INTERNATIONAL HR ORGANISATIONS CALL ON THE HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL TO ESTABLISH AN INTERNATIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY MECHANISM ON SRI LANKA

28/02/2020

Making Joint Oral Statement at the ongoing 43rd session of the Human Rights Council today (28 February 2020.) eight International Human Rights organisations urged the Human Rights Council to hold Sri Lanka accountable to its obligations under international law. Given this week’s announcement that the new Government will not continue to engage with the clear framework agreed through resolution 30/1; the failure of past domestic reconciliation and accountability mechanisms; and the ongoing compromise of the rule of law as pointed out by the High Commissioner yesterday, we call on the Council to establish an international accountability mechanism on Sri Lanka.

Full statement:

Madam President,

We are deeply concerned by indicators of a significant backsliding on human rights in Sri Lanka, underscored by the government using their address to the Council this week to go back on the important commitments made by Sri Lanka through HRC resolution 30/1.

Sri Lankan authorities’ indication to revoke the 19th amendment to the Constitution would remove check and balances on the executive and seriously jeopardise the independence of the judiciary and relevant commissions. The Government is reportedly considering reviewing the Office on Missing Persons (OMP) Act. Similarly, the President’s recent callous comments about the fate of thousands of missing persons without any conclusion of investigations in line with international law have added to the distress of families of the disappeared. A Gazette on 22nd January granted powers to a Commission of Inquiry (CoI) to scrutinise investigations into emblematic cases. The COI has attempted to halt criminal proceedings against navy officers accused of the disappearance and killing of eleven youth. We echo the High Commissioner’s concern¹ on the promotion of several military officers who are named in the OISL report for violations of international law.

Since November 2019, the Ministry of Defence has been assigned as the oversight body for NGOs, significantly increasing the risk of their surveillance. More than a dozen human rights and media organisations have received intimidating visits from law enforcement and intelligence agencies,² while death threats³ against journalists have resumed. The climate of fear has returned to Sri Lanka, in particular among those who continue to call for truth, justice and accountability. Relentless campaigns against minorities also require immediate attention.

We urge this Council to hold Sri Lanka accountable to its obligations under international law. Given this week’s announcement that the new Government will not continue to engage with the clear framework agreed through resolution 30/1; the failure of past domestic reconciliation and accountability mechanisms; and the ongoing compromise of the rule of law as pointed out by the High Commissioner yesterday, we call on the Council to establish an international accountability mechanism on Sri Lanka.

Thank you, Madam President.

1 A/HRC/43/19, paragraph 34

2 Amnesty International, Sri Lanka: Attacks on Human Rights Organisations, Media Organisations and Journalists In Sri Lanka, 2020, https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/asa37/1678/2020/en/

3 Colombo Gazette, Batticaloa Tamil journalists receive death threats, 

2020, http://colombogazette.com/2020/01/24/batticaloa-tamil-journalists-receive-death-threats-2/

Item 2: General Debate on reports and oral updates of the High Commissioner and the Secretary-General.

Sri Lanka May Face Economic Sanctions

By Veluppillai Thangavelu –FEBRUARY 28, 2020

Veluppillai Thangavelu

The official announcement by the Government of Sri Lanka that it will withdraw from co-sponsorship of UNHRC resolution 30/1 comes as no surprise. During the presidential election campaign, Gotabaya Rajapaksa had pledged he would not honour the previous government’s commitments to the UN. Gotabaya Rajapaksa, now president, was defence secretary from 2005 to January 2015.

The UN rights body resolution had blamed Government forces, notably the 58th Division commanded by Shavendra Silva of committing rights abuses during the final phase of the battle which ended in 18th May 2009. Both government troops and the LTTE were accused of rights violations, but the Sri Lanka Army has denied the alleged rights abuses.

The resolution 30/1 adopted unanimously by all 47 members of the UNHRC called for an independent investigation with foreign judges and prosecutors to probe war crimes allegation. Former Sri Lanka’s Foreign Minister co-sponsored the resolution along with 11 other countries, including the US and Britain, calling for an investigation into alleged human rights violations during the island nation’s civil war, which ended in May 2009.

According to a United Nations report, some 45,000 Tamil civilians were killed in the last phases of the war alone.

Human Rights groups have long called for investigations into alleged rights abuses committed during the Rajapaksas’ previous terms in power.  Mahinda Rajapaksa was president when Sri Lankan troops defeated Tamil Tiger rebels in May 2009 but rights groups accused the army of killing at least 40,000 civilians in the final months of the conflict.

