“Never Again” is the key message of the annual Holocaust Commemoration Day – January 27. Ultimate guarantee of non-repetition of the violent conflict is consideredone of the major pillars of the Truth and Reconciliation Process which is expected to ensure gradual return topeace and harmony ina sociallyrupturedand traumatised society.The woundsof atrocities inflicted on the innocent Nepalese during the ten-year-long Maoist conflict between 1996 and 2006will remain in the memory of surviving victims and their families for ever.While remembering the sad experiences of atrocities in South Africaduring the Apartheid and its peace process, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, the Chairman of the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC), said in a Book of Joy (Douglas, 2015): “Forgive, but Don’t Forget”.Memorials are thus needed for future generationsto learn about the nation’s past sufferings forensuring nor-recurrence.

Nepal's journey toward transitional justice has been arduous, marked by incremental progress, systemic challenges, and the enduring pain of victims. With somereforms relating to reparative and restorative justiceintroduced by the Third Amendment of the Transitional Justice (TJ) Act in August 2024, renewed hopes were ignited for addressing the legacies of Nepal’s decade-long armed conflict. The recent failure of the Search Committee to help constitute two responsible newcommissions-the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) and the Commission of Investigation on Enforced Disappeared Persons (CIEDP)-to steer the peace process, and the failure of the incumbent government to nominate a new Search Committeeas advised are quite disappointing. The continued interplay between legal frameworks,promises of the government and political leaders,supportiveinstitutional roles of the international community and NHRC, and victims’ fading expectations, however,stillretainshope to shape the nation's path toward discovery of truth,reconciliation and justice.

Progress Through Reforms

The Third Amendment to Nepal’s TJ Act, enacted in August 2024, attempted to align the domestic frameworkand the Supreme Court’s directives with international human rights standards. It introduced provisions for investigating gross human rights violations, including enforced disappearances, extrajudicial killings, and rape. The amendment also addressed criticisms of earlier commissions, such as their lack of independence, resource inadequacy and operational inefficacy.

However, skepticism persists. Critics, specificallyAmnesty International,ICJ and Human Rights Watch, including some victims and human rights experts,argue that despite a few reformsthe amendment falls short of fully ensuring accountability and non-repetition. Provisions that allow sentence reduction, amnesties for certain crimes and vague definitions of crimes and justice mechanisms continue to be points of contention, particularly for victims and human rights organizations.

NHRC and Supreme Court's Role

The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) has played a pivotal role in documenting conflict-era abuses, advocating for victims' rightsand legal reforms.The improved version of the TJ Actthat NHRC collaborated with victim’s network and civil society for reform is said to be victim-focused.It has recommended action against perpetrators and emphasized reparations for victims. This requires the formation of a competent and impartial Commission to professionally and strategically handle the complex problems of the post conflict society. However, the NHRC’s recommendations often remain unimplemented, highlighting a gap between institutional advocacy and state action.In close cooperation with UNsystem and other stakeholdersincluding victim’s groups, however, NHRC is preparing to create a teamof experts to work on TJ processclosely with TRC, CIEDP, civil society andfederal institutions.

The Supreme Court of Nepal has also been instrumental in safeguarding and shaping justice. Landmark decisions, such as those rejecting blanket amnesties for gross human rights violationsand narrow definitional notion, have strengthened the moral and legal foundations of Nepal’s TJ process as analysed by some scholars comparing it with Dowrkin’sinterpretiveand justice theoryin relation to truth-finding within a TJ process (Helen Gyr, April 2023). Despite this, political interference and weak enforcement devices have hindered the judiciary’s impact on ground-level justice delivery.In the latest public interest writ petitionsfiled byAdvocate Birendra Raj Thapaliya (August 2022) and Gyanendra Raj Aaran (February 2023),the Supreme Court has slammed the Government for non-enforcement of NHRC decisions, undue delays in legal reforms,andfor its failure to steer the pace of Transitional Justice process.

The Unhealed Wounds

For many victims of the conflict, justice remains a distant dream. Families of the disappeared and brutally killed continue their decades-long wait for answers. Survivors of torture and sexual violence grapple with stigma, trauma, economic marginalization, and betrayals. Victim groups have repeatedly expressed dissatisfaction with both the TRC and CIEDP, citing delays, lack of transparency, and inadequate reparations.Treatment of unhealed wounds is a far cry.

The failure to involve victims meaningfully in decision-making processes has compounded their frustration. Many feel that the TJ process is more about political expediency than genuine reconciliation.The top leaders of the major political parties have not given priority to resolve the issue. Only when the international community, including the UN senior officials and diplomatic corps, takes up the issue at the highest level, the political leaderships and government tend to listen to them. Voices of the victims and human rights groups are normally ignored. Failure of the two previous Commissions to produceany results and inability ofthe latest Search Committee to constitute new commissionsis mainly due to differences of the political parties in picking the leadersof their choice.

Present-Day Challenges

Nepal’s TJ process faces numerous challenges, including:

1 Political Interference: Successive governments have often used transitional justice as a tool for political bargaining rather than a genuine commitment to accountability.Unwillingness and inability to creating credible TRC and CIEDP led by competent persons with extensive experiences and comparative knowledge of these complexand sensitive processes,has hitherto remained a key problem with the major political parties. The tendency of looking fora loyal political leadership in Commissions suitable to the concerned political party may further delay the process for another few years. NHRC and human rights groups do advocate for a search of rightleadership but interest groups prevail in preventing them for right selection.International community also back out from offering appropriate adviceat the crucial moment, asthey refrain from being blamed.

