Centre for Policy Alternatives on 5 March, 2014

Commentary on the Census on human and property damages due to conflict 2013

Commentary on the Census on human and property damages due to conflict 2013

Screen Shot 2014-03-05 at 9.23.25 AM

5 March 2014, Colombo, Sri Lanka: The results of the ‘Census on human and property damages due to conflict – 2013’ are due to be published in March 2014, in time for the 25th session of the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva from 3 – 28 March 2014. However, despite the Director General of the Department of Census and Statistics claiming that this census will “help arrive at an exact decision on the persons missing and died during the period of conflict in the country”, it is evident from the methodology juxtaposed against the fear and intimidation people feel in the Northern Province alone, that the ‘Census on human and property damages due to conflict – 2013’ will not reveal the true extent of death, disappearance and damage caused by the war.

Download the full report here, or read it online here.

Centre for Policy Alternatives on 4 March, 2014

JOINT CIVIL SOCIETY MEMORANDUM TO THE HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL AND THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY

Download the following statement as a PDF here or read it online here.

###

We recognize the framework agreed upon in resolutions 21/1 HRC (2012) and 22/1 HRC 2013 supporting reconciliation and accountability in Sri Lanka and efforts made by member states calling on the Sri Lankan government to address grave violations of human rights and humanitarian law committed before, during and after the war which ended in May 2009. We recognize too the efforts of member states calling on the Sri Lankan government to address continuing violation of human rights and democratic norms in Sri Lanka.

Despite the failure of the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC) to deal adequately with issues of accountability, civil society broadly agreed to cooperate with the Sri Lankan government in the implementation of the main LLRC recommendations. However, the government has not engaged in meaningful dialogue with civil society, opposition political parties and the international community in the implementation of LLRC recommendations. Moreover, the National Action Plan (NAP) conceived by the Sri Lankan government in July 2012 for this purpose, glosses over the most important issues of the LLRC, diluting its recommendations, considerably.

In our opinion, the Sri Lankan government continues to procrastinate over the implementation of key LLRC recommendations and instead, showcases ostensible progress on the NAP. The latter totally ignores the call for the setting up of an effective national mechanism to address accountability issues. Accordingly, we affirm the reports released by prominent Sri Lankan think tanks and civil society organisations such as the Centre for Policy Alternatives, which highlight the failure and shortcoming of the Sri Lankan government in the implementation of the LLRC recommendations.

We welcome the first ever election of the Northern Provincial Council in September 2013, made possible also due to international pressure on the Sri Lankan government. The people in the North demonstrated, with an overwhelming majority, their dissatisfaction with the failure of the Sri Lankan government to address their aspirations and grievances more than four years after the end of war. The election was more than a provincial poll: it was effectively a referendum on the recognition of the Tamil people’s right to self determination, accountability for violations of human rights and humanitarian law and all other internationally recognized human rights. We consider this vote a stinging rebuke delivered by the people of the North, through the democratic process, to the government’s claims about its implementation of LLRC recommendations.

We also refer to joint statements made by Sri Lankan non-governmental organizations’ at the Universal Periodic Reviews, the Civil Society memorandum submitted to the High Commissioner for Human Rights, Navi Pillai, during her visit to Sri Lanka in August 2013, and the Civil Society statement issued during the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM) held in November 2013.

We bring to your attention the rise in religious extremism and the clear and present danger of further polarization between the peoples of our country. Over the past two years a hate-campaign against the Muslim community has been intensified. It includes attacks against Muslim places of

worship and retail outlets, anti- Muslim propaganda and calls to boycott Muslim businesses. The National Christian Evangelical Alliance of Sri Lanka, which represents over 200 indigenous churches in the country, has also expressed serious concerns over the sudden escalation of violence against Christian communities. The authorities have yet to take action to arrest the culprits and condemn this violence, where the reported cases are more than 300 in 2013 alone. Their unwillingness to intervene is one indication of the abysmal failure of post-war reconciliation. In this context, the determined “Sinhalisation” process in the North that is radically altering the Hindu character of the landscape with Buddhist temples and Buddha statues in strategic public locations is also of serious concern.

