On October 7, the Cabinet decided to provide compensation to 153 victims recommended by the National Human Rights Commission. The decision came days before voting in the United Nations Human Rights Council, where Nepal was elected a member on Tuesday with the most votes.
Both developments offer hope for Nepal’s human rights sector. The Cabinet decision marks the first meaningful move in three to four years towards implementing the commission’s recommendations. Nepal’s election to the council also provides an important multilateral platform to demonstrate its commitment to human rights. However, these developments must translate into concrete action.
The commission has made hundreds of recommendations seeking justice for victims, some dating back nearly two decades, that successive governments have ignored for years. Neither Sushila Karki’s government nor its predecessor, led by KP Sharma Oli, implemented a single recommendation for criminal investigation or compensation.
The Balendra Shah administration deserves credit for breaking this pattern of inaction. But compensating the victims is only a beginning. Alongside compensation, the constitutional human rights watchdog has recommended criminal investigations in several cases arising from the Maoist insurgency, state atrocities and rights violations by non-state actors. The government’s commitment will be measured by whether it also acts on these recommendations. Other recommendations, including those related to the Gen Z movement, also require attention.
Election to the council is a milestone, but Nepal must uphold the responsibilities that come with membership by maintaining high standards of human rights protection. This requires more than implementing some recommendations. The country’s domestic record must reflect the principles it pledges to uphold internationally.
However, the transitional justice process remains stalled. The government has yet to appoint office-bearers to the transitional justice commissions after their members were removed through ordinances. Without functional commissions, the pursuit of truth, accountability and reparations for conflict victims cannot move forward meaningfully. The Madheshi community has also long demanded the public release of the Girish Chandra Lal Commission report and the implementation of its recommendations. Successive governments have ignored these demands for years.
These unresolved issues expose the gap between Nepal’s international commitments and its domestic practices. Securing a seat in the council should encourage the government to address that gap, not serve as a substitute for action. It should also prompt a more consistent approach to accountability, regardless of whether violations were committed during the conflict, by state agencies or by non-state actors.
The implementation of the commission’s recommendations must mark the beginning of a sustained commitment to human rights, accountability and justice. The incumbent government has an opportunity to break with the harmful traditions of its predecessors by ensuring that recommendations do not remain confined to official reports and that victims are not left waiting indefinitely for justice.
Nepal’s human rights record and democratic practices have long been important sources of its soft power. Its election to the council will mean little if it fails to uphold those values at home. The real measure of Nepal’s international standing is not the votes it receives abroad, but whether its own citizens can count on the state to protect their rights and deliver justice when those rights are violated.