Commentary on the Progress Achieved in Implementing the National Plan of Action to Implement the Recommendations of the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission

Download the commentary/introduction to the full report, published below, as a PDF here.

Download the comprehensive report in table form as a PDF here or read online here.

###

The Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC) was established in May 2010 and the report of the Commission (LLRC Report) was presented to the President in November 2011, with its subsequent tabling in the Parliament in December 2011. At the outset there were concerns, amongst others, about its limited mandate to investigate violations of International Human Rights and Humanitarian Law and to address the root causes of Sri Lanka’s conflict[1].

The Centre for Policy Alternatives (CPA) welcomed the release of the­­­­ LLRC Report but cautioned that that there were several shortcomings related to both process as well as substantive recommendations.  CPA called on the GoSL to implement the LLRC recommendations without delay and with sincerity and commitment, whilst noting that the LLLRC report constituted the initiation of a process of reconciliation and not the end of it.[2]

Confusion persists as to the Government’s overall stance on the LLRC, including whether the Government of Sri Lanka (GoSL) endorses its findings and recommendations.[3] In March 2012, the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) passed a resolution calling on the GoSL to implement the recommendations of the LLRC. Subsequently the GoSL drafted the National Plan of Action to implement the recommendations of the LLRC (LLRC Action Plan). The Action Plan was approved by cabinet in July 2012.[4] In March 2013 the UNHRC adopted a second resolution entitled Promoting Reconciliation and Accountability in Sri Lanka and in July 2013 the GoSL added a further 53 recommendations made by the LLRC to LLRC Action Plan.

With Sri Lanka fast approaching the 5th year anniversary of the defeat of the Liberation Tigers of the Tamil Eelam (LTTE) in May of this year, the sources of the conflict are still being sustained and even reproduced.  The situation in respect of Human Rights protection warrants urgent attention.

As flagged during the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM) held in Colombo in November 2013, dissent is met with hostility from the GoSL.[5] Continued attacks on the media, threats against Human Rights Defenders (HRDs), incidents of arbitrary arrests and detention, reports of torture, gender based violence, institutionalized militarization, grave concerns regarding the independence of Judiciary and Police continue to seriously undermine the rule of law and by extension the reconciliation process.  In addition, the past year has seen an increase in the number of incidents of attacks against places of religious worship- most of which have been conducted very publicly with near total impunity. All these factors reinforce the critical need to focus on the protection of Human Rights, the rule of law and the reversal of the culture of impunity in moving towards the goal of reconciliation, unity and democratic governance in Sri Lanka.[6]

Given the record of unsatisfactory outcomes of previously appointed Commissions,[7] the lethargic prosecution of issues of accountability and the importance of implementing the recommendations of the LLRC as a first step towards reconciliation and a sustainable peace, CPA has conducted a critical study on the GoSL’s progress -up to February 2014- in respect of its LLRC Action Plan, based on information available in the public domain.

The table thematically lists out the recommendations of the LLRC as they have been adopted by the Action Plan, the progress with regard to the implementation of those recommendations as per the progress updates in January 2014 on the GoSL’s dedicated LLRC Action Plan website[8] and finally, a commentary column that is dedicated to CPA’s concerns on the progress or lack thereof, in the implementation of the recommendations’ thus far.  This commentary does not substantively address all of the broad issues highlighted by the Report, nor does it aim to do a complete situational analysis of GoSL’s reconciliation efforts. In the absence of Right to Information legislation – a recommendation of the LLRC- CPA relied on information gathered by civilians and non – state actors on the ground and on information publicly available to ordinary citizens.  That challenges in obtaining information needed to assess progress made on implementing the LLRC Action Plan were clearly demonstrated in the course of this study, thereby highlighting one of the key setbacks of an islandwide reconciliation programme: the lack of accessibility, transparency and the availability of information.

Some of the key areas of concern are as follows;

Disparity between Proposed Activity and Update: There are several instances where there is a mismatch between the LLRC recommendation and suggested activity contained in the LLRC Action Plan.[9] These continue to persist even in the progress report on the implementation of the LLRC Action Plan, which renders the progress achieved meaningless.