Though the war ended five years ago, the sense of vulnerability of the different ethnic communities remains high.

Despite a flurry of government claims that the presence of the military in the North and East have been reduced, reports from the ground confirm that the Army is still engaged in civil affairs and retains an overwhelming presence in the Tamil-majority provinces. The Presidential Task Force (PTF) and the Governor continue to overlook all humanitarian and development interventions in the North despite the election of the Northern Provincial Council and the appointment of the new Chief Minister at the end of September 2013. Reports from civil society activists and human rights defenders also attest to the expansion of military camps without any compensation or restitution for the land expropriated. Overall, land and property expropriation remains a central issue and a potential trigger of instability in the North.

In addition to land issues in the North, the massive presence of the Army continues to heavily impact civilian life on a daily basis. Several field reports confirm the number of continuing human rights violations taking place daily in the Jaffna peninsula and in Kilinochchi and Mullaitthivu districts in particular. The violations range from arbitrary arrests to military occupation of public buildings, searching of houses at night, deprivation of livelihoods and limitations on the freedom of movement. Particularly worrying are the reports of growing insecurity , sexual violations and vulnerability of women living in the North. The presence of the military has compounded issues of protection and security of women and girl children. In particular, the prevailing surveillance culture coupled with a fear psychosis prevents women from making complaints related to sexual harassment, violence and rape. The LLRC recommendations 9.86 to 9.100 states that; “ there is a large number of such women (over 59,000 according to the Government sources) in the country in the aftermath of the conflict, the Commission recognizes the welfare of these women and the women-headed households as a major post-conflict challenge that needs to be addressed as a matter of priority by the Government and all other stakeholders, in a collective effort towards reconciliation.”

We are concerned that the authorities have failed to address the increased gender -based violence in the post-war context.

The increasing authoritarianism of the government is also attested to by the increase in the systematic repression and harassment of political critics, human rights defenders and NGO activism, employing the military and draconian provisions of the law. Student activities in the north and south of the country, too, are being repressed in this manner.

The culture of impunity extends to the media. A sense of insecurity in the media persists largely due to government inaction, even after complaints of threats to and intimidation of media actors, have been made. This has both nurtured and exacerbated the degree of self-censorship within mainstream media, and has, as a result, led to the preclusion of critical reportage on post-war cases of human rights violations, corruption and governance issues. The government also continues to stall on enacting right to information legislation – a key LLRC recommendation on governance.

Constructive recommendations by civil society and critical engagement with it for the establishment of effective, national mechanisms in compliance with international obligations, has been continually ignored by the Sri Lankan government. On account of our engagement with the United Nations system we have been publicly labeled as ‘traitors’ and ‘separatists’ by state actors and state media, thereby fostering a climate of hate and violence against HRD’s. This was amply demonstrated during HRC 21. It should be noted too that the NGO secretariat remains under the control of the Ministry of Defense.

The attitude and objectives of the government are abundantly clear in the lackadaisical treatment of the national human rights mechanism. The term of the current members of the Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka (HRCSL) ended on the 18th of February 2014 and the same members have been re-appointed on the 18th February itself by the President. The Petitioners who were called for inquiries on the 18th of February, were informed by the Chairman of the HRCSL that inquiries are being cancelled due to unavoidable circumstances. Even the reappointment of commissioners has been done under a highly centralized and politicized system, following the 18th Amendment to the Constitution which did away with the provisions for independent oversight provided under the 17th Amendment.

