Nepal's Transitional Justice Remains Unresolved After Two Decades

Kathmandu. Nearly two decades have passed since the Comprehensive Peace Accord was signed between the government and the then-rebel group, yet transitional justice has not reached a conclusion.

Even when the government was led by the Maoists, who were a party to the Comprehensive Peace Accord and the then-rebel group, this issue remained unresolved. CPN (UML) and Nepali Congress, considered old in parliamentary politics and having been in power multiple times, have also been indifferent to concluding the transitional justice issue.

Following the general elections held in February, a government with a two-thirds majority is in power, led by the Rastriya Swatantra Party (RSP). When Balendra (Balen) Shah's led government released its 100-point agenda, it did not prioritize transitional justice.

The Interim Constitution of Nepal 2063 had a provision to provide relief to victims based on the report of the commission investigating persons who were disappeared during the armed conflict. That constitution also had a provision to form a high-level Truth and Reconciliation Commission to investigate those involved in serious human rights violations and crimes against humanity during the conflict and to build an environment of reconciliation in society.

On Jestha 27, 2071 (May 10, 2014), the Act Relating to Investigation of Disappeared Persons, Truth and Reconciliation, and Provision of Compensation, 2071, was enacted accordingly. Based on that act, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and the Commission for Investigation of Disappeared Persons were formed on Magh 27, 2071 (February 10, 2015).

Conflict victims have repeatedly expressed dissatisfaction, stating that the officials for the commissions were recommended based on political party quotas.

Victims argue that the commissions formed over the past 11 years have merely become platforms for political bargaining. Victims had drawn the government's attention to the issue that certain provisions in the third amendment to the Transitional Justice Act would grant impunity to perpetrators and institutionalize impunity.

Suman Adhikari, former chairman of the Conflict Victims' Common Platform, stated that no government has been ready to deliver justice to the victims. 'Nearly two decades have passed since the Comprehensive Peace Accord, yet neither the government has prioritized our right to justice, nor has the judiciary given our cases priority for hearing,' Adhikari said. 'We filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court against the appointment of officials to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and the Commission for Disappeared Persons based on political quotas.' He mentioned that although they hoped the judiciary would make a quick decision, they were frustrated by the long delays in scheduling hearings and the repeated postponement of cases.

According to Adhikari, the current government has also shown no interest in transitional justice. After the government did not prioritize transitional justice, 40 individuals from the conflict victims' community drew the attention of Prime Minister Balen Shah. The victims sent an email expressing their deep distrust and disappointment towards the state, citing the absence of transitional justice as a significant issue in the government's 100-point agenda and the manifestos of major political parties.

Victims argue that the commissions formed over the past 11 years have merely become platforms for political bargaining. Victims had drawn the government's attention to the issue that certain provisions in the third amendment to the Transitional Justice Act (such as the provision for only 25% sentence reduction, a one-year statute of limitations, and a narrow definition of serious human rights violations) would grant impunity to perpetrators and institutionalize impunity.

Difficulty in Filing Cases in Court

Conflict victims state that it is difficult to file cases in court regarding the officials appointed to the two transitional justice commissions.

Previously, petitions filed by conflict victims in the Supreme Court were rejected twice. On Ashoj 19, 2082 (November 4, 2025), during the tenure of the then-government led by KP Sharma Oli, a writ petition was filed in the Supreme Court arguing that justice would not be served to the victims due to the appointment of officials to the two commissions based on political quotas. However, the court administration rejected the petition.

Conflict victims had demanded the cancellation of the appointments, citing that the officials were appointed based on political quotas, no information was provided regarding the necessary basis and reasons for selecting officials, and appointments were made without consultation and discussion with conflict victims.

According to a Supreme Court decision in 2071 (2014/2015), it is stated that cases cannot be pardoned without the victim's consent and in cases of serious crimes. However, the victims objected to the then-government's attempt to bring transitional justice in a manner contrary to that decision.

Hearing the petition against the rejection, a bench led by Justice Til Prasad Shrestha ordered the rejection to be overturned and the writ to be registered. After the rejection order was overturned, victims hoped for a speedy resolution of the case, but the Supreme Court did not prioritize the writ filed by conflict victims for hearing.

Previously, on Shrawan 30, 2081 (August 14, 2024), conflict victims had filed a writ petition against the bill to amend the TRC Act. At that time as well, the court administration rejected the writ petition filed against the bill to amend the Act Relating to Investigation of Disappeared Persons, Truth and Reconciliation, and Provision of Compensation.

The petitioners argued that provisions in the bill to amend the TRC Act, such as distinguishing human rights violations and allowing up to 75% sentence remission, were victim-unfriendly. However, in the case against the Supreme Court administration's rejection, the bench ordered the registration.

Victims Had Objected to the Pardon Provision

According to a Supreme Court decision in 2071 (2014/2015), it is stated that cases cannot be pardoned without the victim's consent and in cases of serious crimes. However, the victims objected to the then-government's attempt to bring transitional justice in a manner contrary to that decision.

During the tenure of the then-Prime Minister Pushpa Kamal Dahal 'Prachanda'-led government, the bill to amend the Act Relating to Investigation of Disappeared Persons, Truth and Reconciliation, and Provision of Compensation, 2071, included provisions for pardoning inhumation acts contrary to international human rights or humanitarian law, disregarding the Supreme Court's decision that pardon cannot be granted for serious human rights violations and repeated commitments made to the international community.

Contrary to the Supreme Court's decision, the government introduced a bill in parliament that would grant impunity to perpetrators of serious human rights abuses. Victims raised questions about the provisions in clauses 2(4) and 2(5) of the bill, as amended.

Clause 2(4) defines human rights violations as acts targeted at or systematically carried out against unarmed persons or communities during the armed conflict, listing nine types of offenses.

After the commission's recommendation, the Attorney General or government lawyer is to decide within 6 months whether to file a case or not, based on the evidence obtained. It is possible that the investigation of conflict-era cases may not be completed within six months, and there is an equal possibility of acquittal in court later if cases are filed solely based on the available evidence.

These include murder, sexual violence, physical or mental torture, abduction and hostage-taking, illegal detention, assault, dismemberment or disability, looting, occupation, destruction, or arson of personal or public property, forced eviction from land or other forms of displacement, and any inhumane acts contrary to international human rights or humanitarian law.

Clause 5 lists four types of offenses as serious human rights violations. These include brutal murder with cruel torture, rape, enforced disappearance, and torture amounting to inhumane or cruel treatment.

Similarly, after the commission's recommendation, the Attorney General is required to complete the investigation and file a case within six months, or decide not to file a case. This provision creates a situation where perpetrators can easily escape punishment.

After the commission's recommendation, the Attorney General or government lawyer is to decide within 6 months whether to file a case or not, based on the evidence obtained. It is possible that the investigation of conflict-era cases may not be completed within six months, and there is an equal possibility of acquittal in court later if cases are filed solely based on the available evidence.

Furthermore, the bill includes a provision that the decision of the Special Court will be final, which, according to victims, will prevent them from receiving justice and allow perpetrators to escape easily.