4.6. In accordance with the commitment expressed in the letter to the United Nations, the Nepalese army is locked up in the barracks. Guarantee that weapons will not be used for or against any party. The Nepalese army will store the same amount of weapons, according to that of the Maoists, and seal them with one and give the key to the affected party. If there is a need to investigate the weapons stored, the United Nations would do so in the presence of the party concerned. Prepare the details of the technology, including the surveillance camera in accordance with the agreement between the Government of Nepal, the Maoists and the United Nations. 5.2.3. Both parties also agree to publish, within 60 days of the signing of the agreement, the names, castes and addresses of persons “disappeared” or killed during the conflict, as well as to inform family members. Both sides agree to adopt the policy and a programme of political, economic and social change and to respond in the affirmative to the conflict in the country: 1.3.Both parties give all agencies under their control the necessary guidelines for the immediate implementation of this agreement, respect it and implement it and implement it. 9.1. Both sides agree to ensure continuity in monitoring the human rights provisions mentioned in this agreement by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights in Nepal. 6.1.
On the basis of the historic agreement reached on 8 November 2006 between the seven political parties and the CPN (Maoist), we declare an end to the armed conflict that has lasted since 1995 in the country, by permanently distributing the ongoing ceasefire between the government and the Maoist. 1.4.All agreements, consensus and decisions between seven political parties, the government and the Maoists listed in the annex are an integral part of this agreement. The text of the agreement shows the willingness of democrats – both parliamentarians and revolutionaries – to reconsider their respective strategies in order to save the coordination achieved so far. While it is difficult to predict all the effects of this agreement, conflicting attempts are clearly reflected in the text. The reluctance of moderates to go beyond the constitutional monarchy is reflected in the criticism of the “autocratic monarchy” rather than the monarchy itself. On the other hand, the agreement also speaks of absolute democracy. Only time will determine where this Cartesian union of the spirits of “democracy” will lead.