Sri Lanka co-sponsored the resolution at the United Nations Human Rights Council along with 11 other countries calling for the investigation of allegations of wartime atrocities by both government forces and the Tamil Tiger rebels, who were fighting for a separate homeland for the Tamils.

In March 2014 the United Nations Human Rights Council authorised an international investigation into the alleged war crimes.

The UN has found evidence “strongly indicating” that war crimes were committed in Sri Lanka in the closing phases of its civil war and called for the establishment of a special “hybrid” international court to investigate individuals responsible for the worst atrocities.

Unveiling a 220 – page report in Geneva, Zeid Ra’ad al-Hussein, the UN high commissioner for human rights, said it described horrific abuses including torture, executions, forced disappearances, sexual abuse by security forces as well as suicide attacks, assassinations and recruitment of child soldiers by the LTTE.

In announcing the Government’s decision to withdraw from co-sponsorship of UNHRC resolution 30/1 Prime Minister Mahinda Rajapaksa said “the government would no longer abide by a 2015 resolution calling for accountability for alleged excesses carried out by Sri Lankan troops and reparations for victims. Washington’s recent decision to ban the army chief was because the previous government had signed up to the resolution. It is because of the historic betrayal … in co-sponsoring UN Human Rights Council Resolution 30/1 in 2015 that other countries are able to name members of our armed forces as violators of human rights,” in a statement.

The Prime Minister added “Even though this collective punishment has been meted out on the grounds that the Army Commander had committed violations of human rights, no one knows what these allegations are. Whilst the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights says that until a person accused of a crime is proved guilty according to law, he should be deemed innocent; this principle does not seem to apply to Sri Lanka’s Army Commander or even to members of his family.” Rajapaksa says the government’s displeasure has been communicated to the government of the United States in the “strongest possible terms”.

Mahinda’s statement came after the US State Department imposed a travel ban on Sri Lanka’s army commander, Shavendra Silva and his family over alleged human rights violations in the final stages of the civil war in 2009.

Sri Lankan Foreign Minister Dinesh Gunawardena will officially announce Colombo’s withdrawal from co-sponsoring a 2015 UN Human Rights Council resolution on accountability for war crimes during his address at the council’s session on  26 February (Wednesday) according to his office.

It will be recalled Mahinda Rajapaksa has consistently denied any human rights abuses by the armed forces. Speaking at a huge military festival in Colombo in 2011 to mark the two-year anniversary of the government’s defeat of the LTTE, he rejected calls for an independent international inquiry. Thousands of military personnel took part in a march-past and military hardware display which became a regular ritual till he lost the elections in 2015.

“Our forces carried the firearm in one hand and the human rights charter in the other. Our forces never harboured hatred towards any community or individual,” he said. “Looking at how other countries fight wars, we are proud of the humanitarian nature of our operation. Therefore, when we see how some countries carry out operations against enemies today, we are proud. I pay tribute to the skill of his armed forces at the parade and that he would stand by them. We were with you on the battlefield. It is same today; we will not betray you before the world. Our forces never harboured hatred towards any community or individual.”

The BBC’s Charles Havilland in Colombo at that time described Mahinda Rajapaksa’s speech as ”defiant” and reflected the great public support he enjoyed from the war victory. However, such rhetoric does not reflect the reality on the ground.

It is obvious Mahinda Rajapaksa was off the mark and was trying to hide a whole pumpkin inside a plate of rice.  UNHRC’s resolution 30/1, inter-alia, only alleged that government forces of committing war crimes. The Experts Committee Report on Accountability claimed ”credible allegations, which if proven, indicate that a wide range of serious violations of international humanitarian law and international human rights law were committed both by the Government of Sri Lanka and the LTTE, some of which would amount to war crimes and crimes against humanity”. The report also claimed tens of thousands of civilians were killed, most of them in shelling by government forces.

 A committee appointed by Sri Lanka’s government in 2017 recommended both local and international judges be appointed to the court that will investigate allegations of war crimes from the country’s civil war.

The UNHRC’s  resolution 30/1 on ‘Promoting reconciliation, accountability and human rights in Sri Lanka commits Sri Lanka to ‘establish a judicial mechanism with a special counsel to investigate allegations of violations and abuses of human rights and violations of international humanitarian law, as applicable; affirms that a credible justice process should include independent judicial and prosecutorial institutions led by individuals known for their integrity and impartiality; and also affirms in this regard the importance of participation in a Sri Lankan judicial mechanism, including the special counsel’s office, of Commonwealth and other foreign judges, defence lawyers and authorized prosecutors and investigators.’ The investigation is against both the government forces and LTTE.

