Sumanthiran explains the certificate of absence

August 25, 2016, 10:15 pm 

TNA Parliamentarian M.A.Sumanthiran told the House yesterday that the certificate of absence was a mere acknowledgment by the government that the person concerned was not around. 

Joining the second reading debate of Registration of Deaths (Temporary Provisions) (Amendment) Bill, MP Sumanthiran said that the certificate of absence did not extinguish the right to have an inquiry into the fate of a missing person.

"This amendment addresses the issue of the family knowing the fate of the missing person. If there is no evidence or if it is ascertainable as to what happened to that person, you still have the certificate of absence, the legal incidents of which will enable you to continue to move forward in life."

MP Sumanthiran said several people had obtained death certificates unwillingly. There was a mechanism in place with regard to the missing persons and a new law had been enacted. Through that amendment, there was an option to accept a certificate of absence instead of a certificate of death. Even those who had obtained death certificates unwillingly could obtain certificates of absence so that investigations could be conducted into the disappearance of the persons concerned.

The Jaffna District MP said several thousands of citizens had died due to violence. It had become necessary to enable the surviving members of the families to get on with their lives to move forward. Therefore the ordinary law had to be amended.

Thousands of complaints had been made to the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC) by the relatives of people who had been missing during the conflict. More than 90 percent of complaints received by the LLRC related to persons who had gone missing over a period of time, most notably during the last stages of the war.

The LLRC report had brought that out and made various recommendations. Unfortunately, the then government which appointed the LLRC had not thought it appropriate to implement the recommendations of the commission.

Although several actions were taken to persuade the government to implement the LLRC recommendation most of them had gone unimplemented. The UNHRC also called upon the then government to implement the recommendations of its own commission. Some of those important recommendations were related to the case of missing persons, he said.

Thereafter, in order to show the important aspect of the LLRC’s recommendation, the then previous government had appointed a commission headed by former High Court Judge Maxwell Paranagama. The LLRC recommended that an investigative commissioner should be appointed with respect to the missing persons. But, what was done was the appointment of another commission which held sittings all over the country. But, people felt compelled to go before that commission also all over again to make complaints about their relatives who had gone missing.

Those relatives had complained to various institutions such as ICRC, Human Rights office, police stations and they had files full of those documents that they had forwarded to various authorities. They went before the Paranagama commission. But, those hearings were not satisfactory, Sumanthiran said.

The present government, too, continued to extend that commission. "I believe it has now come to an end."

When that commission started its sittings in Killinochchi, close to the place where the commission sat, another tent had been put up and a son of the former president was personally present there doling out cash to people who were going to the Paranagama Commission to divert them to the other shed giving them cash and asking them to apply for death certificates for their loved ones. People had been bribed to accept that the missing persons were dead, the MP said.  (SI)