Transitional Justice in Nepal: Where Is It Heading?
July 31, 2025
min read
Transitional justice is one of the ways by which large-scale human rights violations are addressed so that the state can move forward to sustainable peace and reconciliation. It aims to recognize the victims, enhance the trust of individuals in state authority, strengthen respect for human rights, and promote the rule of law. According to OHCHR, transitional justice refers to four specific areas of judicial and non-judicial activity that are used by countries while moving from armed conflict to peace, which are: Truth seeking, Prosecution, Reparations to the victim, and Institutional reform. Transitional justice consists of the process and mechanisms related to a nation’s attempt to come to terms with a past conflict, repression, violations, and abuses to ensure accountability and justice.
In the case of Nepal, it has been almost two decades since the signing of the Comprehensive Peace Accord on 21 November 2006. In the concluded agreement, both parties agreed to establish a high-level Truth and Reconciliation Commission to investigate those involved in serious violations of human rights and crimes against humanity in the course of the armed conflict and develop an atmosphere for reconciliation in the society. However, that took a long time; finally, in 2014, the Enforced Disappearances Inquiry, Truth and Reconciliation Commission Act, was promulgated. Following the Act, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and the Commission for Investigation on Enforced Disappeared persons were established, raising the hope for justice, but since the passing of the Act it fell into the widespread controversy and led to the filling of writ in the supreme court demanding the change of major provision, as a result the court quashed several provisions regarding amnesty. However, that wasn’t the end as the commission struggled to function, as per its objectives, and since 2022, both the commission are almost non-existent, whereas the civil society and victims were not satisfied with the governing Act and had been demanding for amendment, which finally took place in August 2024.
When discussing the provisions of the Amended Act, there is a classification into violations of human rights and serious violations of human rights under Sections 2(j) and 2(j) (1). Under this Act, violations of human rights are defined as "any act, except serious violations of human rights, committed in contravention of existing Nepali law, international human rights, or humanitarian law during the armed conflict by the parties involved, targeting unarmed individuals or communities, or committed in a planned manner. Likewise, Serious violations of human rights are defined as “rape or other forms of serious sexual violence, “intentional or arbitrary killing”,” enforced disappearances (where the whereabouts of the person remain still unknown)” and “inhuman or cruel torture,” targeting ‘unarmed individuals or communities, or committed in a “planned manner”. However, it is unclear whether the reference to “existing Nepali law” means the law at the time of the commission of an alleged crime or current law but it is widely assumed that since the law has come into force now, the reference to existing law means the law at present. Nevertheless, this classification is pivotal to determining the legal pathway for seeking redress and the types of remedies that are available.
After the classification, another important one is the provision of Amnesty. Under Section 26, the Act prohibits the granting of Amnesty in violation of serious human rights; however, with the victim’s consent, the amnesty is granted in case of a violation of human rights. However, the Act has provided 3 conditions that must be met for perpetrators to be eligible for an amnesty, even though it is unclear whether fulfillment of simply one or all conditions is required. The conditions are, perpetrator's admission of guilt, expression of regret, and apologies to the victims to their satisfaction, before the commission, and a commitment not to repeat such acts in the future. Likewise, under Section 13 (6) (a), it is necessary for victims of conflict-related sexual violence (CRSV), who have previously not registered their cases in the commission, will have a three-month for a one time to file the case. The time limitation to file the complaints begins once the chairperson and members are appointed. Despite this, many victims have been refusing to register their case due to concerns about confidentiality, a deep mistrust of the commission, and lastly, due to the stigma attached to sexual violence.
The Act under Section 22 (a) has recognized the reparation as a victim’s rights and provides that the right to reparation is not invalidated by circumstances like whether or not the identity of the perpetrator is known, whether or not mediation between the victims and the perpetrator takes place and whether or not a recommendation has or has not been made to grant an amnesty or, instead to initiate legal proceedings against the perpetrator.
