Submission to the UN Special Rapporteur on Truth, Justice, Reparation and Guarantees of Non-Recurrence

Jointly Submitted by: Lawyers’ Association for Human Rights of Nepalese Indigenous Peoples (LAHURNIP) and Nia Tero

Date: 17 February 2026

1. Introduction

The Lawyers’ Association for Human Rights of Nepalese Indigenous Peoples (LAHURNIP), established in 1995, is a pioneering legal organization representing Indigenous jurists in Nepal. Its primary mission is to promote collective Indigenous rights through strategic legal advocacy, human rights enforcement, and the advancement of justice rooted in Indigenous perspectives.[1]

LAHURNIP envisions a society in which the Indigenous Peoples of Nepal fully and effectively exercise their collective rights, including self-determination; ownership, control, and governance of their lands, territories, and natural resources; recognition of their customary rights and justice systems; and development in accordance with their own priorities. The organization works toward a future free from colonization, discrimination, racism, and domination, where Indigenous Peoples participate meaningfully in decision-making at all levels of the State through their freely chosen representatives, realizing their full potential with equality, dignity, and respect for their inherent rights.[2]

LAHURNIP submits this contribution in response to the Call for Inputs issued by the Special Rapporteur on Truth, Justice, Reparation, and Guarantees of Non-Recurrence, within the framework of his upcoming country visit to Nepal. We welcome this visit, whose purpose is to assess the measures adopted by Nepalese authorities to address serious human rights violations committed during the 1996 – 2006-armed conflict, including in the areas of truth-seeking, justice, reparations, memorialization, and guarantees of non-recurrence. We recognize the importance of this process in identifying both good practices and persistent gaps, and in formulating recommendations that contribute to a more just, inclusive, and sustainable peace.

Nia Tero is an organization founded in 2017 with a central mission to strengthen Indigenous Peoples’ guardianship, grounded in the recognition that Indigenous Peoples, through their traditional knowledge systems, self-governance, and right to self-determination, are essential to safeguarding their territories, sustaining biodiversity, and ensuring the continuity of life on Earth.[3]

Nia Tero works in partnership with Indigenous Nations worldwide, supporting strategic policy and legal advocacy processes, with a particular focus on regions such as the Amazon, the Pacific, North America, and Africa.[4]

This submission provides the Special Rapporteur with an Indigenous Peoples–centered analysis of Nepal’s transitional justice process, highlighting how existing mechanisms have failed to address the specific harms suffered by Indigenous communities and to comply with international human rights standards, including the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP).

The paper is structured as follows: first, it provides a brief contextual overview of Indigenous Peoples in Nepal in relation to the armed conflict and the current transitional justice framework. It then addresses selected thematic areas of the questionnaire, focusing on truth-seeking, criminal accountability, reparations, memorialization, and guarantees of non-recurrence. This is followed by conclusions and concrete recommendations. A subsequent section lists key sources, and the paper closes with annexes containing supporting materials.

2. Context of Indigenous Peoples in Nepal

2.1 Definition and Demographics

In Nepal, “Indigenous Peoples” are officially defined as ethnic communities listed in the national Schedule that possess their own mother tongue, traditional rites and customs, a distinct cultural identity, a distinct social structure, and a written or unwritten history[5]. This definition reflects a formal, criteria-based approach in which language, culture, social organization, and historical continuity are central elements for recognition.

At present, 60 Indigenous groups are formally recognized by the State under this framework. However, the 2021 national census identifies 22 additional Indigenous groups that have not yet received official recognition. This discrepancy highlights an important gap between census data and the legal recognition process, suggesting that the current list of recognized groups does not fully reflect the diversity of Indigenous communities present in the country.

According to the 2021 census, Indigenous Peoples represent 35% of Nepal’s total population of 29,164,578, amounting to 10,207,073 individuals. These figures are drawn directly from official census data and provide the most recent nationwide demographic snapshot.

At the same time, Indigenous scholars, experts, and representative organizations argue that this percentage significantly underestimates the actual Indigenous population. They contend that the true proportion exceeds 50%, pointing to concerns that many Indigenous individuals and communities were undercounted, misclassified, or omitted during the census process[6]. Such concerns relate to how census categories are designed and applied in practice, how people self-identify, and how enumerators record identity in contexts where multiple ethnic, linguistic, and social affiliations may exist.

