We previously reported on how the government’s repeated appointment of officials to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and the Commission of Investigation on Enforced Disappeared Persons based on political quotas – rather than competence, merit, and impartiality – has left conflict victims without justice or reparations even two decades after the peace agreement. (Read the first part of this story - Still No Justice: Nepal's Civil War Victims and the Long Wait for Accountability.) In this report, we focus on the necessary steps to resolve the grievances of conflict victims and the specific plans political parties have outlined in their election manifestos.

“We will adopt policies to conclude the peace process and ensure proper justice, rehabilitation, reparations and employment for conflict victims. Regarding transitional justice, we will complete the remaining tasks of the peace process and end impunity by following the Supreme Court’s mandamus, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), and the universal values of human rights as defined by international law and the UN treaties to which Nepal is a party. We will reconstitute the commissions related to transitional justice and the peace process through a transparent and credible mechanism, with the consent and participation of the victim community, to bring the process to a conclusion using a victim-centered and victim-friendly approach.”

– Nepali Congress Manifesto, 2026

“The Comprehensive Peace Accord is the primary foundation for sustainable peace in the country. To achieve lasting peace, its remaining tasks and the agreements reached during various movements must be fully implemented. It is the state’s responsibility to provide honor, compensation, rehabilitation and reparations to the families of martyrs and conflict victims. To this end, we are committed to ensuring medical treatment, employment and rehabilitation for citizens who were injured or disabled during these movements.”

– Nepali Communist Party Commitment Paper, 2026

“We will immediately begin work to resolve the remaining tasks of transitional justice.”

– Rastriya Swatantra Party Pledge Paper, 2026

“We will provide subsidized loans and grants, along with necessary entrepreneurship development training, for oppressed Dalit communities, persons with disabilities, and conflict-affected individuals involved in various professions, businesses and enterprises.”

– CPN (UML) Manifesto, 2026

Not only the original signatories of the peace accord but also parties formed after the agreement have included conflict victims’ issues in their manifestos. However, victims remain unconvinced, stating that the commitments do not meet their expectations. Despite its repeated leadership in government and past pledges to end impunity and ensure a victim-friendly justice system, the CPN (UML) has left victims even more suspicious by failing to include their core issues in this year’s manifesto.

“We were worried whether our agendas would even find a place in the political parties’ manifestos,” says conflict victim Suman Adhikari. “The Nepali Congress manifesto has made an effort to address the victims’ agenda. The Nepali Communist Party has also included some aspects of our issues, and other parties have given us at least a line in the name of addressing us, but the UML has not prioritized it at all.”

In its 2022 election manifesto, the UML had written that it would complete the remaining tasks of the peace process and transitional justice, while providing treatment, employment, self-employment opportunities and rehabilitation for those injured or disabled during the conflict. This time, however, its manifesto only mentions providing subsidized loans, grants and entrepreneurship training for the conflict-affected. There is no mention of any other issues regarding transitional justice for victims of the armed conflict.

Although tasks such as arms management, combatant integration and the Constituent Assembly elections mentioned in the peace accord have been completed, the parties do not appear serious, sensitive or honest about fulfilling critical mandates like justice and reparations. Conflict victims complain that despite repeatedly leading the government, neither Pushpa Kamal Dahal ‘Prachanda’, chairman of the then-rebel CPN (Maoist) and a signatory of the peace accord, nor the partner parties, Nepali Congress and CPN (UML), have taken the initiative to complete these tasks.

Suman, a conflict victim, expresses concern that if the parties and the government formed after the election only view the ‘Gen-Z’ movement of September 8 and 9 as the sole instance of human rights violations, the transitional justice owed to victims of the 10-year armed conflict might be overshadowed. “We can only hope that all types of victims will receive justice if the government moves forward under the principles of due process and the rule of law,” he said.

Gita Rasaili, another conflict victim, also believes there is no reason to trust or find hope in the parties’ manifestos. “The state failed to be our guardian in the past,” she said. “The parties showed no responsibility or accountability regarding why justice and reparations have been delayed. It is painful to see them still hesitating to present a clear roadmap for providing justice and reparations in their current manifestos.”

However, CPN (UML) Deputy General Secretary Yogesh Bhattarai refuses to accept the victims’ claim that transitional justice is not a priority for his party. He insists that the issue has been addressed in the manifesto, even if briefly. He admits that although this issue was included in previous election manifestos, even a majority government under their own leadership struggled to implement it.

