Research On Transitional Justice And Penal Law In Nepal Detailed Explanation With Case Law
Overview: Transitional Justice in Nepal
Transitional justice refers to measures adopted by states to address massive human rights violations during periods of conflict or authoritarian rule. Nepal experienced a 10-year Maoist insurgency (1996–2006), during which there were widespread allegations of extrajudicial killings, enforced disappearances, torture, and other crimes. After the Comprehensive Peace Accord (CPA) in 2006, Nepal adopted multiple mechanisms for accountability:
Commissions and Tribunals:
Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC), 2015 – investigate gross human rights violations, including torture and killings.
Commission on Investigation of Enforced Disappeared Persons (CIEDP), 2015 – focused on enforced disappearances.
Penal Law Instruments:
Nepal Penal Code, 2017 (Amendment of 2018) – criminalizes murder, torture, arbitrary detention, war crimes, crimes against humanity.
International Humanitarian Law (IHL) – incorporated into domestic law for prosecuting war crimes.
Objectives of Transitional Justice in Penal Law Context:
Criminal accountability for perpetrators of serious violations.
Victim reparations and rehabilitation.
Institutional reforms to prevent recurrence.
Case Studies
Case 1: Madiwala Massacre (2002)
Facts:
Occurred during the Maoist insurgency. Security forces were accused of firing on villagers suspected of supporting Maoists, killing over 10 civilians in Madiwala.
Legal Issues:
Alleged extrajudicial killing by state security personnel.
Liability under Penal Code Sections 203 (Murder) and 218 (Abuse of Official Power).
Court/Commission Findings:
TRC classified this as a gross human rights violation.
Some lower-ranking officers were recommended for criminal prosecution.
Significance:
Highlighted difficulties of prosecuting state actors in transitional contexts.
Case emphasized the need for both penal accountability and truth-telling.
Case 2: Enforced Disappearance of Krishna Prasad Bhattarai (2003)
Facts:
Krishna Prasad Bhattarai, a political activist, went missing during army operations in Rolpa.
Legal Issues:
Liability under Nepal Penal Code Section 208 (Illegal Detention), Section 215 (Kidnapping), and CIEDP Act 2015.
Findings:
CIEDP concluded that disappearance was state-led and recommended investigation and prosecution.
Case remains emblematic of slow enforcement; no convictions yet due to political interference.
Significance:
Demonstrates challenges in penal enforcement in transitional justice.
Highlighted need for evidence collection in conflict situations.
Case 3: Jajarkot Torture Allegation (2004)
Facts:
Civilians suspected of Maoist sympathies were allegedly tortured by security forces in detention centers in Jajarkot.
Legal Issues:
Nepal Penal Code Sections 236–238 (Torture, Abuse, and Cruel Treatment).
TRC investigated and classified it as a human rights violation.
Findings:
Some officers were recommended for prosecution.
Cases were delayed due to lack of witnesses and intimidation.
Significance:
Reinforced the role of TRC and penal law in holding perpetrators accountable.
Illustrated systemic challenges in prosecuting transitional justice crimes.
Case 4: Maobadi Attack in Dang (2005)
Facts:
Maoist cadres allegedly killed five civilians accused of being police informers.
Legal Issues:
Liability for war crimes and crimes against humanity under Nepal Penal Code and IHL provisions.
Findings:
TRC and local courts recommended criminal investigation.
Few prosecutions were initiated; most perpetrators remained unpunished.
Significance:
Example of non-state actor accountability in transitional justice.
Showed limitations of domestic penal law enforcement when victims are from conflict-affected communities.
Case 5: Bhimsen Thapa Memorial Killing Allegation (2006)
Facts:
Alleged that Maoist cadres executed suspected government informers in Nuwakot district.
Legal Issues:
Criminal liability under Nepal Penal Code Section 203 (Murder) and TRC Act.
Findings:
TRC recommended investigation but suggested amnesty for lower-level perpetrators, while senior leaders should face prosecution.
Significance:
Controversial case balancing amnesty with accountability.
Raised debates on how penal law interacts with transitional justice reconciliation goals.
Case 6: TRC Amnesty vs Penal Law Conflict (2017 Supreme Court Ruling)
Facts:
Several TRC reports suggested granting amnesty to perpetrators of killings during conflict. Victims challenged this.
Legal Issues:
Conflict between amnesty provisions in TRC Act and criminal liability under Penal Code.
Supreme Court Findings:
Court held that serious human rights violations, including murder, torture, or enforced disappearances, cannot be granted blanket amnesty.
Penal law provisions prevail over TRC recommendations when it comes to gross violations.
Significance:
Landmark ruling reinforcing penal accountability in transitional justice.
Strengthened rule of law principle and curtailed impunity.
Case 7: Nuwakot Conflict Victims Compensation Case (2018)
Facts:
Families of conflict victims demanded compensation and criminal investigation for extra-judicial killings.
Legal Issues:
Intersection of reparations (victim rights) and criminal prosecution under Nepal Penal Code.
Findings:
Court ordered government to pay compensation and instructed law enforcement to pursue pending criminal cases.
Significance:
Integrated penal law enforcement with transitional justice objectives.
Demonstrated dual approach: accountability and victim relief.
Key Observations from Cases
Dual Approach: Transitional justice in Nepal combines truth commissions with criminal prosecution.
State & Non-State Actors: Both security forces and Maoist cadres are subject to penal liability.
Implementation Gaps: Political interference, intimidation, and lack of evidence hinder prosecutions.
Supreme Court Guidance: Serious human rights violations cannot be amnestied, reinforcing penal law over reconciliation policies.
Victim-Centric Enforcement: Compensation and recognition of victims’ rights often accompany criminal prosecution.
Conclusion
Transitional justice in Nepal represents a complex interface between reconciliation, truth-telling, and penal accountability. While TRC and CIEDP provide mechanisms for investigating violations, penal law ensures that serious crimes—murder, torture, enforced disappearance—carry criminal liability. The cases illustrate challenges in prosecuting both state and non-state actors but also show that Nepal’s courts increasingly uphold the supremacy of penal law in transitional justice.
RELATED Blog
0 comments