The victims of the conflict have filed a petition in the Supreme Court against the amendments made to the Commission for Investigation, Truth and Reconciliation Act of Disappeared Persons.

On Sunday, 48 people representing victims from both the state and the then rebels filed a petition saying that the law has been amended to grant amnesty to those guilty of serious human rights violations in a circular manner. In the writ, it is demanded that some sections of the amended Act should be repealed. 

The law brought by the government in 2071 contained a provision to grant general amnesty to those guilty of serious human rights violations. But the transitional justice process was blocked for a long time when the law was not amended in accordance with the mandate. After a long struggle, the dissatisfaction of the conflict victims was also seen in the amendment made last August. 

Some of the amendments made recently were also victim-friendly, and the victims had 'critically accepted' that if qualified officials were chosen fairly and the commission worked in a transparent manner, they would have their support.

However, due to the intervention of the committee formed by the government under the coordination of former Chief Justice Omprakash Mishra, the victims reached the court after failing to recommend officers to both the commissions. This has increased the possibility of prolongation of the transitional justice process.

The conflict victims demand that the investigation of the previous complaints given to the Disappearance Investigation Commission and the Truth and Reconciliation Commission should be done according to the original law.

"When investigating according to the current law, the right to systematic equality in the constitution, even the right of the crime victim, goes against the law," the petition filed as an opponent from the government to the National Human Rights Commission states, "The amendment made to the original law is flawed and unconstitutional and illegal." 

9 reasons/grounds for revoking the amended law have been submitted by the victims. Victims argue that since no murder can be serious and no murder can be classified into two categories, impunity will increase if those who violate human rights are acquitted, and the provision of 75 percent sentence exemption for those guilty of serious human rights violations will violate the jurisprudence of criminal justice.  The

victim compared the old and new provisions and analyzed the impact they could have. Under the Basic Act, 'serious violation of human rights' includes murder, kidnapping and body hostage, disappearance of person, mutilation or maiming, physical and mental torture, rape and sexual violence, robbery of personal or public property, seizure, vandalism or arson, extortion from real estate. Expulsion or displacement by any other means and any kind of inhumane acts or crimes against humanity committed in violation of international human rights or humanitarian law. In the amended law, 'serious violations of human rights' include 'forced or serious sexual violence', 'targeted or planned killings against unarmed persons or the public, intentional or arbitrary killings, acts of disappearance and inhuman or cruel torture'.&nbsp ;

Victims argue that the amended provision, which prohibits killing or torturing even unarmed persons, violates international human rights laws. The victim claims that only if it is confirmed that the killing was 'deliberately or arbitrarily', it will be a serious violation of human rights, and the victim is trying to open a way to give immunity to the perpetrator. Section 13 (2) of the