“Transitional justice is neither simple nor easy for Nepal,” he said. “Since this must be achieved through consensus among the major political parties, we previously put it in our manifestos but could not implement it. The UML is not solely to blame for this failure, others are equally responsible.”

Bhattarai added that significant effort was required just to reach a political consensus on forming commissions and passing the necessary acts. “To resolve this matter, we need the cooperation of all three branches of the state and government mechanisms, alongside the political parties. We must not delay any longer in finding a collective solution,” he said.

Asta Laxmi Shakya, former Vice-Chairperson of the UML, admits that transitional justice has been overshadowed because it failed to become a priority for the government and political parties. “The current rise in impunity in society is a direct result of the failure to address the justice and reparations of armed conflict victims through a judicial process,” she said. “This is becoming a serious threat to establishing sustainable peace. The state must act as a guardian regarding victims’ justice and reparations but even governments under our own leadership failed to do so.”

Nepali Congress Spokesperson Devraj Chalise states that justice and reparations were sidelined because some parties used the issue of transitional justice merely for power-sharing and political gain. He claimed that after learning from past experiences, the party prioritized this issue in its manifesto specifically to address the pain of conflict victims.

“This is a matter to be resolved through political consensus and by everyone taking moral responsibility,” he said. “No party or group can evade this duty.” Chalise added that as the state is the ultimate guardian, it has a mandate to conclude this matter.

Barshaman Pun, a leader of the CPN (Maoist) and current Nepali Communist Party, as well as a former Finance Minister, says that resolving transitional justice is not difficult if all sides cooperate. “All political parties must act with responsibility and accountability to translate the commitments made to conflict victims, both past and present, into practice,” he said. “The transitional justice commissions must also fulfill their responsibilities.”

Maheshwar Ghimire, a central member of the RSP, notes that transitional justice was politicized in the past and says his party will take the initiative to resolve it based on international law and practice. “Parties and the government have indeed failed to implement their own commitments,” he said. “There is no longer any benefit in politicizing transitional justice. It will be concluded in the coming days in accordance with the procedures of transitional justice, international standards and Supreme Court rulings.”

Repeated commitments that never see implementation

Prime Minister Sushila Karki, in a video address to the 61st regular session of the Human Rights Council in Geneva last Monday, pledged to work toward justice and reparations for conflict victims. She stated, “We are committed to completing the transitional justice process in a credible, inclusive and victim-centered manner.”

She is not the first Prime Minister to pledge justice and reparations for conflict victims on an international stage. Previous heads of government have repeatedly made similar promises in international forums. Just like in this election, major parties have consistently raised this issue in their past manifestos. However, because the parties abandon these issues once they win the elections, conflict victims continue to be denied justice.

In the 2022 House of Representatives and Provincial Assembly elections, the CPN (UML) included the peace process and transitional justice in its manifesto, yet those promises were never implemented.

The manifesto stated that the remaining tasks of the peace process and transitional justice would be completed and that initiatives for medical treatment, employment, self-employment opportunities and rehabilitation for those injured or disabled during the conflict would be moved forward. It also mentioned that compensation, rehabilitation and reparations for the families of victims would be advanced.

The UML attempted to win over conflict victims through its manifesto by stating that they would be freed from the tragedy, despair and injustice of the conflict. It promised they would be protected and given justice, and that the capacity of the injured and victims would be developed to provide them with employment, bringing them into the mainstream of society so they could lead a dignified life.

Before that, in 2017, the CPN (UML) and the CPN (Maoist Centre) contested the elections as a unified alliance. Their manifesto at the time stated that a conducive environment would be created to complete the work of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and the Commission of Investigation on Enforced Disappeared Persons as quickly as possible, based on the principles of transitional justice. “The remaining process for compensation, rehabilitation and reparations for the families of conflict victims will be completed within two years,” the manifesto had declared.

The Nepali Congress also made transitional justice a key issue in its 2022 House of Representatives election manifesto. It stated, “In accordance with the spirit of the Comprehensive Peace Accord, the remaining tasks of transitional justice will be completed without delay.”

The then-Maoist Centre has now merged with the CPN (Unified Socialist) and is contesting the elections under the name ‘Nepali Communist Party’. Even the Maoists, who entered peaceful politics from the foundation of the armed conflict, continue to raise this issue only during elections to seek the sympathy of conflict victims. However, they have shown no responsibility in resolving the matter even when leading the government themselves.

This issue also found a place in the major parties’ manifestos during the Constituent Assembly elections of 2008 and 2013. Although the two transitional justice commissions were formed and legislation was enacted in January 2015, no concrete work has been achieved beyond the collection of complaints.