In 2017 Sri Lanka received a two-year extension to implement its own commitments. At its fortieth session, the UNHRC adopted a new resolution on 21 March 2019 co-sponsored by the government of Sri Lanka, giving it a further two years to implement outstanding promises in full. UNHRC resolution 30/1

Also in 2015, the then UN High Commissioner on Human Rights, Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussain called for the establishment of a hybrid special court adding, “a purely domestic court procedure will have no chance of overcoming widespread and justifiable suspicions fuelled by decades of violations, malpractice and broken promises.”

However, the Government of Ranil Wickremesinghe for obvious reasons dragged its feet since the implementation of resolutions 30/1 and 40/1 will spell electoral disaster as the outcome of presidential poll results. Gotabaya Rajapaksa romped home garnering Sinhala – Buddhist votes only. The assumption that minority community votes are a deciding factor in an Island-wide poll was proved wrong.

Having tasted victory at the presidential poll Mahinda Rajapaksa and his SLPP hope for a repeat performance at the forthcoming parliamentary elections scheduled to be held on April 26, 2020. They are aiming at a 2/3 majority in order to do away with 19A that has curtailed the powers of the executive president. Presently, there is a Defence Secretary and State Defence Minister but no Defence Minister. 19A says that the president shall not hold any portfolios. However, Gotabaya Rajapaksa is issuing instructions to the armed forces in his capacity as the Commander – in – Chief of the Armed Forces. He is militarising the public service by appointing ex-army officers to key posts. The latest is the appointment of retired Major General  Vijitha Ravipriya as the Director-General of Customs. He held the office of the Commander Security Forces – Kilinochchi as his last appointment, prior to his retirement.

The Cabinet of Ministers has approved the Government’s decision to withdraw from UNHRC resolutions 30/1 and 40/1. The decision was announced during the Cabinet media briefing held this morning.

Cabinet co-spokesperson Minister Bandula Gunawardene addressing the briefing informed that the proposal to withdraw from cosponsoring UNHRC resolutions 30/1 and 40/1 was presented by Minister of Foreign relations Dinesh Gunawardene. While noting that this controversial agreement has been opposed by a large population of the country, Minimiser Gunawardene noted that the decision to withdraw from the resolutions was unanimously approved by the Cabinet.

The Federal Party (ITAK) said that it would urge the United Nations Human Rights Council to pressurise the Government to implement the resolutions despite the Government’s announcement that it was going to pull-out from the proposals. Even if the Sri Lanka Government exited from the UN resolution, the United Nations should urge the Sri Lanka Government to implement the decisions taken at the UNHRC, Parliamentarian M.A Sumanthiran said addressing the media after the Federal party (ITAK) Central Committee Meeting held at Kilinochchi yesterday.

Foreign Minister Dinesh Gunawardena in his speech at the UNHRC’s  43rd Sessions held in Geneva has officially announced the decision of his government withdrawing from sponsorship of resolutions 30/1 and 40/1 by the previous government. He has cited many reasons for the withdrawal chief among them are the infringement of Sri Lanka’s sovereignty.

Read More

Geneva 2020: New strategies, tactics, and intentions

Times are changing, the waters have grown, but we don’t know what to do; should we start swimming or sink like a stone? 

Statements by ambassadors and diplomats at cocktail circuits and press conferences were never going to be a wholesome substitute

“If you find yourself standing on a landmine, you don’t just jump off – experienced experts have to painstakingly de-activate the pressure-sensitive mine.” (Dayan Jayatilleka) The United States that exited the Human Rights Council after calling it a cesspool has been a little slow to respond to Sri Lanka’s official exit from Resolutions 30/1 and 40/1. Canada has, as expected, called out on the delegation, expressing their disappointment hoping that Sri Lanka will get back on track resorting to domestic mechanisms. The move may or may not be a diplomatic pincer – let history judge that – but it certainly spells out an end of an era. 

29 February 2020 

In the same vein with which he criticised the Mangala-Chandrika-Ranil troika which effectively led to a capitulation for Sri Lanka in Geneva from 2015 to 2018, Dr. Dayan Jayatilleka has come out and criticised the new government’s strategy. With the critique Dr Jayatilleka returns to the public sphere after a long interregnum. Times are changing, the waters have grown, but we don’t know what to do; should we start swimming or sink like a stone?  

Resolution 30/1, Foreign Minister Dinesh Gunawardena went on to observe, was sanctioned by neither the parliament nor the president who headed the party that led the parliament at the time. Without quoting the Minister verbatim, let us say here that the best summing up of the new government’s attitude to the resolution comes out by contrasting the responses of the two regimes to the subject of reconciliation on which the resolution centred. The one viewed it as an altar on which the ideal of sovereignty could be sacrificed, while the other views it as a contest between the imperatives of sovereignty and the exigencies of inter-ethnic amity which should not, at least theoretically, be resolved in favour of an enrichment of the latter at the expense of the former. 