Lack of genuine interest to involve and accept the support of civil society, local and foreign agencies: The GoSL in certain areas has neglected the expertise of organizations that can support their activities. For example civil society and public consultation should be done on matters relating to legislation and public policy. These organizations can also provide the GoSL with financial and human resource assistance to expedite the activities.[10]

Lack of Clarity/ Unreliability of statistics provided; There are contradictory statements from the GoSL regarding the extent of the military presence in the Northern Province. As far back as June 2012 the GoSL claimed that the number of troops in the Jaffna peninsula had been reduced from 27,000 in December 2009 to 15,600 in June 2012.[11] In September 2013 and January 2014, President Mahinda Rajapaksa stated that the number of troops had been reduced to between 8,000 -12,000.[12] However it was reported recently that the Secretary to the President, Lalith Weeratunga had stated that the number of security forces personnel in the Northern Province as at October 2013 was 80,000.[13]

The numbers mentioned by the Secretary to the President are still quite conservative as when compared to the number of existing security forces battalions[14] and land being acquired for the construction of military cantonments in the Northern Province.[15] They do highlight an important and serious concern with regard to the credibility of statistics provided by the GoSL.

Furthermore the progress update provided by the GoSL states that military involvement in civilian administration does not occur. However, reports from the Northern Province indicate that the military remains involved in the daily lives of civilians.[16]  Furthermore the Presidential Task Force for Resettlement, development and security in the Northern Province (PTF) continues to play a prominent role in activities conducted in the Northern Province, including being the key agency tasked with the responsibility for implementing several activities as per the LLRC Action Plan.

Action Plan does not include activities: There are an alarmingly high number of instances where no Activities are proposed in order to achieve a recommendation included in the LLRC Action Plan,[17] whilst in several others there is no mention of the key responsible agency or time frame or key performance indicator in order to evaluate the implementation of the recommendation[18]. In some instances none of these components have been included.[19] A majority of such cases relate to recommendations added to the LLRC Action Plan in July 2013. This raises serious questions as to the bona fides of the GoSL in including these recommendations in the LLRC Action Plan.

Key implementation mechanisms being stalled: Several mechanisms[20] included in the LLRC Action Plan to deal with a number of important recommendations have not even begun functioning. CPA had previously indicated that these mechanisms could be used as a “delaying tactic”.[21]

Independent Institutions have been undermined: The LLRC Report placed particular emphasis on the need to strengthen independent institutions and made several key recommendations to this end. The Progress reported suggests almost all of these recommendations have been implemented.[22] However considering the provisions of the Eighteenth Amendment to the Constitution and the power it confers on the Executive President, none of the supposedly independent institutions (that are presently in operation) are actually ‘independent’.[23]

Investigations of Violations of International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights Law: The LLRC did not adequately address issues regarding violations of human rights and international humanitarian law with criticism leveled against its findings.[24]

The role of the Ministry of Defence (MoD) and other government actors in investigatory processes involving incidents implicating the military raises questions as to the impartiality and independence of such investigations. Furthermore the key reports cited in the government update both raise more questions than they answer with the report of the Army Court of Inquiry not being made public and the Report of the Army Board of Inquiry recommending the appointment of further commissions in order to investigate the same allegations.[25]

The current situation with regard to the implementation of the LLRC recommendations, against the backdrop of two resolutions on Sri Lanka in the UNHRC focusing on this, underscores the critical importance of civil society and international attention to issues of human rights protection and accountability in Sri Lanka.  Faced with augmented and persistent challenges, democratic governance, durable peace, reconciliation and unity in Sri Lanka require that it be reinforced.


[1]Daily News, “Mandate of Lessons Learnt”, 16 August 2010, (Available at http://archives.dailynews.lk/2010/08/16/fea02.asp).

[2] Centre for Policy Alternatives(CPA), Press Release, “Release of the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission Report”, January 2012, (Available at https://www.cpalanka.org/final-version-release-of-the-lessons-learnt-and-reconciliation-commission-llrc-report/).