Incomplete laws for victim-centric justice

The Truth and Reconciliation Commission and the Investigation of Enforced Disappeared Persons Act was only enacted in 2014, eight years after the peace agreement. Claiming the Act failed to ensure their justice or respect their sentiments, victims themselves knocked on the doors of the court. Despite court orders, it took nine years for the third amendment to the Act to be made. However, victims state they remain skeptical about receiving justice as the current law is still incomplete.

Due to widespread dissatisfaction, protests and pressure from victims and stakeholders, the government passed the amendment bill to the Transitional Justice Act through Parliament in August 2024. Even in the amended Act, there is significant dissatisfaction regarding the definitions of human rights violations versus serious human rights violations, the statute of limitations on sexual violence, sentencing reductions and amnesty provisions. Victims particularly disagree with the provision allowing for a 75% reduction in sentencing for serious human rights violations. According to a retired Secretary from the Ministry of Law (who wished to remain anonymous), this provision takes transitional justice outside the spirit of the victims’ needs, judicial processes and due legal procedures.

The Act does not define war crimes, crimes against humanity or the disappearance of persons during the armed conflict as specific offenses. Lokendra Mallick, a former judge and former Chairman of the Commission of Investigation on Enforced Disappeared Persons, says the Act fails to criminalize enforced disappearances. “Since only the Criminal Code of 2017 criminalizes enforced disappearance, the Act does not cover disappearances carried out by the state and the then-rebel CPN (Maoist) during the conflict between 1996 and 2006, therefore, it does not provide justice to the victims,” he said.

Surya Kiran Gurung, former Chairperson of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, states that the lack of legal clarity has effectively blocked the path to concluding investigations into serious human rights violations. “The current amended law still fails to clarify which specific penal code should be used to determine punishments once an investigation is completed,” he said.

The Act includes a provision to form a Special Court to oversee transitional justice. However, victims disagree with the provisions regarding the right to appeal decisions made by this Special Court. Former judge Lokendra Mallick explains that even after the Transitional Justice Commission completes its investigation and recommends action, cases can only be brought to the Special Court through the Office of the Attorney General. He notes that the legal provision allowing appeals to the Supreme Court against Special Court rulings will make it difficult to deliver justice in favor of the victims.

Shyam Babu Kafle, Under Secretary of the Legal Department at the National Human Rights Commission, warns that even if a victim consents, there is a high risk that amnesty provisions for serious human rights violations could be misused.

Furthermore, there is no clear law on how reparations should be managed. Deputy Secretary Kafle points out that while victims require immediate reparations, the provision states they will only be provided after the Commission concludes its investigation and makes a recommendation. He argues that this delay fails to support victims’ needs in employment, health and education, and demonstrates a lack of parental responsibility from the state.

Relief and reparations instead of justice

The government has operationalized a reparations fund as part of a strategy to appease conflict victims by providing relief and compensation.

On November 3 last year, the government approved the Fund Operation Regulations and has already begun securing finances for it. The government, then led by Prime Minister Pushpa Kamal Dahal, had allocated 1 billion rupees for the operation of the Peace Fund. According to Man Bahadur Aryal, Joint Secretary at the Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs, that amount, which had previously frozen because the regulations were not passed, has now been transferred to the fund to initiate the account.

According to him, the Swiss government has agreed to provide 1 million Swiss Francs (over 189.1 million rupees) for psychosocial counseling and training for victims. The agreement regarding this assistance is expected to be signed within the next month or so. Similarly, the United Nations is set to spend 2 million dollars (over 290 million rupees) to provide technical equipment and support for conflict victims.

The Ministry estimates that 40 million dollars (over 5.81 billion rupees) will be required for relief, compensation and reparations. The government’s plan is for donors and the state to continuously contribute to the fund, which will then be distributed to victims based on their needs according to the regulations. Joint Secretary Aryal stated that preparations are underway to introduce regulations for the Truth and Reconciliation Commission Act (2014) to facilitate the operation of the fund both politically and practically.

Section 23 of the Act empowers the Commission to recommend reparations. This section stipulates that after an initial investigation, the Commission shall recommend to the Government of Nepal that victims be provided with psychosocial counseling, interim relief, relief and compensation, rehabilitation, or other appropriate arrangements as soon as possible. Under this, it is clear that the Commission will make recommendations regarding education, medical treatment, skill-based training, subsidized loans, housing and employment.

