Publications
Peace and Justice Update - May 4, 2012 - Volume 30, Number XI
South Asia
The Peace and Justice Update is published by the interns at the Joan B. Kroc Institute for Peace & Justice. The views expressed in the Update are not necessarily those of the IPJ or of USD. To subscribe, send an email to updates@sandiego.edu with "Subscribe" in the subject line. Click here for source information.
The Introduction of an Integrated Reconciliation Commission Meets with Widespread Condemnation from the Human Rights Community
On April 19, the three major political parties of Nepal – the Unified CPN-Maoist, Nepali Congress (NC), and CPN-Unified Marxist-Leninist (UML) – reached a consensus agreement to form a single Integrated Reconciliation Commission tasked with simultaneously addressing cases of disappearances and human rights violations during the civil war and moving the country towards rapprochement.
The actions of the Nepali leaders marked a distinct shift in policy, as the Integrated Reconciliation Commission constitutes a merging of two separate commissions, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) and the Commission of Inquiry on Disappearances (CID).
Both commissions, which were to be established as separate, autonomous entities according to the provisions of the interim Nepali constitution, were designed to play a role in the country’s rehabilitation and the realization of justice for victims of violence committed by both sides during the war. The TRC was intended to address general human rights abuses by determining the facts of past violations, holding those responsible accountable, and advancing the process of peaceful reconciliation.The outlined goals of the CID were to investigate the cases of forced disappearances during the civil war and, once again, make those responsible liable for their actions. In theory, the Integrated Reconciliation Commission will serve as a combination of the aims of both agencies. During the civil war, which lasted from 1996 to 2006, approximately 15,000 people were killed and at least 1,200 more were forcibly “disappeared;” nearly 1,000 people are still missing today.
However, the decision by Nepal’s main political parties to combine the TRC and CID into one Integrated Reconciliation Commission has met with strong opposition from both civilians and human rights activists within the country and the larger international human rights community. The main fears about a joint commission are that it is an attempt by the government to introduce blanket amnesty for past crimes and that, if amnesty is granted, victims will never receive the justice they deserve.The waters of accountability have been muddied by combining the processes of determining culpability for past crimes and the future reconciliation of the country. As Eak Raj Bhandari, a Maoist lawmaker whose son was arrested and murdered during the war, bemoaned, “This is just political negotiation, but the families of victims will get nothing. Fearing prosecution, our leaders negotiated amnesty.”
The government has insisted that reopening past cases with the intention of prosecution will serve no useful purpose to the country and that investigation should be undertaken only in the spirit of “forgiving and forgetting.” However, human rights groups contend that the formation of an Integrated Reconciliation Commission has made the victims the first casualty. Before political leaders even met April 19, roughly 150 civilians and human rights activists staged a four-hour sit-in April 18 outside the Constituent Assembly building at Naya Baneshwor in Kathmandu.They urged the parties to establish separate, independent commissions and reject the introduction of blanket amnesty for past crimes. As Charan Prasain, the Chairman of the Joint Forum for Human Rights asserted, broad amnesty would encourage a culture of impunity with little accountability for corruption and misconduct. He went on to explain, “the leaders, it seems, have forgotten their past and lost moral values. They must realize the importance of human rights and act to uphold citizens’ rights.”
While these initial protests were largely ignored by political leaders, public condemnation of the Integrated Reconciliation Commission has continued to mount. Many activists have accused the government of impeding the process of accountable justice and reneging on past agreements to investigate and prosecute perpetrators of human rights abuses. As Govinda Sharma Bandi, a human rights advocate, inveighed, “this is against the spirit of the Interim Constitution and Comprehensive Peace Accord which explicitly mention separate TRC and CID to handle transitional justice.”
Bandhi’s criticisms were echoed when the Campaign for Civil Society against General Amnesty, which represents more than 100 rights organizations in Nepal, voiced the disapproval of its members on April 20, warning, “we want to draw the attention of the political parties that we may not recognize such a commission and may not provide our support in the future.”
On April 23, Human Rights Watch and the International Commission of Jurists released a joint statement calling on Nepali leaders to abide by post-war peace agreements that mandate the unbiased investigation and prosecution of violations of international human rights law.
Both organizations have expressed their opinion that “amnesty for gross human rights abuses – such as torture, including rape and enforced disappearances – would violate international law…. Amnesty for these crimes would also contradict well-established Nepal Supreme Court jurisprudence and the government’s own public commitments at the UN Human Rights Council.”
Himalayan Times, Apr. 18; Himalayan Times, Apr. 19; Himalayan Times, Apr. 20; Himalayan Times, Apr. 21; Himalayan Times, Himalayan Times, Human Rights Watch, Apr. 23; Indian Express, Apr. 24, 2012.
By Alexandra Copper. Send comments to acopper@sandiego.edu
On hiatus.
On hiatus.
Return to Peace & Justice Update front page.
