Newly appointed Attorney General Raman Kumar Shrestha has ruled out general pardon in conflict-era crimes.

Shrestha, who was sworn in on Monday, said there was no need to hype the issue of general amnesty in the transitional justice process.

“We should take national laws, court verdicts, the Comprehensive Peace Agreement as well as international laws into consideration,” he told the Post. “We should also consider the national need to resolve the issue in a win-win situation.”

After the former rebel party CPN (Maoist Centre) formed a government with the Nepali Congress by withdrawing support to its own government led by CPN-UML Chairman KP Sharma Oli, speculations are rife that both the parties want to whitewash conflict-era crimes.

Transitional justice has always been a major concern of the former rebels and the parties that led the government during the Maoist insurgency. Although they have been assuring conflict victims of justice, rights defenders argue that the warring parties want to circumvent the due transitional justice process.

The government’s reluctance to amend the Enforced Disappearances Enquiry, Truth and Reconciliation Commission Act as per the Supreme Court order further reinforces the mistrust of the conflict victims towards a credible transitional justice process.

Shrestha said that the amendment bill prepared by his predecessor would be reviewed as required. Former AG Hari Phuyal had prepared the draft bill, which incorporated provisions to accommodate the concerns of the former rebel party—bringing the cases and complaints registered in the court under the transitional justice mechanism and setting up a special court to carry out recommendations made by the transitional justice commissions.

Shrestha is also of the opinion that conflict-era cases should not be treated separately. “There should be no double standard for dealing with conflict-era cases,” he said. “You cannot file a charge-sheet in regular court and demand reparation under the transitional justice regime.” The government has not decided whether it should set up a separate Special Court to deal with the cases or a bench in the existing court.