The Commission of Inquiry on Disappeared Persons and the Truth and Reconciliation Commission were formed as a mechanism to bring victims of heinous crimes committed during the conflict into the regular criminal justice system.

In the Comprehensive Peace Accord (CPA), it was arranged that serious human rights violations during the conflict would be investigated by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and the Commission of Inquiry on Disappeared Persons.

It took 8 years from the date of the peace agreement to form the commission, but till now they have not been able to fully investigate even one incident.

In the year 2013, the government brought the Disappeared Persons Inquiry, Truth and Reconciliation Commission Ordinance, 2013.

In 2014, the Supreme Court struck down the major sections of the Ordinance.

But one year later the order of the Supreme Court was ignored when the Act on Investigation of Disappeared Persons, Truth and Reconciliation Commission was brought.

The Cabinet meeting decided to register the Bill in the Parliament. In the bill, the provisions rejected by the conflict victims have been kept as they are.

Then again in the year 2015, while ordering the government to amend the law, the Supreme Court said, “Revise the law according to international standards, the Constitution of Nepal and the detailed peace agreement and various orders of the Supreme Court. Don’t have a provision to grant amnesty in serious crimes, take the victim’s consent even in cases of normal nature that can be reconciled”.

The main concern of the Supreme Court was Section 26 of the Act which proposed to amend human rights violations and serious types of human rights violations.

It is said in that section, “If it is deemed appropriate to grant amnesty to any perpetrator, the Commission can make a recommendation to the Government of Nepal after finding sufficient grounds for it.” The commission will not be able to recommend amnesty to the perpetrators involved in the rape and other crimes of a serious nature for which sufficient grounds and reasons have not been found to grant amnesty from the investigation of the commission.

That’s why the Supreme Court ordered the government to amend the said acts.

The victims of the conflict have demanded that all stakeholders feel their ownership and that the commission be restructured and the law be amended in a transparent manner without any political influence and there should be extensive public consultation regarding the amendment of the law.

Similarly, their demand is impartiality and independence of the commission.

When the then government and the Maoists signed a comprehensive peace agreement, they agreed to publicize the status of those who disappeared during the conflict within 60 days. But even after 16 years, the transitional justice mechanisms have not concluded their investigations.

The status of more than 1,300 people who went missing has not been revealed yet.

After 8 years of the establishment of the Commission, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission has collected 62 thousand 298 complaints and the Disappeared Persons Investigation Commission has collected 3 thousand 93 complaints. However, not a single complaint has been resolved so far.

The issues of ‘violation of human rights’ and ‘serious violation of human rights’, which were not agreed upon at that time, have been kept as they are.

In the bill to amend the ‘Disappeared Persons Investigation, Truth and Reconciliation Commission Act, 2071’, which was registered in the House of Representatives on Thursday, it has been proposed that a pardon can be granted even for murder.

The Cabinet meeting decided to register the Bill in the Parliament. In the bill, the provisions rejected by the conflict victims have been kept as they are.

By amending Section 2 of the Basic Law, even murder is going to be included as a general ‘human rights violation’.

While the victims of the conflict and human rights activists have been demanding that it should be classified as a serious human rights violation — even if it is shot with a gun, strangled, or killed in any way. Similarly, in the bill, torture is also classified as humane and inhumane.

The proposed amended bill has three provisions to be changed in the bill presented on Thursday compared to the bill presented in Parliament last August.

According to the bill, the party who is not satisfied with the decision of the special court hearing can appeal to the Supreme Court.

But that issue is proposed to be examined by a 3-member special bench on transitional justice. This bill also guarantees the right to reparation, which is a positive thing.

In the bill, there is a proposal to maintain the tenure of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and the Disappearance Investigation Commission for two years, but not to extend the term.

In the earlier bill, the tenure of both commissions was one year. But there was a provision that the term of office could be extended if the investigation of the conflict-related cases could not be completed by then.

In the main bill, the time limit for filing a lawsuit has been increased. The provision in the previous bill was if any of the two commissions recommended a case, there was a provision that the public prosecutor’s office or the attorney general should make a decision within 6 months.

Now it has been revised and made one year. The government believes that this will give the public prosecutor enough time to prepare the case.

There is an atmosphere for quicker disposal of fact-finding and justice for conflict victims but at the same time, people are suspicious of the impartiality and independence of the commission.

In the existing Disappeared Persons Investigation and Truth and Reconciliation Commission Act, 9 different types of incidents were defined as serious violations of human rights.

There was a provision that there would be no amnesty in such cases.

The issues of ‘violation of human rights’ and ‘serious violation of human rights’, which were not agreed upon at that time, have been kept as they are.

In the bill of last August, it was mentioned that there will be no amnesty only in serious cases of human rights violations differentiating it from human rights violations and serious human rights violations.

The government wants to finalize it in Parliament. However several others including NHRC have shown displeasure and even suggested the government in writing.

And now it is put in the Parliament for endorsement. At the same time, there is a writ petition filed in the Supreme Court relating to the conflict-era criminal offenses in which a show cause has been issued with precedence against the defendant PM Prachanda who has given 15 days to reply.

There is an atmosphere for quicker disposal of fact-finding and justice for conflict victims but at the same time, people are suspicious of the impartiality and independence of the commission.