Until last week, the CPN (Maoist Centre) and the Nepali Congress unanimously advocated the endorsement of a bill to amend the Enforced Disappearances Enquiry, Truth and Reconciliation Commission Act. They said the bill needed to be decided by a vote if the CPN-UML didn’t agree on it.

The two parties blamed the UML for politicising the matter and creating barriers to its endorsement. But the dynamics have changed with a change in the ruling coalition. Now the Maoist Centre and the UML have come together, with Prime Minister Pushpa Kamal Dahal breaking his year-long ties with the Congress. This could potentially impact the bill’s endorsement. Some indications were visible in the meeting of the Law, Justice and Human Rights Committee of the House of Representatives on Sunday, a day before the coalition formally broke.

The House was supposed to endorse the bill after Congress President Sher Bahadur Deuba and UML Chairperson KP Sharma were positive on its endorsement in a meeting with Dahal. The UML, which had been maintaining a tough stance on the bill, had shown flexibility in Sunday’s meeting. However, the House committee ended inconclusively after then-minister for law and justice Dhanraj Gurung sought time for homework. The meeting called for Monday was deferred and a next meeting is uncertain.

“The bill is pending in the committee as the UML asked for major changes to it. Now that the UML has become flexible, the Congress’s reaction is not optimistic,” said a ruling party lawmaker on the committee.

After year-long discussions, the parliamentary committee had narrowed down the differences to four points. It further dropped to two in Sunday’s meeting after the parties agreed to list arbitrary killings as serious violations of human rights (thus non-amnestiable), and to open the doors for the victims, who refuse to reconcile, for prosecution.

The House panel had been struggling to decide whether to categorise arbitrary killings or all killings except those that occurred in clashes as serious violations of human rights. It had also been unable to settle what happens in case the victims of human rights violations refuse to reconcile. The issues were settled after the UML showed flexibility.

Now, the parties have largely two issues to settle. They differ on how to address the concerns of those affected by the conflict even though they were not directly involved. They also have not found meeting points on reduced sentencing.

“We were planning to endorse the bill on Monday, but that couldn't happen due to a change in the political dynamics,” Bimala Subedi, the committee chair, told the Post. She said the Congress and the Maoist Centre have long been on the same page on the bill, and recently, the UML has also been positive about getting it endorsed.

"I believe the change in government coalition will not impact the legislative function. I don't think the Congress will backtrack on its earlier stance," she said.

Congress leaders, however, have a different take. They would first want to see how the UML presents itself in the upcoming meetings. "We would like to see what justification the UML has for changes in its position," Jivan Pariyar, deputy general secretary of the Congress party, who also is a member of the House committee, told the Post. "Being a responsible party, we will always stand for justice for victims, most of whom are from our party. However, I can't say if the bill will get endorsed soon."

The committee will meet early next week, according to Subedi.

Conflict victims, human rights activists, and national and international human rights organisations have long demanded that a credible transitional justice process be established after an amendment to the Act.

On Wednesday, the Human Rights Watch and the Advocacy Forum Nepal jointly recommended the government revise the Act to ensure that all conduct amounting to gross violations of human rights and grave international crimes, including summary and arbitrary killings, torture, all war crimes and crimes against humanity, including violations committed against combatants, do not become subject of amnesty.

Making public the report “Breaking Barriers to Justice”, they also demanded that the revised Act ensure that the definition of victims of any rights violation is not limited to “unarmed civilians,” but also includes combatants. They suggested the international community and the United Nations help the Nepal government seize this opportunity by urging it to amend the current bill to meet international standards, and then promptly pass it into law. Liaise directly and regularly with victim and survivor groups, including survivors of sexual violence, to ensure that international engagement with the government is informed by their views, their suggestions include.

“Impunity is maintained in numerous cases of human rights violations committed since the conflict ended; there has been little or no attempt to hold alleged perpetrators to account, further eroding the rule of law. The government has failed to act on hundreds of recommendations by the National Human Rights Commission to prosecute alleged human rights abusers, or numerous recommendations of the UN Human Rights Committee,” reads a point in the report.

Stating that several of the provisions in the bill are positive, the report says its definition of “serious violations”—which include rape and “serious sexual violence,” enforced disappearance, “cruel or inhuman torture,” and a definition of unlawful killing that remains to be finalised—excludes numerous serious crimes under international law including some acts of torture and some unlawful killings, thus creating a significant accountability gap.

“In a separate category from those crimes defined as “serious,” the bill defines “any acts against the domestic law, international human rights law or humanitarian law” as rights violations that cannot be referred to the special court. This clause risks providing de facto amnesties to alleged perpetrators of some serious human rights violations and grave crimes under international law. Amnesties for serious crimes are contrary to international law and standards, and raise serious concerns for [the] victims,” the report says.

Stating that if the bill is passed without appropriate amendments, the law risks hindering the pursuit of justice, setting it back years, it further says. “If it is appropriately amended, it can be the basis for a meaningful, nationally owned process that upholds the rights of victims by providing accountability and reparations, and benefit all Nepalis by strengthening institutions and the rule of law.”