Nepal: Will new laws offer closure to war crime victims?

Thousands of people in Nepal are still waiting for justice 20 years after tens of thousands were tortured, raped, killed and forcibly disappeared during a decade-long bloody conflict between the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) and government forces.
Long-delayed amendments to legislation aimed at addressing the war crimes committed during the 1996-2006 civil war are expected to finally offer justice to victims like Laxmi Khadka.
Khadka last saw her husband, Dil Bahadur, on March 13, 2004, when they were eating dinner with their three children at home in their village in Bardiya district in western Nepal.
The meal was disrupted by a group of Maoist soldiers who entered their family home and dragged Bahadur outside, claiming they needed to “discuss some things.”
He never returned.
Two weeks later, a local newspaper reported that the Maoist group had “eliminated” Bahadur as a suspected enemy — although no evidence supported this claim, so Khadka refused to believe that he had been killed. 
“He was an ordinary man who had returned home for a few days after months of working in India,” she told DW, recalling how she even went looking for her missing husband in the forests near their home.
“It was dangerous, not only because of wild animals but also due to the conflict,” she said.
The brutal Maoist insurgency, led by the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) to overthrow the monarchy, ended in 2006 with over 13,000 people dead and around 1,300 missing. 
The government of Nepal and the Maoists signed the Comprehensive Peace Accord (CPA), which cleared the way for the establishment of two transitional justice mechanisms — the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) and the Commission of Investigation on Enforced Disappeared Persons (CIEDP).
The commissions were formed to address the human rights violations and crimes against humanity that were committed during the conflict, but they have faced legal challenges.
A 2015 Supreme Court ruling struck down parts of the law that established the TRC and CIEDP, “in particular because they were empowered to grant amnesties to perpetrators of serious crimes under international law,” according to Human Rights Watch.
“The law was weak, making it difficult for victims, human rights activists, and civil society to coordinate effectively with the commissions,” lawyer Om Prakash Aryal told DW.
He claimed that the government delayed appointing commission members, which risked the destruction of criminal evidence.
“The lawmakers included former government officials and Maoists,” Aryal said.
“They blocked international intervention to ensure impunity for actions taken during the conflict.”
Nepal’s Supreme Court directed the government to revise certain parts of the act.
In July this year, the three major parties — the Nepali Congress, Communist Party of Nepal (Unified Marxist-Leninist), and Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist Centre) — formed a mechanism to find common ground on the contentious provisions in the bill.
They reached a written agreement on the bill earlier this month, and on August 14, Nepal’s lower house of parliament approved the long-delayed amendments to the transitional justice act.
Ram Kumar Bhandari, whose father disappeared during the conflict, sees this as a “historic achievement.”
Bhandari believes new legal provisions incorporate assurances of truth, justice, and reparation but await the law’s effective implementation.
“We’ve been entangled in the legal and political web for years. Now, we expect an emphasis on the basic needs of grassroots victims and survivors, rather than just legal aspects,” he told DW.
Prakash Chaudhary, who was forcibly disappeared by the state for 82 days in 2002, welcomed the changes.
In 2005, Chaudhary’s younger brother, who was still in school, was killed for allegedly buying instant noodles for the Maoists.
“Our family spent years waiting for justice,” said Prakash. “If the new law punishes those responsible for our suffering, our long wait will have been worth it.”
However, some human rights activists and organizations have pointed out that problematic provisions remain, including the definition and classification of human rights violations.
Lawyer Om Prakash Aryal noted that the definitions are inconsistent with international human rights standards.
“They do not address issues related to child soldiers and crimes against humanity, which are mentioned in the peace agreement and the interim constitution,” he said.
“How can any victim be satisfied when such issues are not addressed by the law?”
Lenin Bista, who was recruited as a Maoist soldier at age 12, shares a similar opinion: “We have been advocating for economic and psychosocial support for child soldiers. But the government continues to deny our existence even in the transitional justice law.”
A joint statement from Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and the International Commission of Jurists highlighted that while the law includes several positive provisions, it also has elements that could undermine its effectiveness.
“Transitional justice should not turn into yet another exercise in which victims are encouraged to accept compensation without truth and justice,” the statement said.
Khadka, who struggles with the legal jargon used by leaders and organizations, awaits guidance on the next steps. Justice for her means knowing her husband’s fate.
“If they prove that my husband was killed, I will perform his last rites,” she said. “That will be the most painful truth, but I believe his soul will finally find peace.”
Edited by: Keith Walker