If in 2015 the moderate Tamil and petty bourgeois Sinhala vote led to Mahinda’s defeat, in unison, in 2020 the two had separated to a degree unparalleled in this country’s history

A smarter response would have been to embed or enshrine the one in the other; to hold that reconciliation is actually linked to sovereignty. But in capitulating, the Sirisena-Wickremesinghe regime preempted even that. Only a reversal was possible, and by calling for it, the Gotabaya-Mahinda regime has done the inevitable.  

It probably was not the main reason or one of the main reasons why they lost power in 2019, but the former government’s attitude to the question of reconciliation didn’t go as expected with any of the concerned communities. The TNA reluctantly bought it, the SLFP and the Sinhala Buddhist petty bourgeoisie were split on it. If in 2015 the moderate Tamil and petty bourgeois Sinhala vote led to Mahinda’s defeat, in unison, in 2020 the two had separated to a degree unparalleled in this country’s history. Reconciliation had in many ways failed, and no amount of rhetoric brandishing or linguistic theatrics was going to win us in this country what the government had thought it had won abroad. Statements by ambassadors and diplomats at cocktail circuits and press conferences were never going to be a wholesome substitute. The centre couldn’t hold, and in 2018 when the Sirisena administration sent Tilak Marapana to refute misrepresentations made by those at the top in Geneva, it was not a volte-face. It wasn’t even a paradigm shift. It was a restoration. A reversal.  

Mr. Marapana’s statement was a turnaround that was expected, conceding ground to the need for transparency and accountability while defending the government’s track record on both. It was certainly different to the picture of the country drawn by his predecessor, so much so that it surprised no one when the predecessor, in a defensive and lengthy riposte, contended that Marapana’s entourage had “made a spectacle of ourselves.”  

If anyone wanted a confirmation of the previous government’s appeasement of international interests, this was it; not only did Samaraweera critique the widely held, and also somewhat accurate, belief that by co-sponsoring the resolution Sri Lanka produced an accusation against itself, he went as far as to tender an apology to the High Commissioner for Human Rights, Michelle Bachelet, “on behalf of all sane, rational, decent, sincere, compassionate, serious-minded and honest Sri Lankans” – an irony, considering that Bachelet had misrepresented the proportion of military lands returned to civilians in the north as well as excavation of mass graves in Mannar, alleged to have contained bodies of Tamil war victims and proven later to have been graves from the 15th to the 18th centuries.  

It would have taken no less a person than Gotabaya Rajapaksa, with Mahinda Rajapaksa as the Prime Minister, to reverse the process. But here a distinction must be made between the Geneva encounters of 2012, 2013, and 2014 – years of defeat, as Dayan Jayatilleka calls them – and the steps taken and underlined in his speech by 
Dinesh Gunawardena.  

If the defeats of the second Mahinda regime led to Mangala’s capitulation in 2015, the anger against the Mangala-Chandrika-Ranil troika led to a restoration to how things had been prior to the quick succession of diplomatic defeats in the second Mahinda regime.

In other words, what we’re seeing here is the situation that existed immediately preceding those defeats; that was a time when we actually won in Geneva, with Dr Jayatilleka at the helm. What we need is that kind of victory: the kind which comes out not from brandishing sovereignty with mad abandon, but from playing the game well internationally while preserving the self-respect of the nation. So the moment is ours, and depending on how we handle it, we can play the ball or lose it forever. If we lose, it will come back full circle and we’ll be forced to kowtow. And if we kowtow, popular resentment will again fuel a reversal.  

A never ending cycle like this has to be stopped, if at all in the interests of the country. To do so necessitates a delicate balancing act in which the exigencies of national reconciliation and the imperatives of national sovereignty are reconciled. Personally, I don’t think that with a Foreign Minister like Dinesh Gunawardena – a person praised again and again by the likes of Dr Dayan – this is going to be mission impossible. All it takes for foreign affairs to prosper is a person like Dinesh or Lakshman Kadirgamar at the top, and all it takes for them to sour is a guy who either rails against the international community or subscribes unconditionally to the terms and conditions set down by that community. As of now Mr. Gunawardena has implied that he’s neither of these, as witness the Ministry’s response to the Swiss Embassy fiasco, and it would do well if his office toes that line as a matter of policy. This is a victory we’ve won, and a victory we can lose. We can’t afford defeat. Not now.  

