A/HRC/4/97 page 5 II. HUMAN RIGHTS AND THE PEACE PROCESS 9. Following the political developments, peace talks between SPA and CPN(M) were relaunched and resulted in the signing of a series of agreements. The talks culminated in an 8 November timetable for steps leading to Constituent Assembly elections, and on 21 November 2006, SPA and CPN(M) signed a Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA), which effectively ended the 11-year conflict. Consolidating previous agreements signed between the two parties since November 2005, it contains broad provisions on human rights, including ending discrimination, arbitrary detention, torture, killings and disappearances, as well as economic and social rights. It also mandates OHCHR to monitor the human rights provisions contained in the Agreement and requires both parties to collaborate with the Office in providing information and implementing recommendations. 10. OHCHR has repeatedly stated that human rights must be central to the peace process. While the human rights provisions are to be welcomed, the Comprehensive Peace Agreement does not contain specific measures for their implementation. Both parties have made full commitments to respecting human rights in previous agreements and understandings, but implementation has been far from satisfactory. To date, the Agreement also fails to address the question of justice for past human rights violations (see below). 11. Following the signing of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement, a 31-member Ceasefire Code of Conduct National Monitoring Committee, set up on 15 June 2006, which OHCHR had been requested to assist with regard to human rights monitoring, was dissolved. An alternative monitoring body has yet to be set up. Human rights provisions of the Ceasefire Code of Conduct were mostly incorporated into the Comprehensive Peace Agreement. 12. The Comprehensive Peace Agreement also accords an important monitoring role to the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC). However, the future of NHRC remained uncertain throughout the reporting period. Following the 9 July resignation of NHRC Chairperson and members, OHCHR and others strongly advocated for a timely, transparent and consultative process for the selection of new commissioners which would take into account the views of civil society. In communications with senior government officials, OHCHR urged that provisions be incorporated into the draft Interim Constitution and a draft revised Human Rights Commission Act to ensure that the selection and appointment process, among other issues, conformed with international standards. It also urged that the new NHRC be put on a firm, non-partisan footing in order to carry out its work independently and with the broad support it needs from civil society. None of these recommendations were incorporated into the relevant legislation. In December 2006, the Government named a new Chairperson and commissioners under the revised Human Rights Commission Act. The lack of consultation in the selection process was widely criticized. By the end of the year, the appointments had yet to be approved. 13. Against this backdrop, OHCHR continued to assist NHRC staff and organized trainings with the Commission to further build its staff’s professional capacity and to better prepare it for the key role it should play when new Commissioners are finally appointed. 14. To pave the way for the formation of an Interim Government and Parliament, a draft Interim Constitution was signed by the two parties on 16 December 2006, and promulgated on 15 January by the outgoing Legislature and by the incoming Interim Legislature. It had been