[3] Cabinet Spokesman and Media Minister Keheliya Rambukwella stated that the government could “implement the recommendations made by the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC) only according to a road map as spelled out earlier and the government could not implement the report in its entirety without having a dialogue with all the stakeholders.” (Kelum Bandara, “Can implement LLRC recommendations only according to road map: Keheliya”, Daily Mirror, 6 January 2012) ; Minister Nimal Siripala de Silva the Leader of House in the Sri Lankan Parliament and a member of the Government delegation to the 19th Session of the UN HRC stated that “The LLRC has gone beyond the mandate given to it by President Mahinda Rajapaksa at certain points. The government has to consider what parts of the recommendations can be implemented immediately and what parts of the recommendations need further attention, in depth study etc and how they make an impact on the country’s future.” (N.G, “‘Constitution allows state to hold referendum only for single reason’, Daily News, 27 March 2012); Acting Media Minister and Cabinet spokesperson Minister Lakshman Yapa Abeywardana stated that the “Government is committed to implement Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC) recommendations deemed acceptable to Sri Lanka but will not give in to undue pressure.“ (BBC Sinhala.com “Parliament to decide LLRC implementation”, 5 April 2012, last accessed on 21 August 2012, (Available at http://www.bbc.co.uk/sinhala/news/story/2012/04/120405_yapa.shtml).

[4]News.lk, “Cabinet Approves National Action Plan to implement LLRC recommendations”, 27 July 2012, (Available at http://www.news.lk/news/sri-lanka/2676-cabinet-approves-national-action).

[5] Foreign and Commonwealth Office, “Human Rights and Democracy 2012: The 2012 Foreign and Commonwealth Office Report”, (Available athttp://www.hrdreport.fco.gov.uk/human-rights-in-countries-of-concern/sri-lanka/quarterly-updates-sri-lanka/?showall=1).

[6] Human Rights Watch, “World Report 2014”, (Available athttp://www.hrw.org/world-report/2014/country-chapters/sri-lanka?page=1); Foreign and Commonwealth Office, “Human Rights and Democracy 2012: The 2012 Foreign and Commonwealth Office Report”, (Available at http://www.hrdreport.fco.gov.uk/human-rights-in-countries-of-concern/sri-lanka/?showall=1).

[7]CPA, Background Paper Document, “A List of Commissions and Committees Appointed by GoSL (2006-2013)” January 2014, (Available at https://www.cpalanka.org/a-list-of-commissions-and-committees-appointed-by-gosl-2006-2013/); Law and Society Trust, “A Legacy to Remember; Sri Lanka’s Commissions of Inquiry 1963-2002” (Edited by Kishali Pinto-Jayawardena), September 2010, (Available at http://www.lawandsocietytrust.org/PDF/a%20legacy%20to%20remember%3B%20sri%20lanka’s%20commissions%20of%20inquiry.pdf).

[8]National Plan of Action for the Implementation of LLRC Recommendations, (Available at http://www.llrcaction.gov.lk/); International Humanitarian Law Issues (Available at http://www.llrcaction.gov.lk/images/International%20Humanitarial%20Law%20Issues.pdf); Human Rights (Available at http://www.llrcaction.gov.lk/images/Human%20Rights.pdf); Land Return and Resettlement (Available at http://www.llrcaction.gov.lk/images/Land%20Return%20and%20Resettlement.pdf);  Restitution/Compensatory Relief (Available athttp://www.llrcaction.gov.lk/images/Restitution.pdf); Reconciliation (Available at http://www.llrcaction.gov.lk/images/Reconciliation.pdf).

[9] See LLRC Action Plan – Progress Report, January 2014, 9.57, 9.73, 9.81, 9.111, 9.270

[10] [10]See LLRC Action Plan – Progress Report, January 2014, 9.59, 9.115 a-c, 9.115e,9.144,9.148, 9.270, Interim recommendation 1(b)

[11] Defence.lk, “Troop strength in Jaffna drastically reduced”, 17 June 2012, available at http://www.defence.lk/new.asp?fname=troop_strength_in_jaffna_drastically_reduced_says_defence_secretary_20120617_01

[12]Groundviews, “The Al-Jazeera Interview- Calling the bluff, 29 September 2013, available at http://groundviews.org/2013/09/29/the-al-jazeera-interview-with-mahinda-rajapaksa-calling-the-bluff/ ; Colombo Telegraph, “President Rajapaksa claims 12 00 soldiers left in North”, available at https://www.colombotelegraph.com/index.php/president-rajapaksas-lies-claims-12000-soldiers-left-in-the-north-but-reality-is-more-than-150000/

