The establishment of a truth commission has become a common practice to address the issues of past injustices in the countries emerging from civil war or authoritarian rule. Such commissions are temporary, recommendatory and non-judicial investigative bodies set up with the authority to take statements, conduct investigations and research and arrange public hearings. The experience of over 30 truth commissions suggests that they do not replace the need for court prosecutions but offer some form of accountability for the past actions when prosecutions for past crimes are not possible or the prevailing system is unable to address the issues of wider rights violations.

That the status of those who disappeared and information on the past abuses should be made public has been affirmed by various international organisations, regional courts and international and domestic tribunals. Through its investigation, a truth commission reaches out to the victims to understand the extent and pattern of past violations. Thus, the commission can help dig up truth and acknowledge a contested or denied history.

Such a commission must reflect national needs. In our context, establishment of a truth commission has been agreed in the SPA-Maoists peace accord. However, the victims’ communities, civil society bodies and human rights institutions are generally consulted for the establishment of such a commission. Its terms of reference, mandate, jurisdiction, budget and expertise for its operation should be widely discussed. It needs international cooperation, not only to garner financial resources, but also to import the technical know-how. Truth commissions in the past focused on instances of serious human rights abuses like torture, disappearances, extra-judicial killings, crimes against humanity and genocide. In Nepal, thousands have been displaced by the conflict, thereby prohibiting them from using their political, economic and social rights.

Some truth commissions have been established with the aim of reconciliation, whereas others to find the truth, offer limited amnesty, recommend prosecution and make reparations. We need to evaluate our requirements regarding its establishment. Now is the time to decide on the kind of institution, its modalities, appointment of qualified personalities through a fair and transparent system and allocation of the funds, estimated at $ 5-10 million. There is also the trend of appointing an international commissioner to bring in more knowledge, maintain neutrality and equip the office with new resources.

There should be a clear mandate and delegation of powers. Most truth commissions do not have the power to grant amnesty. Rather, they make recommendations for prosecution and also focus on institutional and policy reform. Reparations may be considered for the victims; reconciliation helps heal the past wounds. It is an appropriate time to initiate discussion among the relevant institutions and experts on the truth commission and its operating terms of reference.