The full and honest implementation of comprehensive peace agreements or peace agreements after armed conflicts will ensure that lasting peace will be established in such countries and that violence will not recur.

A related study by the Kroc Institute (University of Notre Dame) in the United States evaluated the success of 34 comprehensive peace agreements and hundreds of partial agreements based on 51 indicators. In some countries, instability and violence have returned, impunity and crime have increased, and economic progress has not been possible.

Recently, a deadly attack on a presidential candidate in Colombia and incidents of violence have hit the headlines. In the context of Nepal, it has been almost two decades since a comprehensive peace agreement was reached and an important aspect of the peace process is yet to be implemented in the implementation of transitional justice.

Although there are no major incidents of violence, impunity and crime have increased and victims have not received justice. Nepal is becoming a country where justice has been lost for conflict victims. The country is facing political turmoil and instability. The promise of economic-social transformation is like the fruits of the sky, even the general economic development has not been able to accelerate. 

In the Comprehensive Peace Agreement 2063 and the Interim Constitution of Nepal 2063, it was mentioned that commissions would be formed to investigate the persons who disappeared during the conflict and investigate the truth about the persons involved in serious violations of human rights and crimes against humanity and to create an atmosphere of reconciliation and conduct transitional justice. Although the two main tasks related to the peace process with the Maoists have been completed by the Constituent Assembly, the tasks of constitution making and weapons and military management have been completed.

In the year 2071, the Commission for Investigation, Truth and Reconciliation of Disappeared Persons Act was promulgated, although two commissions have been formed and worked in this regard, due to the delay in the amendment of the law as per the instructions given by the Supreme Court, the work of transitional justice has not been done except for the collection of about 64,000 complaints of conflict victims and some data. Conflict victims and stakeholders will be denied access to justice. Disappointed, he started a movement and had to arouse the interest of the government.

Existing situation

Even after the Supreme Court ruled that the Act on Transitional Justice is in conflict with the Constitution and violates Nepal's human rights commitments, even after instructing to amend the law, almost a decade of political wrangling and a dispute over who should take credit for the exit ended. However, the top levels of the three major parties agreed to amend the law.

Finally, on August 13, 2081, the third amendment was made to the Act and this amendment mainly clarified the issue of serious violation of human rights, provision of special court, provision of additional time for victims who could not file a complaint within three months, right of compensation and non-amnesty to a person who seriously violates human rights. Although some commented that the amendment of the Act was not sufficient, the amendment of the Act was generally welcomed.

The current government also got credit for this work. But the appointment of officers of the transitional justice commissions was delayed. The committee recommending the appointment could not make the recommendation during its tenure . The committee could not withstand political interference and the term expired. The legal system related to

recommendation is narrow, voices were heard that those who can listen to the pain of the conflict victims and find the truth and make reconciliation, who can bring the victim and the perpetrator in the same chamber and communicate with human sensitivity should be identified and appointed as commission officials . In particular, there was a demand that the recommendation committee should sit in the room and give up the method of technical evaluation and dialogue with the conflict victims and special stakeholders to recommend the officials, but the recommendation committee could not make a recommendation .

There was confusion for a few months. Again a political consensus was reached and another recommendation committee consisting mostly of the same people was formed . This committee recommended the names of the office bearers of the commission on the basis of so-called political consensus and technical assessment. These commissions called upon the conflict victims to file a complaint immediately after the appointment of the officials, if they had not filed a complaint before. Despite the overwhelming opposition to the overall appointment process of the conflict victims' representatives, the officials of this commission have not attempted to meet them.  Although human rights organizations and representative organizations of conflict victims strongly opposed and disagreed with the restarted recommendation process for appointments to

commissions, the recommendation committee published a short list of candidates. These organizations disagreed with that through a statement. Neither the government nor the recommendation committee communicated with these representative organizations. They did not consider it necessary to address their grievances.

Victims' representatives were vilified and commissions were formed. On June 21, 2082, 24 human rights organizations active in the field of transitional justice announced through a statement that transitional justice cannot solve the process of losing the trust and legitimacy of the victims. He brought about the establishment of a Citizen Truth Commission on the initiative of citizens. The conflict victims have been boycotting both commissions. They have launched a campaign to boycott the commissions even outside Kathmandu. 

