Despite several positive provisions, the bill to amend the Enforced Disappearances Enquiry, Truth and Reconciliation Commission Act endorsed by the House of Representatives have elements that could undermine a successful outcome from the transitional justice process, three international human rights organisations said on Tuesday.

Issuing a joint statement, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch (HRW) and the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) have listed out different provisions in the bill that undermine the international and domestic legal standards. The bill that is under consideration in the National Assembly lists rape or serious sexual violence, intentional or arbitrary killing, enforced disappearance, provided that the victim’s whereabouts remains unknown; and inhuman or cruel torture as serious violations of human rights hence non-amenstiable.

The categorisation, according to the three organisations, are not consistent with international law and exclude other serious crimes. They claim that the prohibition of torture and the requirement that it be criminalised is absolute and there can be no qualification for “inhuman or cruel” torture, since torture by its nature is inhuman or cruel.

The bill also requires that both categories of violations (defined as “serious” and not)—except for rape and “serious sexual violence”—are committed in a targeted or planned manner against an unarmed individual or community. “This could exclude many cases not only from any criminal accountability but also other measures under the bill, such as civil and administrative remedies and reparations,” reads the statement. “These provisions create a large accountability gap for many crimes under international law, including possible crimes against humanity and war crimes, contrary to Nepal’s Constitution and its international legal obligations.”

The human rights bodies too have found a serious flaw in the provision that allows a 75 percent reduction in the sentencing for those convicted of serious violations if they cooperate in the investigation process.

This provision, amounting to a disguised amnesty, contradicts the principle that criminal sanctions must be proportionate to the gravity of the crime, and also undermines the fundamental role and competency of the judiciary, they claim. Like different victims organisations, they argue it should be the prerogative of the court to decide what reduction may be appropriate.

The House of Representatives on August 14 endorsed the bill with the support from all the parties, but the Nepal Majdoor Kisan Party, which has only one seat in the 275-member House of Representatives, and forwarded to the upper house. It has already been tabled in the upper chamber which is expected to decide on the bill on Thursday.

As the bill is still under consideration in one of the two Houses of the federal parliament, the human rights organisations have said to ensure the integrity of the process and bring the law into compliance with Nepali and international legal standards, serious accountability gaps need to be addressed by lawmakers. Also, all institutions involved in the administration of justice—including the courts, transitional justice commissions, and the Attorney General—should make sure to construe the bill in accordance with international law and the Constitution of Nepal.

A group of victims, writing to the National Assembly chairperson, have urged him to rectify the problematic provisions in the bill before endorsing it. “We victims organisations request you and the lawmakers in the National Assembly to revise the flawed provisions in the bill before endorsement,” reads their letter.

Similarly, the three human rights bodies have said the new law can be an opportunity to finally deliver justice for victims, strengthen the rule of law, and create a positive precedent for the region.

“This should not turn into yet another exercise in which victims are encouraged to accept compensation without truth and justice,” Meenakshi Ganguly, deputy Asia director at Human Rights Watch, was quoted as saying in the statement.

The Supreme Court in 2015 had turned down several amnesty provisions in the Act terming them unconstitutional and in violation of Nepal’s international human rights obligations. While the new bill includes several significant improvements and positive provisions, parts again appear designed to shield those responsible for wartime crimes from prosecution, said the international human rights watchdogs.

“Victims have been waiting for full acknowledgement of the harms they have suffered and reparations for almost 20 years. For a transitional justice process to accomplish its aims, all of the five essential pillars of this process—truth, justice, reparation, memorialisation, and guarantees of non-recurrence—must be pursued,” Mandira Sharma, senior international legal adviser at the ICJ, was quoted as saying. “Current gaps in this law could serve to threaten the outcome of the process and defeat the purpose of providing effective remedies to victims.”

Stating that the transitional justice commissions in the past failed to win the trust of victims due to repeated political interference in the appointment of the commissioners, Smriti Singh, South Asia director at Amnesty International said, “The commissioners must be trusted by victims’ groups for their work to be effective and credible. This requires victims’ rights and views to be at the center of a fully transparent nomination and appointment procedure. Commissioners must be competent, impartial, and fully independent from any political party.”