So how do we keep the victory? Mr. Gunawardena not unjustifiably referred to the vast strides the Rajapaksa government made after the war, while soberly observing that Sri Lanka never entertained illusions of the end of war converting to a lasting peace. The speech was in itself a deft balancing act; since May 2009 “not a bullet has been fired in the name of separatist terrorism”, yet the country urgently requires “certain reviews and strengthening of existing structures.” The thrust is both rational and firm: we need to consolidate what we have, but not at the cost of sovereignty or territorial integrity. We have the resources to do what it takes to restore reconciliation, and we are not going to cede space for non-local actors to do what the legislature and judiciary should do. By violating certain norms, the previous regime made commitments which were “impractical, unconstitutional, and undeliverable.” Thus the task of this government is to regain the country’s trust in the international system, and its credibility in the eyes of the world. A hard day’s work, certainly.  

In other words, the task devolved on the new government is not one of satisfying a need for gung-ho jingoistic euphoria. In the years following the war victory such a battle cry could be, if not justified, at least validated by the popular mood. In 2020, the new decade, people are not as ruffled by such a mood and as such the government has the perfect opportunity to do what Mangala, Chandrika, and Ranil couldn’t do. If reconciliation in post-war Sri Lanka has always been about wrong tactics and right intentions, the previous government, at least in the eyes of commentators like Dr. Jayatilleka, caved into wrong tactics and wrong intentions. It was a blunder from which we had to recover, and the only way to recover was by discarding it. The manner of discarding it may be open to debate – what, at the end of the day, isn’t open to debate? – but the crux of the matter is that by abandoning it, we have opened ourselves to new strategies, tactics, and intentions. The moment is thus all ours.  
UDAKDEV1@GMAIL.COM  

Justice To Families Of Disappeared, Surrendered & Forcefully Arrested Victims

By Kumarathasan Rasingam – FEBRUARY 28, 2020

Kumarathasan Rasingam

For Sri Lanka, after the fallout from the April bombings bred communal violence, endangered minorities and put freedoms in peril. Justice and reparations for the 30 year conflict seem to be increasingly out of reach for the victims, as even the limited but key gains of recent years appeared at risk of rollback given statements by the new government.

“For the victims of Sri Lanka’s decades-long conflict, there was little progress on disappearances and no accountability for other crimes “

The Government of Sri lanka has signed and ratified the International Convention for the Protection of all Persons from Enforced Disappearances in August 2016.

Among other matters, this UN Convention commits a State to investigate acts of enforced disappearance and bring those responsible to justice, and ensure that victims of enforced disappearance or those directly affected by it have a right to obtain reparation and compensation. Furthermore the crime of enforced disappeared disappearance is defined as a crime against humanity.

The relatives of missing persons shall have the right to know the whereabouts of their loved ones. They also have the right to know the truth about what happened to such persons, and to bring the matter to closure. .

When one reviews the track record of Sri Lanka regarding the implementation of all the recommendations after a lapse of several months, one can only observe a dismal and depressing performance coupled with defiance of UNHRC and rejection of its own commitments.

The statement by the former Prime Minister Ranil Wickremasinghe;

He has told Parliament on January 26, 2017 that as per police records, there is no information relating to persons who are allegedly disappeared during the ethnic conflict.  

The statement by the New President Gotabaya Rajapaksa;

The new Sri Lankan President has admitted that the 20,000 missing Tamils during the war are dead.

The present Government has declared its rejection of 30/1 UNHRC Resolution and consequently accountability, justice and reconciliation have been removed from its dictionary. President’s and Prime Minister’s recent statements confirm this position 

Gotabaya Rajapaksa was defense secretary from 2005 to 2015, under the administration of his brother Mahinda Rajapaksa, who was appointed prime minister in November. The UN, Human Rights Watch, and other human rights groups, and the media, found that under Mahinda Rajapaksa’s administration, the Sri Lankan army shelled civilians and hospitals, and raped and executed prisoners during the final months of the civil war against the separatist Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE). The UN found repeatedly in its reports that some military abuses during the conflict amounting to war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Anti-Tamil rhetoric amongst political parties vying for electoral success complemented the culture of impunity offered by the PTA and anti-Tamil pogroms in 1958, 1965, 1971, 1978, and 1983. The burning of the Jaffna library and with it, the destruction of rich Tamil-cultural relics caused “many Tamils to feel that the Sinhalese Buddhist state was determined to destroy their culture.” Black July (1983) is often cited as the catalyst for the civil war.  By July 25, anti-Tamil crowds in Colombo looted and burned Tamil property as the police watched. The Minister of Development clarified the GSL’s position in the aftermath of the pogrom: 

Tamils in the North and Eastern Provinces demand the following:-

[a] Right to nationhood

[b] A homeland

[c] Self-determination for the Tamil people

As long as the supremacy of Buddhism guaranteeing a foremost place and the racial hegemony prevail, coupled with impunity for the Security Forces, violence among communities always lurks underneath. Adding insult to injury is the bestowing of rewards to alleged war criminals in the form of promotion and keeping those involved in war crimes to continue their services. 

