네팔 진실·화해위원회의 성과와 과제 ― 이행기 정의의 관점에서 ―

This study analyzes the institutional achievements and limitations of Nepal’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) and offers a comprehensive evaluation of the country’s transitional justice framework. Nepal’s transitional justice process emerged following the decade-long armed conflict (1996–2006) and was institutionally grounded in the 2006 Comprehensive Peace Accord and the 2015 Constitution. Formally established in 2015, the TRC suffered from significant structural deficiencies from its inception. These included legal provisions allowing amnesty for serious human rights violations such as torture and sexual violence, a lack of political independence, and insufficient victim-centered approaches. Although the Commission received approximately 64,000 victim statements, fewer than 10 percent of cases were formally investigated, and its findings failed to translate into meaningful criminal accountability. Moreover, most policy recommendations remained unimplemented, resulting in limited substantive outcomes in terms of responsibility and justice. The 2024 Amendment Act represents an important institutional reform, reflecting the 2015 Supreme Court ruling and international recommendations. The amendment explicitly prohibits amnesty for serious crimes, establishes a Victim Advisory Council, mandates specialized investigative units, and strengthens procedural cooperation with criminal justice authorities. Through these measures, the revised framework seeks to realign Nepal’s transitional justice system toward international human rights standards. Nevertheless, the appointment of new commissioners in May 2025 has triggered renewed political controversy and resistance from victim groups. Persistent challenges include the lack of transparency in the selection process, the failure to secure de facto independence from political actors, and ongoing weaknesses in linking truth-seeking mechanisms with the criminal justice system. The Nepalese experience demonstrates that transitional justice cannot be achieved through legal reform alone; it requires sustained political will, meaningful victim participation, and continuous international scrutiny.