged into war-era cases, many are skeptical the transitional justice mechanism can conduct thorough investigation and provide justice to victims. It remains to be seen whether Nepal is able to reconcile the demands of political stability and continuity, on the one hand and of justice for war era excesses, on the other, to establish an enduring constitutional and political order that will meet the demands of equity and governance.

*S. Binodkumar Singh is a Research Associate at the Institute for Conflict Management, New Delhi. He can be reached at: [email protected])


Enjoy the article? Then please consider donating today to ensure that Eurasia Review can continue to be able to provide similar content.


South Asia Monitor

South Asia Monitor

South Asia Monitor is an independent web journal and online resource dealing with strategic, political, security, cultural and economic issues about, pertaining to and of consequence to South Asia and the whole Indo-Pacific region. Developed for South Asia watchers across the globe or those looking for in-depth knowledge, reliable resource and documentation on this region, the site features exclusive commentaries, insightful analyses, interviews and reviews contributed by strategic experts, diplomats, journalists, analysts, researchers and students from not only this region but all over the world. It also aggregates news and views content related to the region.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

CLOSE
CLOSE