[13] Colombo Telegraph, “Lalith Weeratunge rebuts president on Northern troop numbers” February 2014, available at  https://www.colombotelegraph.com/index.php/lalith-weertaunge-rebuts-president-on-northern-troop-numbers/

[14] Colombo Telegraph, “President Rajapaksa claims 12 00 soldiers left in North”, available at https://www.colombotelegraph.com/index.php/president-rajapaksas-lies-claims-12000-soldiers-left-in-the-north-but-reality-is-more-than-150000/

[15] Land acquisition brief p 43- 47

[16] See Centre for Monitoring Election Violence, Northern Provincial Council Election 2013 – Communiqué No 1, 13th September 2013, available at http://cmev.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/northern-provincial-council-election-2013-e28093-communiquecc81-no-1.pdf; Centre for Monitoring Election Violence, Northern Provincial Council Election 2013 – Mullaitivu District Situation Report, 20 September 2013, available at http://cmev.wordpress.com/2013/09/20/northern-provincial-council-election-2013-mullaitivu-district-situation-report/

[17] See LLRC Action Plan, 9.70, 9.93, 9.98, 9.99, 9.100, 9.105, 9.112, 9.139, 9.144, 9.145, 9.147, 9.148, 9.165, 9.221, 9.222, 9.230

[18] See LLRC Action Plan, 9.57, 9.115e, 9.14, 9.55, 9.58, 9.65, 9.70, 9.80, 9.93, 9.94, 9.95, 9.98, 9.99, 9.100, 9.105, 9.112, 9.139, 9.144, 9.145, 9.147, 9.148, 9.165, 9.220, 9.221, 9.222, 9.230

[19] See LLRC Action Plan, 9.22, 9.26,

[20] Parliamentary Select Committee, The 4th Land Commission.

[21] Centre for Policy Alternatives, Bhavani Fonseka, Luwie Ganeshathasan, Mirak Raheem, Commentary on the National Plan of Action to implement the recommendations of the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Committee, August 2012, (Available at http://www.scribd.com/doc/103800519/CPA – Commentary – on – LLRC – Action – Plan).

[22] See Table 9.57, 9.215, 9.218, 9.219

[23]Rohan Edrisinha and Aruni Jayakody (eds), “The 18th Amendment to the Constitution: Substance and Process”,  2011

[24] The LLRC reached its conclusions without examining specific information including the chain of command and the authorities’ prior knowledge of the ground situation. They also seemed to have relied heavily on Government sources for their analysis, disregarding important information available with those who were witnesses of the last stage of the war. (See CPA, “Release of the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission Report”, 4 January 2011, available at: https://www.cpalanka.org/release-of-the-lessons-learnt-and-reconciliation-commission-llrcreport/)

[25] Army.lk, “Full Report of the Army Board on LLRC Observations”, “OBSERVATIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND ACTION PLAN FOR MEASURE S TO SAFEGUARD CIVILIANS AND AVOID CIVILIAN CASUALTIES”, Para 57 and 58.

CPA seeks clarification on leaked Suntharalingam report

The Executive Director of the Centre for Policy Alternatives wrote to the chairman of the Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka (HRCSL) seeking clarification regarding a news item that appeared in several websites which claimed that a report commissioned by the HRCSL in 2006 regarding several cases of serious Human Rights violations has not been published to this day.
In his response dated 29th January 2014 the Chairman of the HRCSL stated that the matter “was to be taken up at the commission meeting shortly to consider the course of action that should be taken in this regard.”

CPA is hopeful that the HRCSL follows through on this promise and take meaningful steps towards fulfilling its mandate to protect and promote human rights in Sri Lanka.

Related documents:

Letter to HRCSL regarding complaint made against ITN – January 2014

17th January 2014

By Registered Post/ Hand

The Director – Inquiries and Investigations
Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka
No. 165 Kynsey Road,
Borella, Colombo 8.

