When Was 12 Point Delhi Agreement Held In Nepal

9.4. The National Commission on Human Rights is also carrying out work on the monitoring of human rights, as stated in this agreement, as well as the responsibility entrusted to it under the legislation. As part of its work, the Commission can benefit from the assistance of national and international human rights organisations after maintaining the necessary coordination with them. Reaffirming the unqualified commitment to the twelve-point agreement between seven political parties, CPN (Maoist), eight-point consensus, 25-point code of conduct between the Nepalese government and the NPC (Maoït), a decision taken at the meeting between the leaders of seven political parties and the CPN (Maoït) on 8 November 2006, including all correspondence, consensus, code of conduct between the Nepalese government and the KPN (Maoist) and letters to the United Nations with positions Similar 1.1. The agreement is called a „comprehensive peace agreement.“ In short, the agreement is called a peace agreement. Given that Nepal is a nation of unity in diversity between its different ethnic and religious groups, as well as our plaid exercise of democracy over the past 15 years, it is clear that we must pursue the monarchy as a symbol of unity and stability. Overall, this agreement offers sufficient reasons to move forward to achieve our dear goal of achieving a lasting peace and a functioning democracy. Nevertheless, it appears to contain two controversial elements: UN surveillance of the RNA and Maoist militia during elections and parliamentary elections. Let us remember that the RNA was initially mobilized to contain destructive and terrorist activities. It is illogical to put the Maoist militia and the RNA on an equal footing, because one is a rebellious cloth day outfit that works to oust a democratic terrorist-style regime and the other an authorized guardian of national security. With regard to the Assembly`s inquiry, which seems to be a meeting place, it is important that this is also acceptable to the king. Given the silent acceptance of the constitutional monarchy, it would be reasonable to expect that the king would also be accessible to the prospects of a constituent assembly that would draw up the new Constitution if constitutional monarchy and multi-party democracy were considered fundamental and inalienable.