Family members in Nepal hold a vigil in front of the number 1350, symbolizing the number of Nepalis who disappeared during the conflict

Survivors of the Maoist rebellion which ravaged Nepal between 1996 and 2006 have welcomed a new law that will prosecute serious abuses committed by both sides during the conflict and offer reparations to victims and their families.

The package was unanimously agreed on Wednesday (August 14) by Nepal’s federal parliament after months of negotiations between the three main political parties, breaking an 18-year deadlock in the search for transitional justice.

The law attempts to ensure legal accountability while achieving national consensus – a challenge that has faced many nations making the transition from war to peace. Several provisions are modeled on the truth commission in South Africa that was set up after the end of apartheid, and the peace agreement that ended the civil war in Colombia.

The new Nepali law establishes four categories of “serious violations of human rights” – rape, disappearances, summary killings and torture. But the law also allows for a 75% reduction in punishment for three of the offenses. Rape will be fully prosecuted.

The law also revives two commissions to investigate disappearances and promote truth and reconciliation. Another major provision will set up a fund to offer reparations to survivors from both sides, including families of security personnel killed during the conflict.

Passage of the law has been welcomed by the US, the UN and the European Union, all of which had rejected previous transitional justice proposals from the Nepali government. Dean Thomspon, the US ambassador, posted on X: “Congratulations to the people of Nepal. This is a meaningful moment in Nepal’s journey to shaping its own peaceful, prosperous, resilient, and democratic future.”

The law has also been praised by China and Switzerland. The Swiss government helped to broker the deal and funded two visits by Nepali officials to Colombia to study that country’s transition from war to peace.

*

Although the support of the international community is now assured, the new law appears to have deepened a rift between human rights advocates and survivors.

Ram Bhandari, whose father disappeared during the conflict in December 2001 and who coordinates a national network of survivors and victims, described the new law as “historic and transformative” in a phone call from Kathmandu. “It addresses the needs of survivors and represents our views,” he said.

Mr Bhandari met with political leaders to lobby for the law on the eve of the vote and recently appealed to the UN Security Council on behalf of missing persons in conflict. He has partnered with The Advocacy Project (AP) since 2015.

However the new law was denounced by Accountability Watch Committee, a group of Nepali human rights advocates and lawyers with close ties to the International Commission of Jurists. A statement by the group said that the 75% reduction in sentences amounts to an amnesty and violates the principle that an independent judiciary should determine punishment.

The statement also challenged the assumption that the voice of survivors should take priority over others: “It is essential to recognize that ensuring accountability for serious violations is not just a matter for conflict victims but a legitimate concern for the post-conflict society as a whole.”

*

The new law in Nepal rounds off one of the most successful peace processes of modern times.

In addition to ending a brutal conflict that took thousands of lives and resulted in over 1,300 disappearances, the 2006 agreement integrated Maoist fighters into the army, restored democracy, ended the monarchy and laid the foundation for a new constitution. In the years since, Nepalis have voted for reconciliation by electing the Maoist leader Pushpa Kamal Dahal prime minister on three occasions.

Transitional justice was supposed to be one of the main pillars of the 2006 agreement but has lagged far behind the politics. A 2014 law established the two commissions and proposed an amnesty for human rights violators, but the law was denounced by survivors, advocates, Western embassies and the UN as incompatible with international law. The Supreme Court of Nepal declared the law to be unconstitutional in 2015.

Nonetheless the two commissions started work, triggering a major split over strategy between survivors and advocates. Survivors opted for “critical engagement” with the commissions even as they demanded accountability. But human rights advocates called for a boycott of the commissions and were supported by the UN and Western embassies. AP first reported on the disagreement in 2016.

The new law attempts to thread the needle between principle and pragmatism. While there will be no amnesty for the serious violations, the maximum sentence will be capped at 6.25 years in jail – equivalent to 25% of the maximum term for murder under Nepali law – for all categories except rape.

The decision over who to prosecute will be left to the two commissions, which will run for four years and make recommendations to the Attorney General. The ten members of the commissions will be selected by a committee led by a former Chief Justice.

Lesser crimes will be dealt with under Nepali law and could well result in no action being taken. But victims will be allowed to seek reconciliation with their aggressors and appeal to the courts if they remain unsatisfied.

When asked why he supports the legal compromise given that his own father disappeared, Mr Bhandari said it is highly unlikely that evidence could be found to prosecute his father’s killers at this late stage.

“We cannot prolong the deadlock,” he said. “It’s been a long wait and survivors want to know the truth in their lifetime. As for those who killed my father, if they were to speak the truth I would forgive them.”

Mr Bhandari also repeated an argument he has made many times: most survivors and families live far from Kathmandu in marginalized communities and need reparations, social recognition and the truth more than they need to see perpetrators brought to trial.

*

While savoring passage of the new law, Mr Bhandari predicted a lively debate ahead over reparations and the appointment of new members to the two commissions.

Mr Bhandari’s network issued a statement on August 14 insisting that survivors must agree with the selection of commissioners.

Survivors are also demanding that the reparations fund be “owned” by Nepal, although the UN is also reported to be angling for control. Ultimately this decision may rest with donors that would be expected to contribute to the new fund. Many donors were disillusioned by Nepal’s handling of billions of dollars of relief aid following the devastating 2015 earthquake.

It remains to be seen whether the reconciliation provisions will satisfy survivors. The process will be determined by the new commission on Truth and Reconciliation and appears to be modeled on the South African Truth Commission, which allowed survivors to confront their tormentors in person. While the hearings were deeply cathartic for South African society as a whole, some perpetrators ignored the subpoena to appear and victims often felt short-changed by a mere apology. Very few prosecutions resulted from the Commission’s work.

Although Western governments have come out in favor of the new law in Nepal it is unclear whether advocates will seek to impede the process and whether international human rights organizations would back them if they did.

The Thursday statement from Accountability Watch Committee pledged to continue the struggle and said that “efforts to address the serious legal flaws through further amendments of judicial interpretation will once again be necessary.”

The Nepal government is taking no chances and is said to be planning a major address to the September meeting of the UN General Assembly.

Mr Bhandari said that survivors may also consult influential human rights experts such as Bernard Duhaime, a Canadian law professor who was recently appointed a special rapporteur on truth, justice and reparations by the UN.