Transitional justice at the National Human Rights Commission of Nepal: challenging legitimacy, credibility, and effectiveness.

In the past three decades, national human rights institutions (NHRIs) have becoming an increasingly common feature of transitional and post-conflict justice processes. As institutions designed to promote and protect human rights, they have been afforded a range of responsibilities, including investigating conflict-related human rights violations, assisting with the establishment and functioning of ad hoc mechanisms like truth and reconciliation commissions, and contributing to accountability. Drawing on evidence from the case of Nepal, however, this article demonstrates that engaging in transitional justice processes places NHRIs at considerable risk. It argues, in particular, that the political nature of transitional justice and compromises it inevitably entails can serve to jeopardise the legitimacy, credibility, and effectiveness of NHRIs. The article thus concludes that far greater consideration of the impact that transitional justice has on NHRIs and development of measures to protect their integrity in highly fraught political contexts is required. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]