2 Resource Constraints: Inadequate financial and human resources support have hampered the efficiency of commissions.The government is said to have unofficially projected a tentative cost of ten billion rupees for creatinga basket fund.Absence of government’s own commitment, however,appears to have deterred the donor community to openly make commitmentsfrom their side.

3 Public Trust Deficit: Persistent delays and perceived biases have eroded trust in the process, and the disappointed victim groupsno more have faith in the promises of the divided political leaderships. Politicization of the TJ process is still a hurdle. As stated earlier, NHRC has been preparing its plan of actions to closely monitor and support the TJ process in coordination with victim groups, civil societyand international community within the framework of constitutional and legislative mandates, andin compliance of Supreme Court directives and international principles.

4 Implementation of the Act: Poor record of Nepal to ensure implementation of laws and institutional mandates, especially when a complex and sensitive tasks of global significance have to be undertaken,comparative knowledge and human resource gaps, including lack of full support from State leadership and international community could pose a huge challenge as continued support is needed from them even after the Commissions submit reports and their recommendations have to be executed. NHRC and civil society must be activated and remain watchful from the beginning till the reports are fully complied with. Public consultations and hearingsduring the truth-seeking and evidence collection processes require full security assurance by the state and both commissions. Witness protection, and confidentiality in truth-seeking of sexual abuses, demand specialsecurity arrangements.Logistic and forensic requirements are equally challenging.

5 International Pressure: While international bodies advocate for adherence to global standards, balancing external expectations with domestic realities remains complex.International experience and support to develop Nepal’s own innovative device of guaranteeing non-recurrence of conflict. Institutinga new centre of memorials byinvolvinguniversities and schools, and modernizing the modes of experience sharing through advance technology, as has been done recently in Cambodia to learn about KhmerRouge Trial,is an example.

6 International Jurisdiction:Possible accountability to the international jurisdiction, even if Nepal is not a party to ICC, is somewhere in the back of mind of some political leaders and other potential actors who could have been remotely involved in perpetrating grave human rights violations. Even the Supreme Court in a case last year has cited the 29 issues of Nepalthat theHuman Rights Committee has taken up in Geneva under ICCPR, a case of external jurisdiction. An effective national human rights handling system always mitigates the risk of international jurisdiction. Hence the urgency of the national TRC vehicle.

7 Role of Media:Above all, itis vital to recognize the importance of constructive role of media in disseminating the message of human rights situation all the time for the success of the TJ processas nationally owned human rights protection system.

Linking with Holocaust Commemoration

As the world observes International Holocaust Remembrance Day on January 27, Nepal's transitional justice efforts can draw valuable lessons from history. The Holocaust stands as a stark reminder of atrocitiesthe humanity is capable of and the resilience of survivors in demanding justice. It underscores the importance of collective memory, acknowledgment of victims' suffering, and the imperative of preventing future atrocities.

Nepal’s pursuit of justice and reconciliation must honour the resilience of its victims and commit to a future rooted in accountability and human rights. Like the global commitment to "Never Again," Nepal must strive to ensure that the lessons of its conflict are not forgotten and that justice serves as a foundation for lasting peace.A blend of different TJ models in the form of restorative justice, reparativejustice, reconciliatory justice, truth-seeking justice, apologetic justice, prosecutorialand punitive justice may be found reflected in the updated Transitional Justice Act through the third amendment of August 2024. Skilled and fairhandsare needed tobalance the ideals ingrained in different models of justice.

Some elements and structural framework of Colombia and South Africa, and vague traditional notions of locally practiced justice system found in East Timor, Congo and even Angola,may be traced in our amended legislation andlocal federal devices. Thus available local tools could be very useful out-of-court devices. The current challenge is how effectively we can get the diverse conceptual and legal (traditional) tools applied from the hesitant and underequipped State leadership. Bridging the gap of victim’s increasing trust-deficit on the commitment of government and political parties, on the one hand, and the effectiveness of the post-conflict TRC and CIEDPmechanisms to deliver justicein reality, on the other, is a big challenge.This requires the assurance of victim’s participation at all stages and levelsof TJ process.Local government’s role in TJ process is not clearly defined but it will unfold when public consultation process, truth seeking and public hearing efforts are initiated by ensuring public security for participatory dialogue, evidence collection and witness protection.

In conclusion, revisiting Nepal’s transitional justice process is not just about addressing the past but also about shaping a future where the rights and dignity of all citizens are upheld. As the nation reflects on its progress and challenges, it must reaffirm its commitment to justice, empathy, discovery of truth, reconciliationand non-repetition—a commitment that resonates globally on Holocaust Remembrance Day and after.Now is the right time for Nepal, especially the government and political leadership, to move the stalled TJ process forward without further delay.Let this Holocaust Day of 2025 January 27 remind us all to keep eyes open and be vigilant, and commit to ‘Never Again’.

Dr. Dhungel is Senior Advocate and Professor, and currently Human Rights Commissioner