The government and the military are also relentlessly engaged in transforming the cultural, linguistic and religious composition of the North and East and forcibly imposing the dominant culture on those areas. This is evident in the destruction of numerous Hindu places of worship, and the proliferation of new Buddhist shrines. 

The government’s callous disregard for fulfilling its own promises applies equally to the government’s assurances on human rights. In 2006, the Udalagama Commission of Inquiry [CoI] was mandated with the power to investigate a number of grave human rights abuses including the killing of five Tamil students in Trincomalee and the massacre of 17 aid workers in Muttur.

Although public officials, members of the judiciary and elected representatives swear or affirm to uphold the Constitution, the Thirteenth Amendment has not been fully implemented. Even the limited provisions relating to the devolution of land and police powers to the Provincial Councils are deliberately violated. Moreover, commitments made both domestically and internationally with regard to a political solution have not been honored. Similarly, commitments made relating to human rights and accountability have been routinely dishonored.

The Tamils continued to exercise all administrative functions independently until 1833, when the British authorities who seized Ceylon [Sri Lanka] from the Dutch in 1796, centralized the administrative system of whole country in Colombo. 

Furthermore blow was given to the Tamils after the independence in 1948 when the sovereignty of Tamils was transferred and deposited in the hands of majority Sinhalese Governments. Since then a process of Sinhalization and Buddhisisazation of Sri Lanka was set in motion by the successive Sri Lankan Governments.

It is apt to quote Sir Pon Arunachalam who said in 1921 “Tamils are a nation with their own distinctive culture and civilization, language, literature, art and architecture, names and nomenclature, moral code and customs, ideas, calendar, history, tradition and ambitious, and so have their own distinctive outlook on life. By all means of international law we are a nation.”

In the absence and lack of political will and determination among Sinhala leaders the traumatised Tamils pin their hopes on United Nations and the International Community who it is hoped will not falter and fail in their duties and responsibilities to initiate and execute whatever steps necessary to ensure the existence of Tamils as a separate nation. 

It is high time for the United Nations and the International Community to wake up and deliver justice, protection and freedom to the oppressed Tamils in Sri Lanka. This is the earnest request from the suffering Tamils [Hindu/Christians] in the North and East of Sri Lanka.

[1] Citizenship Acts passed in 1948 and 1949 snatched the voting rights of plantation Tamils, which weakened the political strength of the Tamils.

[2] Sinhala Only Act passed in 1956 made Sinhala as the official language, discriminating the Tamils for state employment, promotions etc. which forcing them to learn Sinhala language. 

[3] Standardization Act of 1972 discriminated Tamil students and restricted their entry to universities. 

[4] Prevention of Terrorism Act 1979 targeted Tamils for arbitrary arrests and indefinite detention in prison.

[5] The Sixth Amendment 1983 curtailed the freedom of speech and expression targeting Tamils worldwide from propagating and agitating for a separate state. This act clearly violates Article One of UN Covenant on civil and political rights which guarantee the rights of all people to self-determination to freely determine their political status. 

[6] 1972 Constitution of Sri Lanka has given “Foremost Place to Buddhism” requesting state “To foster and protect it”, thus guaranteeing statutory protection and approval of Buddhisisation throughout Sri Lanka. 

Sri Lanka’s malaise of self-interest over national interest appears to be rooted with no cure for ever. The immediate fallout and collateral damage inflicted on the Tamils in the North and East is that they are back to square one under military occupation with attendant fear and insecurity while trapped under sweeping powers given to Military under PTA and Emergency Regulations. Another casualty is the promised constitution and just political settlement to Tamils, all of which will remain frozen until they are made hot by the docile and dormant Tamil leaders. The prospect of accountability and justice for Tamils is further pushed back after the new President Gotabaya Rajapakshe who was the Defence Secretary during the genocidal war from 2006-2009.  Gotabaya is now openly voicing that Sri Lanka will take appropriate action to withdraw the 30/1 UNHRC Resolution.