As a result, the available data present two parallel realities: an official demographic account based on the census and legal recognition framework, and an alternative assessment advanced by Indigenous Peoples who question whether existing statistical and administrative mechanisms adequately capture the full presence and diversity of Indigenous Peoples in Nepal.

2.2 Historical Marginalization and the Roots of Conflict

For centuries, Indigenous Peoples in Nepal have faced systematic discrimination and exclusion rooted in historical internal colonization and the dominance of a centralized patriarchal state. This marginalization has manifested through land dispossession, criminalization of customary practices, militarization, forced evictions, and displacement driven by development projects implemented without free, prior, and informed consent (FPIC) of Indigenous Peoples. These practices are embedded in constitutional, legal, and policy frameworks and operate in both visible and invisible ways.[7]

The 1996–2006-armed conflict was a direct result of these centuries of structural exclusion. Recognizing this, the 2006 Comprehensive Peace Accord (CPA) explicitly committed to an "inclusive, democratic, and progressive restructuring of the state" by ending its "centralized and unitary form. [8] " This restructuring was intended specifically to resolve the grievances of Indigenous Peoples, Janajatis, and Madheshis by ending discrimination based on class, caste, language, religion, and region. [9]

For Indigenous Peoples, this "restructuring" meant the establishment of an identity-based federal system, including autonomous provinces such as Tharuhat and Magarat. The CPA further guaranteed an end to discrimination based on language and religion through a commitment to the "norms and values of secularism" and respect for cultural and religious sensitivities[10]. However, the current transition has betrayed these promises, maintained Hindu-centric legal supremacy, and rejected the identity-based autonomy that was foundational to the peace process.

Worsening this situation, Indigenous Peoples continue to raise concerns regarding Nepal’s persistent non-compliance with its international human rights obligations. Nepal is a party to ILO Convention No. 169 and the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD), and has endorsed the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). These instruments establish clear standards concerning non-discrimination, cultural integrity, land and resource rights, participation in decision-making, and the requirement to obtain free, prior, and informed consent (FPIC) in matters affecting Indigenous Peoples.

Indigenous representatives and organizations further note that, despite repeated observations and recommendations issued by the CERD and CEDAW Committees[11] including those linked to CEDAW General Recommendation No. 39 (2022) on the rights of Indigenous women and girls implementation at the national level remains limited. Concerns raised in these international monitoring processes relate to issues such as recognition of Indigenous identities, protection of customary institutions and practices, access to land and natural resources, meaningful participation in governance, and protection from discrimination based on ethnicity, language, religion, and gender.

As a result, Indigenous advocacy in Nepal increasingly frames current challenges not only as matters of unfulfilled constitutional and peace-process commitments, but also as ongoing gaps between Nepal’s international human rights obligations and their practical realization in law, policy, and administrative practice.

2.3 The 20-Point Agreement (August 7, 2007)[12]

Following a nationwide mobilization led by Indigenous Peoples across Nepal, the Government of Nepal entered into a historic 20-Point Agreement with the Nepal Federation of Indigenous Nationalities (NEFIN) and the Indigenous Nationalities Joint Struggle Committee. The agreement set out key commitments intended to address long-standing demands of Indigenous Peoples, including:

• State Restructuring: A commitment to restructure the state into a Federal Democratic Republic based on ethnicity, language, and region (Point 4).
• Proportional Representation: The guarantee of proportional inclusive representation for Indigenous Peoples in all organs and levels of the state structure (Point 8).
• International Standards: The immediate ratification and effective implementation of ILO Convention No. 169 and the endorsement of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) (Points 11 & 12).
• Linguistic Rights: The recognition of mother tongues as official languages for local administration and the provision of public information in Indigenous languages (Points 6 & 7).
• Institutional Mechanisms: The formation of a high-level State Restructuring Commission and a permanent Indigenous Nationalities Commission (Points 4 & 5).
• Cultural Protection: The protection and promotion of Indigenous traditional knowledge, skills, and customary practices (Point 15).