Possible scenarios

If the current protests and exclusion of conflict victims and human rights activists continue, it seems unlikely that the commissions formed by the government will be able to perform the targeted performance. There seems to be a risk that the officials of the past commission will be satisfied with the mechanical functions of the administrative secretariat, where the doctor who does not see the patient will only take a salary.

In a very disappointing situation, the commissions will pass the time, submit status reports, but the issue of transitional justice seems likely to linger. Such violations will not be suppressed if some political parties and stakeholders covertly interfere with weak commissions and create clout to hide serious human rights cases. Addressing the voices of national and international human rights activists and victims will become increasingly complex. There is a strong possibility that the country will once again fall into the abyss of instability.

On the other hand, no matter how much the Citizen Truth Commission tries to hold public hearings in parallel and listen to the voices of the victims with human sensitivity, it will not be an official effort. Such an act cannot give rise to the binding duty of the state apparatus. Again, the tasks of transitional justice, truth, reconciliation and reparation will remain incomplete.

This effort will weaken official commissions and make it easier for them to submit reports of a technical nature. Such reports shall cover only state-controlled articles and delivery methods. There is a strong risk that victims' chances of healing their wounds and getting timely compensation will be pushed back even further. Such parallel actions from both sides will not only not allow the implementation of transitional justice, but will also lead to conflict and instability. 

A small possibility in the possible scenario is that the interest of all parties towards transitional justice will increase and find suitable solutions to solve the current problems. Especially the victims of conflict, human rights workers, international stakeholders, political parties and parties involved in the conflict, all of them are essential components of the peace process: identification of the missing, investigation of the conflict incidents, dialogue between the victims and the perpetrators, truth-telling, correct accounting of memories and reconciliation in the society. These are not things that can be forgotten, forgotten.

It is equally necessary to do justice to all conflict victims and make them feel it. It is important to find suitable means of sustenance for a dignified life. It is not enough for the commissions to show that it is not enough to discuss some issues or try to communicate, the technical report is not enough, it is necessary to address the citizen's voice. There may also be a situation where

political intervention or the search for short-cuts will increase instability. If this is the case, there may be an official effort to seriously reconsider the process that has been carried out and listen to the voice of the victim. If done right, it could be a form of transitional justice or even a bridge between dialogue and cooperation between official commissions and civil hearing efforts.

Prerequisites and suggestions

is often accepted by the stakeholders and appropriate justice is done by understanding the pain of the victim, to ensure that such incidents do not happen again when the perpetrator is blamed, serious human rights violators receive appropriate punishment and the victim not only reconciles, but also has the right to compensation with respect, it is necessary for the government, commissions, political parties and human rights workers to accept some conditions and make some public promises. 

Political parties should resolve not to intervene, not to play with the basic principles and structures of transitional justice for temporary political power accumulation, not to influence the process of justice delivery, in a public and practical manner. However, it is also necessary to show readiness to support and facilitate dialogue.

Officers of the official commission must honestly self-assess and understand the seriousness of the task of delivering justice to the victim and identify their ability to communicate with awareness of human dignity and the sensitivity of the victim, whether or not they can give justice without understanding the staff tendency of the process. If you feel that this task cannot be done, if you feel that you cannot be free, then you should resign and vacate the place. If you feel like you can break a story and have the confidence to be independent, you must acquire the necessary skills, competencies, and expertise without haste. All other technical work should be stopped and direct/indirect dialogue should be started immediately with the representatives of the affected parties and human rights activists. To serve the victim must be dedicated to what they have taken responsibility for, just as a doctor takes a vow to serve the patient. 

In addition to taking a non-interventionist policy, the government should show readiness to amend the law if necessary, reorganize the commissions, broaden the basis of recommendations and provide resources in every way to address the voices of victims and human rights workers. Priority should be taken to initiate dialogue with victims' organizations in a transparent and responsible manner.

Victims' representative organizations and human rights activists should also adopt the official efforts for transitional justice, albeit through a hybrid model, and help create an environment where justice is delivered as quickly as possible with a sense of cooperation. You should try to find a way out through dialogue. Warning and pressure for justice is appropriate but exclusion forever is not a suitable solution, it should be noted.

A quick exit ensures that the victim gets justice and redress quickly. At the local level, dialogue and truth-telling, documentation of memoirs, and indirect and direct dialogue should be sought at the citizen level to guarantee independent justice. If all the stakeholders and victims of the conflict come together, communicate and accept a common, single or mixed hybrid process and move forward, there is a possibility of a proper implementation of transitional justice within the next two to three years.