Dear Madam/ Sir

Complaint Number HRC /3083/2013

I write to inquire as to the progress of the above complaint made by me on the 12th of August 2013. The last communication I received was a letter written by you to the Chairman of the Independent Television Network (ITN) dated the 19th November 2013.

In the said letter you state that the 10th of December is the final date for ITN to submit a report pertaining to my complaint and that of the Centre for Policy Alternatives (CPA). A period of over one month has lapsed since your deadline. However, we are yet to receive any official communication setting out what further action will be taken regarding the above mentioned complaint. Furthermore, it has been more than 05 months from the date of the complaint, during which there has been little progress on its investigation.

ITN has taken an inordinate amount of time to respond to a complaint which essentially impugns the accuracy of a story from its own prime time news broadcast. I trust that you will appreciate the fact that this unreasonable delay is prejudicial to the complainants and the wider interests, requiring urgent protection.

Furthermore in a context where Provincial Council elections have been announced- considering the past conduct of ITN during elections- there is an urgent need for the mechanisms prayed for in my complaint to be put in place immediately in order to safeguard the rights of all citizens of Sri Lanka.

Therefore I request you to take measures to expedite the hearing and conclusion of this matter.

In the event that ITN has already submitted its report, I would very much appreciate copies of same being made available to me and this matter if fixed for inquiry immediately.

Finally I would much appreciate if all future communication regarding this matter be forwarded to No 24/2, 28th Lane, Off Flower Road, Colombo 7.

I look forward to the early grant of all reliefs sought by my complaint.

Please note that I will be releasing this letter to the media in the public interest.

Thanking you.
Yours faithfully,

Dr. Paikiasothy Saravanamuttu
Executive Director
Centre for Policy Alternatives

CC: Justice Priyantha R. P. Perera
Chairman, Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka

Mrs. Jezima Ismail
Commissioner, Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka

Dr.Sri Warna Prathiba Mahanamahewa
Commissioner, Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka

Mr. T. E. Anandarajah
Commissioner, Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka

Dr. Bernard de Zoysa
Commissioner, Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka

###

Download a PDF of this letter here.

Call for crowd funding: Support CPA’s work in Sri Lanka

17 January 2014, Colombo, Sri Lanka: At the Centre for Policy Alternatives (CPA), we change the way citizens perceive and engage with governance. Established in 1996, CPA has over 17 years set the bar for how cutting-edge research and advocacy can address the deficit in democracy and governance through constructive dialogue, bold and innovative content, otherwise marginalized or forgotten.

We need your help.

CPA is a relatively small team of fewer than 50 staff, including those in administration, working across 4 key units in 2 offices, both located in Colombo. We do a lot of work, from measures to address corruption to election monitoring, from international award-winning civic media initiatives to grassroots capacity building across Sri Lanka, from social polling to field-based and applied research. CPA, more than any other civil society organisation and even beyond mainstream media in Sri Lanka, designs and leverages cutting-edge online and web tools to strengthen and promote its advocacy. Our public interest litigation encompasses cases on fundamental rights as well as pre-enactment judicial review, and has provided relief to thousands of plaintiffs over language rights, land issues, human rights violations, election malpractices, displacement, the freedom of movement and much more. CPA’s social polling provides unique and vast socio-economic datasets and analysis for the whole of Sri Lanka. Our research and advocacy on constitutional reform, power-sharing arrangements to resolve the ethnic conflict and on human rights protection, has been highly commended nationally and internationally.

Senior staff are regularly quoted in mainstream media, both locally and internationally, for their expertise and insights. Institutional output, in print and online in all three languages, is regularly flagged and used in debates around policy-making. Because of its profile, CPA is often the subject of hate-speech, with key staff regularly and publicly vilified. And yet, particularly in a country where even post-war, peaceful dissent, critical thinking and alternate political perspectives are violently censored and clamped down upon, what CPA does, represents and provides a space for, is absolutely vital to Sri Lanka’s democratic future.

Pratap Bhanu Mehta, President & Chief Executive of the Centre for Policy Research in Delhi notes that “… CPA has also rigorously pursued research into many of the most pressing issues of our time. Such organisations need to be supported. They are a necessary part of a vibrant democracy, an eco system that values knowledge, and the exercise of public reason.”