2.4 The 9-Point Agreement (20 May 2012)

The 9-Point Agreement was signed between the Government of Nepal and the Indigenous Nationalities Joint Struggle Committee (INJSC) during the final stages of the first Constituent Assembly. Its core elements included:

• Identity-Based Federalism: A reaffirmation to institutionalize a federal system specifically based on "Ethnic Identity" (Jatiya Pahichan) (Point 1).
• Self-Determination and Autonomy: The establishment of Provinces, Autonomous Regions, Special Regions, and Protected Regions with the right to self-determination, self-rule (Swashasan), and autonomy (Point 4).
• Electoral Reform: The adoption of a highly proportional electoral system for the new Constitution, targeting a minimum of 60% proportional representation (PR) (Point 2).
• Justice and Amnesty: The unconditional and immediate release of all Indigenous activists arrested during identity-based movements and the full withdrawal of all criminal charges leveled against them (Point 5).
• Reparation for Cultural Loss: The provision of state economic assistance and compensation for the damage or destruction of Indigenous cultural properties, specifically citing the Tharu Museum (Point 6).
• Consolidation of Pacts: A formal commitment to implement all previous agreements and decisions reached between the state and Indigenous organizations (Point 7).

2.5 Current transitional justice

The transitional justice (TJ) process in Nepal is currently at a standstill, not because of a lack of legislation, but because of a refusal to address the structural violence that triggered the civil war. For Indigenous Peoples, the current landscape is defined by the following three critical areas of injustice:

a. The Tharuhat Movement and the Tikapur Injustice[13]

The 2015 Tikapur incident and the subsequent state response represent a fundamental failure of transitional justice.

• Political Betrayal: The movement was a direct reaction to the state’s breach of the 2007 20-Point Agreement, which promised a Tharuhat autonomous province (Point 4).
• Criminalization of Political Grievance: According to the LAHURNIP Human Rights Monitoring Report (2015), the state’s response to the Tikapur incident involved mass arbitrary arrests, forced displacement of Tharu families, and a climate of fear that suppressed Indigenous leadership. The report documents that the state treated the movement as a criminal enterprise rather than a political struggle for constitutional rights (LAHURNIP, 2015, "Tikapur Incident: Human Rights Monitoring Report").
• Ongoing Injustice: The life-sentencing of Tharu leaders like Resham Chaudhary (later pardoned but not exonerated) illustrates a double standard: while state perpetrators of war crimes are offered amnesties under the 2024 TRC Amendment Act, Indigenous political activists face the full weight of the criminal justice system.

b. Province No. 1 "No Koshi" Movement: Memorialization as Conflict

In the transitional justice framework, place-naming is a vital form of memorialization and symbolic reparation.

• Cultural Erasure: The naming of Province 1 as "Koshi" in March 2023, rejecting identity-based names like Kirat-Limbuwan, constitutes an act of "symbolic violence." It erases the historical civilization of the Indigenous Kirat and Limbu nations from the federal map, violating Article 7.1.5 of the CPA, which guarantees respect for cultural sensitivity.
• State Violence: The protests against this erasure resulted in the death of activist Padam Limbu (Lajehang) due to police baton charges in Biratnagar. [14] The use of lethal force against Indigenous citizens demanding recognition of their identity proves that the security sector remains unreformed and prone to conflict-era tactics of suppression.
• Breach of Treaties: This naming also violates the Treaty of 1774 and Article 37 of the UNDRIP, which mandates the recognition and enforcement of constructive arrangements between the State and Indigenous Peoples.

c. The Criminalization of Culture:

Despite the constitutional declaration of Nepal as a "secular" state (Constitution of Nepal, 2015, Article 4), the legal framework remains a tool for Hindu religious hegemony.