In addition, under Section 29(a) (1), there’s the provision for the establishment of a three-member Special Court to try and resolve cases relating to serious violations of human rights referred to it by the Attorney General or a public prosecutor authorized by the Attorney General. Regarding the appeals against the Special Court’s decision, a designated joint bench of transitional justice in the Supreme Court will hear, whose justices will be selected by the chief justice. Under Section 38 (1), the tenure of the TRC and CIEDP members has been mentioned as 4 years, but it may be extended if the commission is unable to complete its work within the stipulated time. In contrast to the provision of sentencing, under Section 22 (1), if the victims and perpetrator submit a request for mediation to the commission, the commission shall facilitate mediation between them in cases of human rights violations. Under Section 23 (a), a Trust fund shall be established to support the commission’s investigation efforts, in providing relief and preparation, and fulfilling the broader objectives of the Act. And the contributions to this fund are to come from federal, provincial, and local governments, conflict parties, individuals, or organizational donations within Nepal, and foreign governments or international organizations.
Despite some positive changes brought by the Amendment, civil society and victims have claimed that significant challenges and gaps remain, such as problematic thresholds to qualify violations, ambiguity in defining torture, Act’s ultimate failure to comply with Nepal’s obligations under international law. The Amended TRC Act has failed to address all crimes under international law, including war crimes and crimes against humanity. It has failed to ensure that the punishments are equivalent to the gravity of the offences. Apart from the legal challenges, the unwillingness of the political parties to enforce the law is one of the major challenges of this Act. These problematic provisions have the potential to undermine international law and perpetuate impunity, and, therefore, these key concerns require further amendments and careful consideration by the TRC, CIEDP, prosecutors, and the Special Court to ensure that justice is not compromised.
While there exist legal challenges that need to be addressed, or rather amended, the focus also should be on the appointment of the eligible candidates to the TRC and CIEDP following a transparent process, considering the credentials of the commissioners rather than their close ties to the leaders of the political parties, create an environment where victims can easily register their cases and even testify, and create a transparent platform to coordinate donor support to both commissions, including the TJ basket fund to ensure that the fund is allocated proportionately across all components of TJ, including reparation and prosecution. The future of transitional justice in Nepal is uncertain. While there has been some encouraging progress in recent years, the process is far from over. The government must show a true commitment to dealing with the aftermath of the civil war and delivering justice for victims of human rights violations.
In conclusion, Nepal’s transitional justice stands at a crossroads. Despite the setbacks and delays, hopes are still alive for a more just and equitable society. Through consistent advocacy, reform, and international support, Nepal can move towards becoming a society where human rights are respected, justice administered, and reconciliation achieved.
In the case of Nepal, it has been almost two decades since the signing of the Comprehensive Peace Accord on 21 November 2006. In the concluded agreement, both parties agreed to establish a high-level Truth and Reconciliation Commission to investigate those involved in serious violations of human rights and crimes against humanity in the course of the armed conflict and develop an atmosphere for reconciliation in the society. However, that took a long time; finally, in 2014, the Enforced Disappearances Inquiry, Truth and Reconciliation Commission Act, was promulgated. Following the Act, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and the Commission for Investigation on Enforced Disappeared persons were established, raising the hope for justice, but since the passing of the Act it fell into the widespread controversy and led to the filling of writ in the supreme court demanding the change of major provision, as a result the court quashed several provisions regarding amnesty. However, that wasn’t the end as the commission struggled to function, as per its objectives, and since 2022, both the commission are almost non-existent, whereas the civil society and victims were not satisfied with the governing Act and had been demanding for amendment, which finally took place in August 2024.
When discussing the provisions of the Amended Act, there is a classification into violations of human rights and serious violations of human rights under Sections 2(j) and 2(j) (1). Under this Act, violations of human rights are defined as "any act, except serious violations of human rights, committed in contravention of existing Nepali law, international human rights, or humanitarian law during the armed conflict by the parties involved, targeting unarmed individuals or communities, or committed in a planned manner. Likewise, Serious violations of human rights are defined as “rape or other forms of serious sexual violence, “intentional or arbitrary killing”,” enforced disappearances (where the whereabouts of the person remain still unknown)” and “inhuman or cruel torture,” targeting ‘unarmed individuals or communities, or committed in a “planned manner”. However, it is unclear whether the reference to “existing Nepali law” means the law at the time of the commission of an alleged crime or current law but it is widely assumed that since the law has come into force now, the reference to existing law means the law at present. Nevertheless, this classification is pivotal to determining the legal pathway for seeking redress and the types of remedies that are available.