Edward Mortimer, Chairperson of Sri Lanka Advocacy Campaign notes that, “CPA is quite simply the most outspoken, credible, and fair-minded civil society group in Sri Lanka”. He goes on to say that, “without the CPA there would be virtually no independent and credible domestic critique of the Sri Lanka Government’s authoritarianism and other excesses”.

Chandra Jayaratne, Sri Lankan of the Year in 2001 and Former Chairman, Ceylon Chamber of Commerce sees CPA as an organisation that ensures “strict benchmarks for assessment of the outcomes, delivery of promises and efficient, effective and professional management of resources optimizing quality and productivity”.

As Richard L. Armitage, former US Deputy Secretary of State avers, “Sri Lanka has been at relative peace for nearly five years. Yet, in that time, the nation has not taken sufficient steps to build effective democratic institutions or strengthen the role of civil society. Without such progress, the promise of peace may never be fully realised in Sri Lanka. That is why the Centre for Policy Alternatives’ work is so vital and deserves the support of everyone who cares about the people of Sri Lanka”.

Bob Rae, a former Leader of the Liberal Party of Canada and Premier of Ontario, endorsing this call, calls CPA “… a small, effective, dedicated group of people who believe deeply in a plural, diverse, democratic Sri Lanka, and who believe courageously in public policy based on facts”.

Cheryl Saunders, Laureate Professor at the Melbourne Law School calls CPA “… an extraordinarily important institution, in Sri Lanka and internationally. It offers a combination of forward thinking, balance and genuine expertise that is all too rare”.

Maja Daruwala, Director Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative, New Delhi notes, “The Centre for Policy Alternatives (CPA)… has in the last decade… taken the lead, in hostile circumstances, against the culture of impunity and continuing human rights violations in Sri Lanka. Its impressive record in this respect has to be sustained and supported.”

Deshamanya Bradman Weerakoon, who was a founder director of the organization notes, “The work that the Centre for Policy Alternatives (CPA) has done over the years in shining a light on the many areas of State action that need to be corrected has thereby received the highest commendation… As a founding father of the institution and a long time Board Director I am intimately aware of its capacity and potential. What it needs most at this critical time in our country’s journey is funding and resources to accomplish its tasks. Of determination and courage to do so it has no shortage.”

Despite this reputation, the most pressing challenge for CPA today is donor fatigue and disengagement. With Sri Lanka as a middle-income country on paper and competing donor agendas in mediagenic contexts like Syria, Afghanistan, Burma and Nepal, Sri Lanka’s enduring need for civil society research and advocacy to be supported is in grave danger of being significantly deprioritised, even forgotten. This is not a temporary glitch. Institutional funding will, for a range of reasons, be increasingly scarce.

In order to expand its donor base, CPA is exploring the possibility of raising endowment funds from well-wishers, both locally and internationally. This crowd-sourced funding approach will help CPA to maintain its independence and support its entire portfolio of research and advocacy, which currently risks rapid constriction. CPA encourages donations around the following broad denominations,

US$ 2,000 (one-off donation)
US$ 500 (per annum)
US$ 25 (monthly)

Donations outside of these denominations are also welcome. Please send your donation to:

The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Limited.
HSBC Main Branch,
No. 24, Sir Baron Jayathilaka Mawatha,
Colombo- 01,
Sri Lanka.

Account Name: CENTRE FOR POLICY ALTERNATIVES – Crowd Sourcing Fund
Account Number: 001 170 463 013
SWIF Code: HSBC LKLX
Bank Code: 7092

Contact CPA’s Executive Director, Dr. Paikiasothy Saravanamuttu on [email protected] for more information. As a legally registered entity in Sri Lanka, CPA has undertaken, since inception, an independent annual audit which is published on its website. CPA also publishes its Executive Director’s report every year, flagging institutional output and impact.

The success of this effort to support CPA’s on-going institutional expenses rests entirely on you. Please contribute generously and pass this appeal along to those who want to see CPA continue to champion and bring about a Sri Lanka where anyone, anywhere is able to live in dignity, and without fear.

Dr. Paikiasothy Saravanamuttu
Executive Director