Down comes the gavel Op-ed by Ram Bhandari

On February 26, 2015, the Supreme Court of Nepal ruled against the provision in the transitional justice act that grants amnesty to alleged perpetrators of conflict-era crimes and made victims’ consent mandatory for successful reconciliation. The ruling maximizes the opportunity for advancing a victim-centered approach to transitional justice, particularly in light of the fact that the victims’ representatives were excluded from the recently formed commissions on truth and reconciliation and on enforced disappearance. Despite the Court’s progressive decision, significant questions remain, all of which must be addressed in an open and democratic manner. First is the role that alleged perpetrators might play in hampering the commissions’ work. After the Nepal Army officials openly warned against any investigation into their actions and any disclosure of the names of army suspects, there has been a renewed fear of injustice among the victims. Second is the role of the commissioners themselves. They were selected without any consultation with the victims, and if they continue to do the same while carrying out their duties, they may further alienate the affected families and victims’ groups. Winning trust Victims’ engagement is absolutely essential to the process of transitional justice. It provides legitimacy to the commissions and establishes a foundation for progressive change that will heal the wounds of the conflict-affected. True progress on transitional justice can be made only when the crimes committed during the conflict are recognized and the victims’ role in the larger, national context realized. This role must be defined and ensured within the structure of the commissions, for example by including victims’ representatives in the staff. And the victims must have the power to place their agendas at the center of the transitional justice process. Currently, however, there is confusion among victims about the mandates of the newly formed commissions. Greater awareness of their roles is critical before investigations begin. As a body that represents a group highly interested in the commissions’ outcomes, the newly established Conflict Victims Common Platform is in an excellent position to collaborate with the commissions moving forward. The Common Platform can help create an environment of trust, and facilitate the process of victims’ participation and their representation. It can help collect testimonies to establish an accurate historical record of human rights violations. The commissions are yet to win the trust of victims. If both the commissions consider the Common Platform as a potential partner and are willing to work together to develop a strategy, victims are likely to contribute to the transitional justice process. The formation of the victims’ group represents a significant step forward for the community. Indeed, it has signified that the victims no longer want to just follow but act proactively to make the transitional justice victims-centered. Others might seek to marginalize the victims further for personal or political gain, but they shall know that they are on the wrong side of history. A new dimension It is clear now that the political transition—although it should be called a humanitarian process, or a ‘people’s transition’—needs political will to fully address the legacy of conflict. Victims’ groups, including the Common Platform, have welcomed and respected the Supreme Court rulings (June 2007, January 2014, and February 2015) made on behalf of truth, justice, and reparations. We are all waiting for the commissions to implement the verdicts and watching them closely. In a press statement issued on March 6, UN High Commissioner ZeidRa’ad Al Hussein said, “I welcome the government’s prior commitment to abide by the Supreme Court’s decision and I trust this will now be given effect.” The government is obliged to adopt and implement the ruling of the apex court. It must also listen to the victims’ demands for their rights. Zeid also said that it was essential that the commissions adopted the victim-centered approach, as many victims have felt completely excluded from the process so far. Significantly, the High Commissioner acknowledged the victims’ movement and that “a wide range of victims’ groups [had] recently united to form the Conflict Victims Common Platform on Transitional Justice.” He noted that a number of other issues needed to be prioritized for the transitional justice agenda to be fulfilled in Nepal. “These include ensuring that all gross violations of international human rights law, including torture and enforced disappearances, are explicitly prohibited as criminal offenses under domestic law, in line with international standards,” said Zeid. The Common Platform insists that its agenda—including demands for truth, justice, reparations, a commitment to non-repetition, and respect for victims’ dignity and agency—become a national issue and be considered a common agenda. It demands a process that has concrete impacts at both the local and national levels. The legacy of conflict-era violations is not only a high-level political problem but also a local-level social problem that needs to be addressed. The mobilization of victims to create the Common Platform demonstrates that if the process at the top fails to address the issues, there is no possibility of reconciling Nepali society at the local level. The victims’ agendas have gained another dimension and must be considered seriously. Victims’ groups, including the Common Platform, must be seen as real, legitimate transitional actors, and their role in the transitional justice process should be formally defined for constructive solutions to peace. Bhandari is General Secretary of the Conflict Victims Common Platf