After the classification, another important one is the provision of Amnesty. Under Section 26, the Act prohibits the granting of Amnesty in violation of serious human rights; however, with the victim’s consent, the amnesty is granted in case of a violation of human rights. However, the Act has provided 3 conditions that must be met for perpetrators to be eligible for an amnesty, even though it is unclear whether fulfillment of simply one or all conditions is required. The conditions are, perpetrator's admission of guilt, expression of regret, and apologies to the victims to their satisfaction, before the commission, and a commitment not to repeat such acts in the future. Likewise, under Section 13 (6) (a), it is necessary for victims of conflict-related sexual violence (CRSV), who have previously not registered their cases in the commission, will have a three-month for a one time to file the case. The time limitation to file the complaints begins once the chairperson and members are appointed. Despite this, many victims have been refusing to register their case due to concerns about confidentiality, a deep mistrust of the commission, and lastly, due to the stigma attached to sexual violence.
The Act under Section 22 (a) has recognized the reparation as a victim’s rights and provides that the right to reparation is not invalidated by circumstances like whether or not the identity of the perpetrator is known, whether or not mediation between the victims and the perpetrator takes place and whether or not a recommendation has or has not been made to grant an amnesty or, instead to initiate legal proceedings against the perpetrator.
In addition, under Section 29(a) (1), there’s the provision for the establishment of a three-member Special Court to try and resolve cases relating to serious violations of human rights referred to it by the Attorney General or a public prosecutor authorized by the Attorney General. Regarding the appeals against the Special Court’s decision, a designated joint bench of transitional justice in the Supreme Court will hear, whose justices will be selected by the chief justice. Under Section 38 (1), the tenure of the TRC and CIEDP members has been mentioned as 4 years, but it may be extended if the commission is unable to complete its work within the stipulated time. In contrast to the provision of sentencing, under Section 22 (1), if the victims and perpetrator submit a request for mediation to the commission, the commission shall facilitate mediation between them in cases of human rights violations. Under Section 23 (a), a Trust fund shall be established to support the commission’s investigation efforts, in providing relief and preparation, and fulfilling the broader objectives of the Act. And the contributions to this fund are to come from federal, provincial, and local governments, conflict parties, individuals, or organizational donations within Nepal, and foreign governments or international organizations.
Despite some positive changes brought by the Amendment, civil society and victims have claimed that significant challenges and gaps remain, such as problematic thresholds to qualify violations, ambiguity in defining torture, Act’s ultimate failure to comply with Nepal’s obligations under international law. The Amended TRC Act has failed to address all crimes under international law, including war crimes and crimes against humanity. It has failed to ensure that the punishments are equivalent to the gravity of the offences. Apart from the legal challenges, the unwillingness of the political parties to enforce the law is one of the major challenges of this Act. These problematic provisions have the potential to undermine international law and perpetuate impunity, and, therefore, these key concerns require further amendments and careful consideration by the TRC, CIEDP, prosecutors, and the Special Court to ensure that justice is not compromised.
While there exist legal challenges that need to be addressed, or rather amended, the focus also should be on the appointment of the eligible candidates to the TRC and CIEDP following a transparent process, considering the credentials of the commissioners rather than their close ties to the leaders of the political parties, create an environment where victims can easily register their cases and even testify, and create a transparent platform to coordinate donor support to both commissions, including the TJ basket fund to ensure that the fund is allocated proportionately across all components of TJ, including reparation and prosecution. The future of transitional justice in Nepal is uncertain. While there has been some encouraging progress in recent years, the process is far from over. The government must show a true commitment to dealing with the aftermath of the civil war and delivering justice for victims of human rights violations.
In conclusion, Nepal’s transitional justice stands at a crossroads. Despite the setbacks and delays, hopes are still alive for a more just and equitable society. Through consistent advocacy, reform, and international support, Nepal can move towards becoming a society where human rights are respected, justice administered, and reconciliation achieved.
About the Authors
Rebati Thapa Magar
Currently studying BALLB at Nepal Law Campus. Interested in juvenile justice, legal research, and human rights.
View all posts by Rebati Thapa Magar