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.
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.
Although Nepal’s revised transitional justice laws show positive improvements, some issues still exist that compromise its capacity to provide justice. One of the main problems is the amnesty for less serious violations. Although it deliberately leaves out major crimes like murder and torture, it begs questions about the likelihood of encouraging a society of impunity. Critics—including the United Nations—argue that this selective application of justice compromises the integrity of the process and runs counter to global norms. Furthermore, the restricted capacity of the court to review commission rulings has raised questions about openness and the possibility of political intervention; thus, advocacy organizations for victims want more court participation to guarantee objective justice.
Both former Maoist militants and state authorities have strong incentives to evade full responsibility, casting questions on the capacity of the revised legislation to run free from political intervention.
The dread of continuous political manipulation, a past obstacle to development that has created mistrust among the affected parties, aggravates the present shortcomings. Both former Maoist militants and state authorities have strong incentives to evade full responsibility, casting questions on the capacity of the revised legislation to run free from political intervention. Victims continue to express their unhappiness; many of them see the modifications as providing only little improvements in the search for justice, especially in relation to criminal prosecution. Particularly since the law does not include required international monitoring systems, the absence of meaningful interaction with the global community raises serious questions about the capacity of the process to conform with international human rights norms.
Nepal’s search for responsibility, truth, and reconciliation gains a major step forward with the revised transitional justice statute. This project addresses significant judicial system flaws while offering a glimmer of hope to those who have suffered atrocities during times of war. The flaws, particularly the amnesty clauses, lack of judicial review, and potential for political manipulation, limit its ability to achieve true justice.
Nepal must give the TRC and CIEDP’s independence top priority to make significant development possible so that they run free from political intervention and maintain openness in their operations. The government has to drastically change how it interacts with victim’s organizations, giving much thought to their issues and ensuring that prosecutions and compensation are carried out to provide closure to survivors. Finally, encouraging more cooperation with foreign agencies will help the process to become more credible and guarantee that Nepal’s transitional justice systems follow international norms.
Although the revised laws are a significant accomplishment, they start a more extensive and complex trip ahead. How well Nepal implements these legislative changes and its ability to face the ongoing complaints of victims and their families will define the real test of her dedication to real justice and healing. This is the only way for Nepal to move past a challenging period in its history and create a fair and united future.
The writer is a freelance contributor. She can be reached at gulnaznawaz1551@gmail.com
A New Beginning
Uphill Task
Joy of July 36
Get What We Desire!
The Way Forward
Mayor Karachi inaugurates Nestlé Pakistan & PQA Clean and Safe Drinking Water Facility
Punjab Investment Conference Ends on a Positive Note
PSL draft to take place in Gwadar
US says Pakistan developing missiles that eventually could hit US
Saudi Arabia has extracted lithium from oilfield runoffs
Pakistan Scripts Record Win Against South Africa
Dhaka wants to ‘move on from 1971’
‘Exhausted’ Syria not a threat to the world: Jolani
Extremely rare baby mammoth found in Siberia
Putin ready to meet Trump ‘anytime’ to talk Ukraine deal
KAP Launched to Revolutionize Education Through AI
Virat Kohli, Anushka Sharma ‘leaving India’?
World Bank approves $800 million loan for Amaravati Development Programme
Pakistan to host West Indies for two Tests
Why Aamir Khan quit films and quietly came back
Leave a Reply