Not flying

REPUBLICA The proposed TRC The proposed Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) that the four main political forces settled on prior to the formation of the Chief Justice-led government has, predicatively, run into heavy weather. The ‘new and improved’ TRC was agreed in a package deal on new government formation without much consultation with conflict victims and the human rights community. It was highly unlikely that conflict victims who have had to wait for justice for years on end would agree to a mechanism settled within four walls among an extremely limited number of relevant actors. Now it appears that the diplomatic missions in Kathmandu, particularly the Europeans, are unconvinced about the proposed TRC as well, and seem all set to pile on pressure for vital amendments. In their reckoning, the proposed TRC falls woefully short of meeting Nepal’s international obligations. Such a backlash was inevitable given the opacity of the political deal that finalized the TRC ordinance. The ambiguous language of the ordinance has only added fuel to the fire. Section 2 of the ordinance outlines nine kinds of serious human rights violations, but there is no section in the whole ordinance that makes the perpetrators of crimes listed under Section 2 culpable. Likewise, the commission has been asked to work under the Ministry of Peace and Reconstruction, instead of making it directly answerable to the government, putting a big question mark over its independence. But the most disconcerting aspect of the TRC ordinance comprise sections 22 to 29, which in a roundabout language provisions for general amnesty even to those involved in serious human rights violations during the conflict. For instance, it is feared that the commission’s prerogative to grant amnesty “on the basis of sufficient reasons” could be easily abused to protect rights violators with strong political connections. Granting justice to conflict victims is an important part of the peace process and should be dealt with the seriousness it deserves. Intentional or not, it was a big mistake of the Big Four to push through the TRC ordinance without even consulting the relevant stakeholders. They seem to have forgotten that who gets to lead the new government can be a matter of political give and take, but the question of justice for thousands of victims of grave rights violations is not something that can be settled on their diktat. There is a fear that a sufficiently empowered TRC could push the country into another conflict by opening up old wounds. Yes, retribution should never be the TRC’s goal, and great care must be taken not to make it a tool to settle political scores. But it is inconceivable that the TRC can be formalized without adequate consultations with those it meant for. In fact, if the TRC is seen as inherently flawed, conflict victims are likely to take matters into their own hands—as has been recently happening in the case of Balkrishna Dhungel, the former Maoist lawmaker who has been convicted of murder by the Supreme Court. This goes to show that if the victims do not get a say in the matter, the whole purpose of the transitional justice mechanisms will be defeated   Published on 2013-03-21 01:20:40  http://www.myrepublica.com/portal/index.php?action=news_details&news_id=51827