• The Penal Code as a Weapon: Under the National Penal Code (Muluki Aparadh Sanhita, 2074),[15] cow slaughter remains a criminal offense. This law is systematically used to target Indigenous communities (Tamang, Magar, Limbu, and others) for whom beef consumption is a traditional and customary practice.
• International Violation: This criminalization is a direct violation of ILO Convention No. 169 (Article 9), which requires the state to respect the methods customarily practiced by Indigenous Peoples for the punishment of offenses and to take their customs into account in the application of national laws.
• Judicial Weaponization: LAHURNIP has documented patterns where local police use "cow slaughter" charges to harass Indigenous Rights Defenders and silence political dissent at the local level.

d. The "Dead Letter" of Article 56(5) and Judicial Defiance

The state has effectively blocked the legal path to non-recurrence by ignoring the judiciary and its own Constitution:

• Non-Implementation of Autonomy: Article 56(5)[16] of the Constitution mandates the creation of Special, Protected, and Autonomous regions. This was the "compromise" offered to Indigenous groups in exchange for identity-based provinces. However, the federal government has intentionally refused to enact the enabling legislation required to operationalize these regions.
• Supreme Court Orders: In the case of LAHURNIP et al. vs. OPMCM (074-WO-0053), the Supreme Court issued a Directive Order (Mandamus) in February 2024 (full text released 2025) requiring the state to align all domestic laws with UNDRIP and ILO 169. The state’s continued failure to implement this order constitutes a crisis of the Rule of Law and a refusal to fulfill the "Guarantees of Non-Recurrence."

3. Specific Analysis of Indigenous Peoples’ Rights in the Transitional Justice Process

3.1 Truth-Seeking: The Omission of Collective Harm and Historical Agreements

Truth-seeking in Nepal has remained narrow and individualistic, failing to document the collective violations that served as the root causes of the civil war.

• Erasure of Political Truth: The Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) has systematically ignored the breach of "Constructive Arrangements" such as the 2007 20-Point Agreement and the 2012 9-Point Agreement. These agreements were integral to the peace process, promising a state restructured on the basis of ethnicity, language, and region. By ignoring these signed pacts, the state denies the "truth" regarding why Indigenous Peoples participated in the conflict.
• Search for the Disappeared: Indigenous families, particularly in the Terai and Mid-Hills, face linguistic barriers in accessing commissions. The "Truth" is incomplete without acknowledging that many disappearances were motivated by the suppression of Indigenous political mobilization.

3.2 Criminal Justice and Accountability: Double Standards and Cultural Weaponization

The state’s approach to criminal justice reveals a clear bias: leniency for conflict-era state perpetrators but harsh criminalization for Indigenous activists and cultural practitioners.

• The Tikapur Case and Tharuhat Movement: The prosecution of Tharu leaders like Resham Chaudhary following the 2015 Tikapur incident represents a failure of accountability. While the state moves to grant amnesties for war crimes under the 2024 TJ Act, it continues to treat the Tharuhat movement—which demanded the implementation of the 2007 Agreement’s promise of a Tharuhat Province—as a criminal matter.
• Criminalization of Culture: Under the National Penal Code (2074), the state continues to prosecute Indigenous individuals (Tamang, Magar, Limbu) for cow slaughter. This is a weaponization of the judiciary to maintain Hindu religious hegemony, violating the secularism promised in the CPA and the rights of Indigenous Peoples under ILO Convention No. 169.

3.3 Reparation: The Need for Collective Restitution and Satisfaction

The current reparation measures are restricted to individual cash compensation, which fails to address the spiritual and territorial harms suffered by Indigenous communities.

• Restitution of Identity: For Indigenous Peoples, "satisfaction" (as a form of reparation) must include the political recognition of their identities. The refusal to name provinces based on ethnic civilization (e.g., Kirat-Limbuwan or Tharuhat) constitutes a denial of symbolic reparation.
• Land and Resource Restitution: Reparation must include the return of ancestral lands seized for "protected areas" or national parks without FPIC. Physical and psychosocial rehabilitation must account for the Spirituality of Lands, recognizing that the displacement of Indigenous Peoples from their sacred sites is an ongoing violation.

3.4 Memorialization: Cultural Erasure as Ongoing Conflict

State-led memorialization honors a monolithic national narrative while erasing the diverse civilizations of Nepal’s Indigenous nations.

• Naming as Conflict: The naming of Province 1 as "Koshi" in 2023, ignoring identity-based names, is a direct rejection of Indigenous memory work. The violent suppression of protests against this erasure—leading to the death of activist Padam Limbu (Lajehang)—proves that memorialization remains a site of conflict rather than reconciliation. This erasure violates Article 37 of the UNDRIP, which mandates respect for agreements concluded between the State and Indigenous Peoples.

3.5 Guarantees of Non-Recurrence (GNR): Institutional and Judicial Defiance

The state has failed to implement the structural reforms required to prevent the recurrence of conflict, specifically by ignoring the mandate of its own judiciary.

• Constitutional and Legal Reforms (Article 56-5): A primary guarantee of non-recurrence was the promise of Special, Protected, and Autonomous regions under Article 56(5) of the Constitution. The state’s refusal to enact the laws necessary to operationalize these regions is a deliberate tactic to maintain a unitary, centralized power structure.
• Judicial Reform and Non-Compliance: A critical failure of GNR is the government’s defiance of the Supreme Court’s Directive Order (074-WO-0053)[17] issued in February 2024. This order mandates that all domestic laws be aligned with UNDRIP and ILO 169. The state’s continued drafting of laws (e.g., land and education bills) without Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC) ensures that the root causes of the 1996-2006 conflict remain active.
• Institutional Reform: Proportional inclusive representation in the judiciary and security forces—guaranteed by the 2007 20-Point Agreement (Point 8)—remains a "legal mirage," with state organs still dominated by non-Indigenous elite groups.

4. Conclusions and Recommendations

4.1 Conclusions

The transitional justice process in Nepal remains substantially incomplete, exclusionary, and insufficiently connected to the lived realities of Indigenous Peoples. While the State advances a narrative of successful transition, LAHURNIP identifies an ongoing continuity of structural violence. The root causes of the 1996–2006 armed conflict—namely the exclusionary unitary state structure, the denial of Indigenous identity, and the dispossession of ancestral lands—have not been addressed. Instead, these structural drivers have been transposed into a federal model that has not remedied the underlying patterns of marginalization.

The existing transitional justice mechanisms, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) and the Commission of Investigation on Enforced Disappeared Persons (CIEDP), have proven inadequate because they frame human rights violations as isolated individual acts rather than as manifestations of internal colonization and long-standing structural exclusion. This narrow approach prevents the recognition of the collective and structural nature of the harms experienced by Adivasi Janajati communities.

The State’s failure to implement the 2007 20-Point Agreement and the 2012 9-Point Agreement, together with the deliberate non-implementation of Article 56(5) of the Constitution and the disregard for Supreme Court Directive Orders, constitutes a serious breach of the commitments underpinning the peace process. These omissions undermine the legal and political foundations of the transition and reflect a continued resistance to addressing Indigenous claims to identity, territory, and self-governance within the state restructuring process.

Furthermore, the ongoing criminalization of Indigenous cultural practices through cow slaughter laws and the violent suppression of identity-based movements, including Tharuhat and Kirat-Limbuwan, demonstrate that effective guarantees of non-recurrence are not in place for Adivasi Janajati. In this context, the preventive function of transitional justice remains unfulfilled, and the conditions that enabled past violations persist in the present.

4.2 Concrete Recommendations

LAHURNIP respectfully requests the Special Rapporteur to urge the Government of Nepal to:

Regarding Truth and Justice:

1. Broaden the Truth Narrative: Expand the mandate of truth-seeking commissions to investigate the breach of "Constructive Arrangements" (historical agreements) and the collective harms caused by state-led land dispossession.
2. Decriminalize Identity Movements: Cease the criminal prosecution of Indigenous activists involved in the Tharuhat and Koshi naming movements, recognizing these as political struggles for constitutional rights rather than criminal acts.
3. End Cultural Criminalization: Immediately amend the National Penal Code (2074) to decriminalize cow slaughter, ensuring that the legal system respects the secular spirit of the Constitution and the cultural rights guaranteed under ILO Convention No. 169.

Regarding Reparations and Memorialization:

1. Adopt Collective Reparations: Implement a framework for reparations that includes the restitution of ancestral lands and the recognition of Indigenous customary justice systems.
2. Ensure Inclusive Memorialization: Advise the Government to adopt identity-based naming for provinces and landmarks (e.g., Kirat-Limbuwan, Tharuhat) as a form of symbolic reparation and respect for Indigenous civilizations.
3. Provide Rehabilitation for Activists: Exonerate and provide full rehabilitation for Indigenous rights defenders, such as those affected by the Tikapur incident, who have been victimized by state-led legal harassment.

Regarding Guarantees of Non-Recurrence (GNR):

1. Implement Article 56(5): Enact federal legislation without further delay to define and operationalize Special, Protected, and Autonomous regions as mandated by the Constitution and Supreme Court directive orders.
2. Comply with Judicial Mandates: Establish a time-bound action plan to fulfill the February 2024 Supreme Court Directive Order (074-WO-0053) to align all national and local laws with UNDRIP and ILO 169.
3. Institutionalize FPIC: Legally mandate the principle of Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC) for all development projects and administrative decisions affecting Indigenous territories to prevent future conflict and displacement.
4. Ensure Proportional Representation: Fulfill the promise of the 2007 20-Point Agreement by ensuring the proportional inclusive representation of Indigenous Peoples in the judiciary, security forces, and all transitional justice mechanisms.

5. Bibliography

• Interim Constitution of Nepal (2007). Articles 17, 33, 138, and 144.
• The Constitution of Nepal 2072 (2015)
• Muluki Panel Code 2074 (2017)
• National Foundation for Development of Indigenous Nationalities Act, 2058 (2002)
• The Indigenous World 2025, International Work Group for Indigenous Affairs, April 2025
• Amnesty International (2024). Annual Report: Nepal 2023/24 – Freedom of Assembly.
• Tikapur Incident Human Rights Monitoring Report, LAHURNIP
• Government of Nepal & INJSC (2012). 9-Point Agreement regarding Identity-based Federalism. Kathmandu.
• National Report on caste/ethnicity, language & religion, NSO Nepal, Population Census 2021
• Government of Nepal & NEFIN (2007). 20-Point Agreement. Kathmandu.
• LAHURNIP (2015). Tikapur Incident: Human Rights Monitoring Report.
• Supreme Court of Nepal (2024). Directive Order 074-WO-0053 (LAHURNIP et al. vs. OPMCM) regarding ILO 169 and UNDRIP compliance.
• The Kathmandu Post (2023). "Protester injured in Biratnagar clash against Koshi naming dies." (March 24, 2023).
• United Nations (2006). Comprehensive Peace Accord (CPA) between the Government of Nepal and the CPN-Maoist.

6. Annexes

• Annex 1: Full text of the 2007 20-Point Agreement.
• Annex 2: Government of Nepal & NEFIN (2007). 20-Point Agreement. Kathmandu
• Annex 3: Government of Nepal & INJSC (2012). 9-Point Agreement regarding Identity-based Federalism. Kathmandu..

[1] For more information see: https://www.lahurnip.org/we-and-our-vision

[2] ibid

[3] For more information, please visit the official website: https://www.niatero.org/

[4] Ibid 3

[5] Section 2(a), National Foundation for Development of Indigenous Nationalities Act, 2058 (2002)

[6] National Report on caste/ethnicity, language & religion, NSO Nepal, Population Census 2021, p 1. https://censusnepal.cbs.gov.np/results/downloads/caste-ethnicity?type=report

[7] The Indigenous World 2025, International Work Group for Indigenous Affairs, April 2025, Country report: Nepal, p 271, https://iwgia.org/en/nepal/5672-iw-2025-nepal.html

[8] Article 3.5, Comprehensive Peace Accord Signed between Nepal Government And the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) 22 November 2006

[9] Ibid 8, Article 7.1.1

[10] Ibid 8, Article 7.1.5

[11] ibid 7

[12] Agreement between the Government and Janajatis (7 August 2007/ 22 Saun 2064) < https://constitutionnet.org/sites/default/files/2007-08-07-agreement_between_government_and_janajatis.pdf>

[13] Tikapur Incident Human Rights Monitoring Report, LAHURNIP

[14] https://english.ratopati.com/story/27494/during-display-

[15] Section 289, Muluki Panel Code 2074 (2017)

[16] Article 56(5), The Constitution of Nepal 2072 (2015)

[17] Nepal’s Supreme Court mandates federal, provincial, and local governments to comply with ILO 169 and UNDRIP, LAHURNIP < https://www.lahurnip.org/news/155>