Read More

INTERNATIONAL HR ORGANISATIONS CALL ON THE HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL TO ESTABLISH AN INTERNATIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY MECHANISM ON SRI LANKA

28/02/2020

Conclusions and recommendations:

86. Ten years after the end of the lengthy ethnic conflict, there has been no closure on a number of issues arising from that conflict and which the Government had pledged to address at the UN Human Rights Council. While there have been some elementary steps taken, lack of accountability and impunity remains a widespread concern, perpetuating a sense of insecurity among all religious communities. The transitional period has been marked by simmering tensions between the ethno-religious communities. These challenges appear to be related primarily to the state-religion relationship which offers majoritarian privileges, undermining equal protection of the law for minorities. Moreover, there have been recurrent intercommunal violence and religious extremism in the past years before the Easter bombings in 2019.

87. While the legal framework in Sri Lanka guarantees the right to freedom of religion or belief for everyone, in practice there are several challenges to the enjoyment of this right. Religious minorities face restrictions in the manifestation of their religion or belief, their places of worship are desecrated while their religious activities such as worship sessions are disrupted by locals and the authorities.

There is difficulty for the minority religious communities to build new places of worship while some places were forced to close down due to arbitrary registration requirements. Non-Roman Catholic Christians are also exposed to numerous incidents of violent attack due to a suspicion of ‘unethical conversion’ and limitations on their right to proselytize. Aggressive campaigns by militant nationalist and religious groups against ethnic, religious and other minorities, particularly Muslims, are particularly concerning.

88. The Rapporteur notes that the current education system deepens the division among different religious and ethnic groups and needs urgent reform with a new curriculum that promotes the values of tolerance, embraces diversity, and fosters a common or unifying “Sri Lankan identity”. Women and girls as well as the LGBT+ persons are rendered more vulnerable in their positions when some religious teachings tend to marginalise them in their rights to equal treatment. Patriarchy and religious marriage laws discriminate against women and disadvantage them in many personal status related matters. It would be vital to ensure a comprehensive reform of both the MMDA and the General Ordinance on Marriage to comply with international law standards on gender equality.

89. Against this background, the Special Rapporteur recommends the Government of Sri Lanka to:

(a) Take concrete steps to address all the identified root causes of religious intolerance and tensions and to promote trust among different ethnic and religious communities in Sri Lanka. He recommends drawing on the action plan in Human Rights Council Resolution 16/18, and Beirut Declaration and its 18 Commitments on “Faith for Rights”, in activities designed to promote inter-religious dialogue and foster pluralism;
(b) Address impunity and the lack of accountability urgently by fulfilling the pledges to various international human rights mechanisms and set up relevant mechanisms accordingly; investigate all incidents of violence, and prosecute all perpetrators of incitement to violence, including the Easter bombings, subsequent violence and other human rights violations;
(c) Combat violent extremism while ensuring that any strategies to prevent violent extremism or counter terrorism are in compliance with international human rights law;
(d) Develop monitoring mechanisms to establish early warning systems and respond to hate speech and incitement to violence in conformity with international human rights standards using existing tools such as the Rabat Plan of Action and the Fez Plan of Action;
(e) Repeal the Prevention of Terrorism Act 1979 and revise the provisions of the Penal Code that relate to various offences on religion-related matter;
(f) Reform the education system to foster inclusive identities to prepare children for responsible life in a free society, in the spirit of understanding, peace, tolerance, gender equality, and friendship among all peoples, ethnic, and religious groups and persons of indigenous origin;
(g) Encourage voices of moderate religious leaders, and support local interfaith initiatives;
(h) Empower women to have more roles in inter-religious dialogues and ensure that their rights are not restricted under religious marriage laws.

90. The Special Rapporteur would like to urge:

(a) The media and social media platforms to enforce community standards and invest more resources to monitor and respond to incitement to hatred or violence while protecting freedom of expression and access to information.

(b) Religious leaders to speak out against hateful narratives and reject efforts to ostracise and stigmatise minority communities and persons in vulnerable situations; promote moderate voices and stress the need for sustainable intercommunal and interreligious dialogue for trust and peacebuilding as well as reconciliation.

Read the Full report as a PDFSri Lanka report Religious Freedom by UN SR 28022020

Five years since Geneva Promises: 7 out of 36 Fulfilled

In September 2015, Sri Lanka co-sponsored United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) Resolution 30/1 and committed to fulfil a range of measures on human rights, accountability, and reconciliation. On February 27, 2020, Sri Lanka responded to an update presented by the Office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights (OHCHR) at UNHRC’s 43rd session. 

29 February 2020 

Resolution 30/1 contains 36 distinct commitments that can be categorised into five broad themes: (i) Transitional Justice and Reconciliation, (ii) Rights and Rule of Law, (iii) Security and Demilitarisation, (iv) Power Sharing, and (v) International Engagement (Figure 1).   