Just ahead of the visit of the High Commissioner Navi Pillay last August, the Sri Lankan government widely publicized the appointment of a new ‘Presidential Commission to Investigate into Complaints on Missing Persons’ with a mandate of six months to look into the disappearances’ cases from the Northern and the Eastern provinces during the period 1990-2009. Reportedly, the Commission has received about 16’000 complaints so far. At the beginning of 2014 the Commission held its first two rounds of hearings for the family members’ of the disappeared persons in the Kilinochchi and Jaffna districts, displaying an evident lack of preparation, resources, and knowledge of international standards. In addition there was the constant interference of the security services to dissuade families from testifying before the commissioners. Whilst the Commission was sitting, reports from Kilinochchi confirmed that dozens of families were visited in their homes by officials claiming to represent the Commission. These officials requested and recorded the personal information of their disappearances’ cases and proposed that family members accept death certificates and financial compensation, resulting in the closure of their cases and in families foregoing the opportunity to submit cases to the Commission for investigation.

The establishment of credible national mechanisms to address the needs of families of the forcibly disappeared, missing, those who have disappeared after surrendering and those who are unaccounted for after being taken into custody by the security forces, the police and paramilitary organizations, would have built confidence in the Sri Lankan government’s political will to

implement the recommendations of the LLRC. However, as seen by the failures of Committees and Commissions to impartially investigate and provide justice in the ACF Muttur Massacre, the case of the Trincomalee 05, the Weliweriya Inquiry, the Welikada Prison Massacre and the Parliamentary Committee appointed to Impeach Sri Lanka’s 43rd Chief Justice, the government continues to display its lack of will to strengthen domestic judicial processes, reverse the culture of impunity and uphold the Rule of Law.

In 2011, the Committee Against Torture (CAT) expressed serious concern about the continued and consistent allegations of widespread use of torture and other inhuman or degrading treatment of suspects in police custody, especially to extract confessions or information to be used in criminal proceedings. The Committee also suggested that torture and ill-treatment perpetrated by state actors, both the military and the police, have continued after the end of the war in many parts of the country. After the Commonwealth Secretary General, K. Sharma, announced shortly before the CHOGM that the Sri Lankan government would set up a National Inquiry on Torture under the Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka (HRCSL) with the assistance of the Commonwealth Secretariat, the Chairman of the HRCSL confirmed media reports last December that the National Inquiry on Torture has been postponed indefinitely, upon request by several civil society organizations that have sought a postponement of the investigations. The HRCSL, however, has not named these organisations or their reasons for postponement, when requested to do so, and have refrained from consulting many civil society organizations and lawyers, including the undersigned organizations, which have been engaging with the HRCSL on variety of issues including torture.

In these circumstances, we are of the firm belief that there is no alternative but the establishment of an international mechanism for inquiry into human rights abuses, accountability for war crimes and crimes against humanity with a UNHRC technical cooperation team and a time bound action plan. We endorse the recommendations made by the High Commissioner in her report submitted to HRC 25 (A/HRC/25/23).

In conclusion, we wish to state that civil society remains committed to reversing the culture of impunity, the collapse of the Rule of Law, all forms of human rights violations and religious extremism that make up for the authoritarianism our country is challenged with. We will defend our democratic rights at all times!

Signatories:

  • Centre for Policy Alternatives IMADR – Asia Committee
  • Rights Now Collective for Democracy INFORM Documentation Centre Right to Life
  • Centre for People’s Dialogue
  • Mothers and Daughters of Lanka Citizens For Secure Sri Lanka
  • Home for Human Rights
  • Women’s Action Network
  • Centre for Women and Development (Jaffna) Family Organisation for the Disappeared
  • GSSM
  • National Association for Fisheries Solidarity Women’s Centre
  • Dabindu Collective for Women
  • Platform for Freedom
  • Women’s Political Academy
  • Free Media Movement
  • Mannar Citizen’s Commission
  • Movement for the Defense of Democratic Rights Centre for Human Rights and Development Lawyers for Democracy
  • Christian Alliance for Social Action
Centre for Policy Alternatives on 12 February, 2014

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.

Centre for Policy Alternatives on 31 January, 2014

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: