Yasmin Sooka, commissioner in the post-apartheid South African Truth Commission, was in Kathmandu last week to attend a conference on transitional justice. She spoke to Dipendra Jha about the lessons Nepal could learn.

Nepali Times: Why have efforts at truth and reconciliation failed in many post-conflict situations?
Yasmin Sooka: It depends on what you mean by success, in many countries these efforts have uncovered the truth creating accountability of past atrocities and recommended effective reparation.

Nepal's challenge is to balance peace with justice. How does one do that?
Peace and justice are the same. There can be no sustainable peace in the absence of justice. Restorative justice is also important during the reconciliation process. The justice system must hold those who committed crimes against humanity, war crimes, and genocide accountable for their actions. Justice, accountability and reparation are the important factors that help a country move from conflict to democracy and peace.

Nepal's Truth and Reconciliation Commission draft bill has a provision for amnesty. Will this work?
Amnesty is superficial, it covers up and moves too quickly. Amnesty should only be granted for actions with a political goal and which were not of an excessive nature, it must not be granted by the government or political leaders, rather it should be based on the will of the victims. The state can't force victims to forget and forgive. But this doesn't mean that all tortures, rapes, disappearances, killings, and other unspeakable horrors should be pardoned.

How will the amnesty provision affect elections?
Actually a Truth and Reconciliation Commission must be formed only after wide consultation around the country. It takes time. It must not be formed in a hurry otherwise victims will not feel that they are included in the process.

Can the interim parliament give amnesty?
Neither parliament nor the government, not even the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, can be entitled to grant amnesty on behalf of the victims. That can only come after the perpetrators of serious human rights violations are brought to justice, and it should be based on the will of the victims.

And reconciliation? When does that come in?
Reconciliation is necessary on the path to peace. The question here is not just peace, but long-term sustainable peace. And it is impossible to establish this without full justice. Unjust peace is always ad hoc which can bring a different side-effect in society. Reconciliation without justice has been done, but it is only with the immediate objective of ending violence of what we call negative peace.

Nepali activists are proposing a 'hybrid model' of a truth commission including international members. Do you think that is suitable?
In South Africa, the people wanted commissioners from their own country. There is a need for international experience, technical support, and international lobbying but it is not necessary that they be members of the commission itself. Every country should try to do this by itself.

Related Article
. No truth, some reconciliation
. "Undervalued grief"

Read more in