According to the Act and based on the Commission’s recommendations, relief and reparations will be provided to the following: security personnel killed, injured or disabled in incidents during the armed conflict, or their families; individuals killed, injured or disabled in any conflict-related incident, or their family members; discharged combatants; and those killed, injured or disabled by landmines or explosive devices planted during the conflict, or their family members.

The Fund Operation Regulations 2026 clarify that the fund’s resources will be used to provide interim relief and compensation to victims in accordance with Section 23 and Sub-section (4) of Section 23 (8) of the Act. There is a provision stating that the government can only spend the fund’s money on relief, compensation and reparations after a recommendation is made by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission or the Commission of Investigation on Enforced Disappeared Persons.

The regulations mandate a steering committee chaired by the Law Minister, which includes the Secretaries of the Ministries of Law, Finance and Home Affairs, a human rights activist, a psychologist, and two conflict victims. “The regulations have been formulated but there are still no criteria regarding which types of victims will receive what amount of reparations and compensation from the state, or on what basis,” said former Chairperson Surya Kiran Gurung.

Even when the Commissions have made recommendations in the past, victims have been unable to receive relief and reparations. The Commission of Investigation on Enforced Disappeared Persons had recommended providing a minimum of 1 million rupees in relief to 551 families of disappeared persons who had not received any form of assistance during the investigation process. Among them, 458 families have still not received any relief. Former Commission Chairperson Lokendra says, “The government told the Commission to make recommendations and promised to provide relief but even after we sent our recommendations, they deceived the victims by failing to provide it.”

The Truth and Reconciliation Commission had also recommended 538 individuals for reparations and compensation. However, the government decided to provide compensation to only 29 of them on December 16, 2021. The National Human Rights Commission also complained that the government has failed to implement any recommendations made after 2018 regarding its own investigations, which suggested 300,000 rupees in compensation for conflict victims. “The government has not worked toward fulfilling the victims’ rights to justice and reparations,” says former Human Rights Commission Chairperson Anup Raj Sharma. “In this long struggle for justice, the failure to receive even reparations has made the victims’ lives miserable, causing severe economic, social and psychological impacts on their families.”

A drain on state resources

Government data reveals that 20 billion rupees have already been spent from the state treasury on relief for the families of the deceased and disappeared, financial assistance for the displaced and disabled, subsistence allowances for those more than 51% disabled, and relief for children under 16 who lost both parents. Although the government has also spent approximately 1.5 billion rupees on the transitional justice commissions over the past decade, tasks ranging from uncovering the truth about the deceased to identifying perpetrators remain unaccomplished.

Conflict victim Dr. Ram Kumar Bhandari argues that instead of being responsible and accountable for the questions raised by victims for decades, the state has rendered the commissions incompetent by appointing officials through political power-sharing, resulting in nothing more than a hollow drain on state resources.

Khimananda Bashyal, a Monitoring Officer at the National Human Rights Commission, stated that during consultations with conflict victims across five provinces, the Commission found persistent grievances regarding the failure to receive much-needed relief.

In its 2023/24 report, the Commission of Investigation on Enforced Disappeared Persons pointed out that its previous recommendations for victim relief and reparations have not been implemented and urged the government to take action.

“In the past, the government tried to pacify victims by offering relief but we did not accept it,” said Dr. Ganesh Prasad Bhatta, former Chairperson of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. “There must be a judicial resolution for cases of serious human rights violations. Victims must feel that justice has been served. It is simply not possible to silence them or close the matter just by providing relief.”

The government allocated 1 billion rupees each for the fiscal years 2024/25 and 2025/26, claiming it was for the remaining tasks of the peace process. Despite announcing every year that these tasks will be completed with such budget allocations, even the government’s policy commitments remain unimplemented.

The Truth and Reconciliation Commission, which previously claimed it could not function due to a lack of resources and legislation, received 110 million rupees for the current Fiscal Year 2025/26. In the last fiscal year, out of a total budget of 109.8 million rupees, the commission spent 61.1 million rupees on administrative costs alone.

For the Commission of Investigation on Enforced Disappeared Persons, the government allocated 117.9 million rupees in the Fiscal Year 2023/24. Even while without active officials, the commission recorded 40 million rupees in administrative expenses. Between the fiscal years 2017/18 and 2022/23, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission spent 409.7 million rupees, while the Commission of Investigation on Enforced Disappeared Persons spent 291.9 million rupees.

Cover Photo: Conflict victims staging a sit-in at the office of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. Photo: Govinda Luitel/NIMJN.

Please adhere to our republishing policy if you'd like to republish this story. You can find the guidelines here.