Legal experts, political activists, and victims of the armed insurgency have criticized the nine-point deal struck between major ruling partners CPN-UML and UCPN (Maoist) Thursday night, claiming that it poses a serious threat to rule of law and promotes impunity. The two parties had agreed in their deal to initiate amendment of the laws on transitional justice within 15 days, register ownership of the lands that were transacted on the strength of household papers during the conflict era on the basis of those same documents, and immediately initiate a process for the withdrawal or amnestying of political cases filed during the insurgency era and at other times. Advocate Deependra Jha said that the nine-point deal contradicts the Supreme Court verdict of February 26, 2015. The Supreme Court on February 26, 2015, annulled controversial provisions of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) and Commission of Investigation on Enforced Disappeared Persons (CIEDP) Act that gave discretionary powers to the transitional justice mechanisms to grant amnesty and to the Ministry of Peace and Reconstruction to prosecute human rights violations. A special bench of Justices Kalyan Shrestha, Baidyanath Upadhyaya, and Cholendra SJB Rana had also made it clear that cases that are sub judice at various courts cannot be transferred to the commissions. Clause 13 (2) of the Act states, "Whatever is contained in the prevailing laws, the commission shall investigate into cases relating to incidents that occurred during the armed conflict which are sub judice at various courts and agencies, in consultation with the courts and agencies concerned." "Instead of initiating incorporation of the court orders into the Act, the ruling coalition has decided to initiate a process to withdraw or give clemency in political cases filed during the insurgency period. This agreement poses a serious threat to rule of law and gives rise to impunity," said Advocate Govinda Sharma Bandi. "The government should fulfill the responsibility of executing verdicts from the courts but the nine-point deal instead challenges the court verdicts. If the government takes initiatives as per the agreement between the two parties, it would be in contempt of court," he added. Another advocate, Raju Prasad Chapagain, said the apex court order had reminded the government of the international obligations of the country and helped make the transitional justice system compatible with international laws and standards. "If the verdict is not obeyed or any political decision is taken challenging it, conflict victims will be forced to seek justice outside the country's borders since human rights fall under international jurisdiction," said Chapagain. "If the state does not show a willingness to deliver justice to the conflict victims, it will escalate the further conflict. The parties failed to understand that their political moves could further strengthen the possibilities of victims taking the conflict-era cases to the international level," he added. Chapagain opined that if political moves obstruct the system of justice from taking its natural course, it would not be a sustainable solution. "Anything incompatible with international law, Nepal's international commitments and obligations and the Supreme Court's orders could not be sustained for long," he added. Advocate Bandi also said that the agreement is unconstitutional and goes against the Supreme Court verdict and the Comprehensive Peace Accord that accords high regard for human rights, justice, rule of law, and the ending of impunity. Likewise, the Conflict Victims Common Platform (CVCP) has expressed serious concern over the nine-point deal between the two parties and said that it has forced them into believing that the government and the political parties are in no mood to ensure justice to the victims. "We cannot accept any move to provide clemency to the perpetrators of serious human rights violations, including murder, disappearances, rape, and violation of humanitarian law," stated the CVCP in a press release issued Friday. The CVCP has insisted that the Act on transitional justice can be amended only on the basis of the Supreme Court verdict. Chairman of the CVCP Suman Adhikari said that the agreement has made a mockery of the rule of law. "This agreement has proved that the government and the political parties are trying to convert the transitional justice mechanisms into mere formalities rather than institutions for delivering justice to the conflict victims," he said.