Figure 1: Five themes in Resolution 30/1
Since 2016, Verité Research has annually assessed Sri Lanka’s fulfilment of the 36 commitments in Resolution 30/1. The methodology involves two assessments: the assessment of performance indicators, and the assessment of implementation plans. Verité classifies progress on the fulfilment of each actionable commitment as: ‘completed’, ‘partial progress’, ‘poor progress’, or ‘no progress’. Since March 2019 the progress on four commitments under Resolution 30/1 has changed (Figure 3).  

Approximately five years after Resolution 30/1 was co-sponsored, Sri Lanka has fulfilled 7 out of 36 commitments (19%) (Figure 2).
Figure 2: Overall progress as at February 2020
In the first year since Resolution 30/1 was co-sponsored, Sri Lanka fulfilled three commitments. These include: (i) signing and ratifying the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance; (ii) maintaining engagement with the OHCHR; and (iii) engaging UN special procedure mandate holders.    By March 2017, the commitment to carry out island-wide consultations on transitional justice mechanisms was completed. Thereafter, two further commitments were fulfilled by March 2019: (i) the commitment to criminalise enforced disappearances, and (ii) the operationalisation of the Office on Missing Persons (OMP).  

 Since March 2019, only one additional commitment moved to ‘completed’ status – the commitment to set up and operationalise the Office for Reparations. Five commissioners were appointed to the Office in April 2019 (Figure 3).   

The ‘completed’ status of the commitment to set up and operationalise the OMP is now at risk of being reversed, as the incumbent government has announced that it will review the Office on Missing Persons (Establishment, Administration and Discharge of Functions) Act, No. 14 of 2016.   

Approximately 19% of commitments (7 out of 36) remain at ‘partial progress’.   
Four commitments that remain at ‘partial progress’ fall under the rights and rule of law category. These include the commitments to: (i) issue Certificates of Absence to families of missing persons, and (ii) review the law on witness and victim protection. Moreover, three commitments that remain at ‘partial progress’ relate to security and demilitarisation. These commitments call for efforts to restore livelihoods and release military-held land in the North and East. However, protests demanding the release of military-held land have continued in the North and East such as in Silavathurai.   

As at February 2020, the number of commitments at ‘poor progress’ increased to 50% (18 out of 36). 
Since March 2019, three commitments in the rights and rule of law category backslid from ‘partial progress’ to ‘poor progress’. Such backsliding took place due to: (i) the Cabinet decision to abandon the plan to repeal the PTA; (ii) the Cabinet decision to abandon the plan to replace the PTA with anti-terrorism legislation in accordance with international best practices; and (iii) the ostensible loss of momentum in investigating alleged attacks on journalists, human rights defenders, religious minority groups, and civil society members (Figure 3).   

Other commitments which remain at ‘poor progress’ include: (i) the commitment to implement the 13th Amendment to the Constitution under the theme of power sharing due to delays in holding provincial council elections; (ii) introduce effective security sector reforms; (iii) restore normalcy to civilian life in the North and East; and (iv) implement recommendations of the OHCHR report on Sri Lanka.  

Figure 3: Illustrates the changes in implementations status from March 2019 – February 2020

There has been no progress in fulfilling 11% of the commitments (4 out of 36).

Since the co-sponsorship of Resolution 30/1 in September 2015, Sri Lanka lost momentum in the fulfilment of certain commitments. For instance, in 2018, three commitments under the transitional justice and reconciliation category went from ‘poor progress’ to ‘no progress’ and have remained at that status. These include: (i) establishing a judicial mechanism with a special counsel; (ii) ensuring independent judicial and prosecutorial institutions led by impartial individuals with integrity; and (iii) ensuring foreign participation to investigate violations of human rights and international humanitarian law.   

Conclusion
Five years after co-sponsoring Resolution 30/1, the commitments that were completely fulfilled relate to only three categories: (1) international engagement, (2) rights and rule of law, and (3) transitional justice and reconciliation. Sri Lanka has meanwhile been successful in establishing institutions such as the OMP and the Office for Reparations. It also been successful in enacting key pieces of legislation. For instance, parliament enacted the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance Act, No. 5 of 2018, which criminalises enforced disappearance. However, commitments in the categories of security and demilitarisation, and power sharing has not seen fulfilment. Sri Lanka has also not made progress in establishing accountability mechanisms. Five years on, the majority of the commitments in Resolution 30/1 remain at ‘poor progress’ (Figure 4).  

Figure 4: Overall status of implementation
To access the full implementation monitor, visit: www.veriteresearch.
org/publications
Verité Research is an independent think-tank that provides strategic analysis to high-level decision-makers in economics, law, politics and media. Comments are welcome. Email: publications@veriteresearch.org