Nepal’s human rights record has once again been scrutinised at the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) in Geneva, and found lacking. This does not come as a surprise: there has been absolutely no progress on tackling human rights violations that occurred during the conflict. None of the provisions regarding human rights in the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) have been addressed. These primarily include the establishment of two institutions—a Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) and a Disappearance Commission. In 2012, the parties agreed on a draft of a new ordinance that merged these two commissions. The President approved the ordinance but in January this year, the Supreme Court struck it down. The Court’s verdict required the political parties to make serious revisions to the ordinance.

It is high time the parties sat down to finally resolve the outstanding disputes regarding bills on transitional justice matters. This is necessary not just for Nepal to uphold its international commitments but also to provide adequate redress and justice for victims of human rights violations committed during the conflict. Some parties, particularly the UCPN (Maoist) and the CPN-Maoist, have been pushing for the swift formation of the TRC. However, it is worrying that these parties seem keen to push the very ordinance that was rejected by the Supreme Court through Parliament. It must be noted that the old ordinance has no legitimacy—both domestically and internationally. The task of the parties is to carefully study the Supreme Court judgment and devise an ordinance that fulfills its requirements.

There are broadly two issues here: first, the Court has said that there need to be two separate commissions—for TRC and Disappearances—and they cannot be merged into one. Second, the judgment states that the old ordinance’s allowance for widespread amnesty, even for serious crimes, is unacceptable.

The Maoists and the other parties have to come to terms with the Court judgment and find ways to draft bills that are politically acceptable within the terms of the judgment. In addition, the parties would do well to reach out to various sections of civil society, victims’ groups and human rights organisations, as has been ordered by the Court. One major problem in the past has been that the parties have not taken diverse views into account when formulating draft bills. This has only further antagonised victims’ and human rights organisations. For their part, these organisations should now take a more constructive position and engage with the parties on how their disagreements can be resolved. If they continue to oppose decisions by the political parties, the transitional justice process will only become further delayed. In addition to open activism, confidential negotiation between the various groups may be necessary. All sides should remember that it is in the nation’s interest to have functioning transitional justice institutions as soon as possible.