Responding To Geneva By Exemplary Restitution

By Austin Fernando -March 29, 2013 

Austin Fernando

Robert O. Blake has once said, “International mechanisms can become appropriate in cases where states are either unable or unwilling to meet their obligations.” After Geneva March 2013, US officials have reiterated this in stricter terms.

TNA MP Suresh Premachandran has said the final Geneva Resolution will not relieve the affected Tamils and reminded the UNHRC wish (2012) to implement the LLRC recommendations, which allegedly has been defaulted. TNA Leader R Sampanthan has said that if Government of Sri Lanka (GOSL) complied by implementing the LLRC recommendations, a second resolution could have been avoided.

However,Japan’s Yasushi Akashi has made a favourable statement for Sri Lanka, quoting his visits to North Sri Lanka and how “the whole country coped with the challenges”

In Geneva Minister Mahinda Samarasinghe described positive developments.  Later, Minister Wimal Weerawansa exhorted that Sri Lanka is unshaken by Geneva resolutions, while Minister DEW Gunasekarafeared worse befalling by government defaulting.

Is this confusion due to different viewer notions?

Here, I address the non-implementation of one LLRC recommendation, (i.e. restitution), which incorporates almost all international concerns, e.g. rights, resettlement, reconciliation etc. This is especially important in the North, where the largest noise is echoed. It refers to the return of the displaced to their original homes- restitution– meaning occupation of lands, shelter, rehabilitation, livelihood facilitations, compensations etc. Before the LLRC, I mentioned appropriate mechanisms for restitution. I believed that if the GOSL acts accordingly, criticisms could be minimized. With criticism directed at GOSL, it appears that GOSL has defaulted in the eyes of internationals, while government spokespersons mean otherwise.

Some criticize the actions to implement the LLRC recommendations, as tightening screws on restitution. For example, I quote Vimarsanam (8-3-2013) to explain one concern- i.e. land- which said:

Land Circular 2013/01 provides detailed procedures that will enable the large scale assessment of the range of land problems that returning IDPs face as well as provide procedures for tackling land ownership and occupation problems faced by people.

At the same time, however, the Circular seems to foreclose the possibility of displaced recovering lands that have been taken over by the State for either military or security purposes. The Circular says in Paragraph 2.2.1.1 : “…there is no barrier to alienate lands for Government-approved development projects…”. The Circular also declares in Paragraph 2.2.1.2 that IDPs may also have ‘lost’ lands due to use by the armed forces and for development activities. The Circular provides for possible alternative land issues for those who have ‘lost’ lands in this manner, but does not seem to provide for any possibility of recovering such State-appropriated lands.

This programme will be made effective according to Cabinet Paper number 11/0737/533/015 of 2011.03.07. in implementing the relevant LLRC Recommendations.”

(Highlighting by the author)                                                               Read More