Kathmandu

Law vs Justice

Although Nepal’s revised Transitional Justice Law shows positive improvements, some issues still exist that compromise its capacity to provide justice.

By Gulnaz Nawaz | January 2025


In the aftermath of a decade-long civil conflict (1996–2006), Nepal’s journey towards achieving justice and fostering reconciliation has encountered significant political challenges, deep social divisions, and enduring setbacks. Nepal’s parliament has enacted notable amendments to the Transitional Justice Law, eliciting diverse reactions that span from commendation to critique across various sectors. The transitional justice process, intended to address the human rights violations stemming from the insurgency, faces numerous challenges, especially concerning delays in implementing essential legislative reforms. In light of the recent developments, assessing whether the advantages outweigh the fundamental disadvantages of the newly enacted legislation is crucial.

The civil unrest, characterized by the clash between Maoist rebels and government troops, has significantly altered Nepal’s journey. Tragically, more than 17,000 people have died; many more suffer from forced exile, torture, or disappearance. A Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) ended the hostilities in 2006, yet the promises of truth, justice, and healing still mostly go unmet. Two commissions—the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) and the Commission of Investigation on Enforced Disappearance Persons (CIEDP)—opened in 2015 and marked significant progress in addressing these pressing concerns. Still, both panels have come under fire for their lack of efficiency, inadequate financing, and political pressure sensitivity.

The government of Nepal has shown a poor reaction to the rising requests from victims, human rights groups, and the international community regarding the need to change the transitional justice statute. This law needs to be changed to fit worldwide standards, stressing the need for truth-telling, victim justice, and responsibility for offenders. The latest changes aim to correct specific shortcomings; however, it is essential to carefully assess their success in meeting the basic standards for fairness.

The improved framework for conducting investigations is a clear indicator of significant advancement in Nepal’s updated transitional justice legislation. Historically, mostly owing to a lack of sufficient power and resources, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) and the Commission of Investigation on Enforced Disappeared Persons (CIEDP) were under great criticism over their capacity to conduct comprehensive investigations. The latest changes give these commissioners more power and autonomy to call witnesses and access state documents. The developments might allow more thorough investigations of war crimes and crimes against humanity, therefore inspiring optimism that the commissions would more effectively serve their purposes of exposing the truth and delivering justice.

One important improvement in the legal system is the inclusion of specific clauses meant to examine events of torture and sexual abuse carried out during the war. Historically, people who have suffered these terrible transgressions—especially women and those victims of sexual violence—have often been excluded from the transitional justice system. Often left without a voice, the cultural prejudice associated with these crimes, together with the lack of a legal framework to handle them, have kept survivors silent. The legal acceptance of these violations via the new laws is a major step forward, allowing survivors to pursue justice and get acknowledgement for their difficult experiences.

Read More