This document provides basic information on the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC), the proposed resolution on Sri Lanka at the present 19^th Session of the UNHRC and its implications. This document aims to clarify some of the basic facts and developments and dispel any misinformation and myths regarding the resolution and its impact on Sri Lanka and its people.

Access this document online here, where you can also download it as a PDF, embed it on most websites and easily share on online social media platforms. Access the Sinhala translation of this document here.

What is the United Nations Human Rights Council? 
The United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) is an inter-governmental body within the United Nations (UN) system responsible for strengthening the promotion and protection of human rights around the globe, and for addressing situations of human rights violations and making recommendations on them. The UNHRC is made up of 47 UN member states elected by the UN General Assembly in New York. The UNHRC is based in Geneva.

Is Sri Lanka a member of the UNHRC? 
No. Sri Lanka lost its seat at the UNHRC in an election held in 2008.

What are the ongoing developments at the UNHRC regarding Sri Lanka? 
The United States of America (USA) has tabled a draft resolution at the 19^th Session of the UNHRC to discuss the human rights situation in Sri Lanka including the implementation of the Government’s own Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC).

What is the LLRC?
The LLRC is a presidential commission of inquiry appointed by the President of Sri Lanka, Mahinda Rajapaksa on 15^th May 2010 to examine the causes of the conflict, its impact on the people and to suggest recommendations to promote national unity and reconciliation and to identify mechanisms for restitution to the people affected by the conflict. The eight-member commission conducted hearings in Colombo and in some districts, although many of those wanting to give testimony outside of Colombo were unable due to lack of time and inadequate planning. Reports have also surfaced of witnesses who provided critical testimony on human rights violations being subsequently threatened and harassed. The commission handed over its final report to the president on 20^th November 2011. The multiple recommendations covered a variety of issues including the need for further investigations into violations committed during the war, introducing a Right to Information Act, assistance for the displaced, addressing demilitarisation and disarmament of armed groups and the need for a political solution among others. While some groups see the recommendations in a positive light, others have critiqued them for being inadequate, while other groups have criticized the LLRC for exceeding its mandate.

What has happened to the LLRC’s recommendations?
While the Government made the report public in December 2011 and has made numerous statements that it will implement the recommendations, the Government has neither provided a list of recommendations that it has implemented so far nor indicated a process for implementation. Nor has there been significant progress with the interim recommendations issued by the LLRC in September 2010 – a point noted by the LLRC in its final report.

What does the draft resolution sponsored by the US aim to do? 
The draft resolution has three main suggestions:

1. Calls on the Government of Sri Lanka to implement the constructive recommendations in the LLRC report and take all necessary additional steps to fulfill its relevant legal obligations and commitment to initiate credible and independent actions to ensure justice, equity, accountability and reconciliation for all Sri Lankans.
2. Requests that the Government of Sri Lanka present a comprehensive action plan as expeditiously as possible detailing the steps the Government has taken and will take to implement the LLRC recommendations and also to address alleged violations of international law.
3. Encourages the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and relevant special procedures to provide, and the Government of Sri Lanka to accept, advice and technical assistance on implementing those steps and requests the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to present a report to the Council on the provision of such assistance at its twenty-second session.

The first two paragraphs request the Government of Sri Lanka to implement the findings of its own LLRC – none of which have been implemented even four months after the report was handed over to the Government. The third paragraph calls for support for the Government of Sri Lanka to implement these findings through the assistance of various UN actors.

The resolution does not call for sanctions, military intervention or punitive action against the Government of Sri Lanka. The only requirement by the Government is to provide a plan as to how the LLRC will be implemented, a simple requirement that will also provide information to the citizens of Sri Lanka and others as to how the Government will set about fulfilling their obligations.

What will the impact be on Sri Lanka if the draft resolution is passed at the UNHRC? 
The resolution is focused on getting the Government of Sri Lanka to implement the recommendations of its own LLRC and to explain how it is implementing them. This is needed when no public information is available in Sri Lanka on whether and how the LLRC is to be implemented. It is also in a context when previous commission findings, including those appointed by this Government, have not been implemented. The resolution provides for the support of the UNHRC, other member states of the UN and other actors who can provide technical assistance to fully implement the LLRC findings.

The Government and other actors have criticized the resolution as being an attempt to intervene in the domestic affairs of Sri Lanka. The resolution does not contain provisions where any actor can interfere in domestic issues in Sri Lanka and is proposed to support the Government of Sri Lanka fulfill its obligations.

How can the resolution support long-term reconciliation and peace in Sri Lanka? 
The LLRC has some positive recommendations on human rights, governance, reconciliation and devolution and if implemented fully can help strengthen peace and reconciliation in Sri Lanka.  It also provides an opportunity for the Government of Sri Lanka to obtain technical assistance from experts in the UN who can support the Government in its implementation.

12 March 2012, Colombo, Sri Lanka: The last few weeks have witnessed increased activity by the Government of Sri Lanka in announcing various measures recently taken and to be taken to strengthen human rights, peace and reconciliation in Sri Lanka including the implementation of some interim and final recommendations of its own Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC) issued in September 2010 and November 2011, respectively. Any genuine effort to address human rights, governance, a political solution and reconciliation is welcome. Yet the suddenness of such statements raises questions of timing and the genuine will of the Government. They should be seen against the backdrop of the impending resolution on Sri Lanka at the 19th Session of the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC). The heightened activity raises the question as to whether these measures are yet another ploy to distract its critics from the absence of a real plan of implementation for the LLRC recommendations.

This short note looks at GOSL rhetoric and demonstrates the fundamental flaws in the structure of government in addressing human rights violations and accountability issues, the failures of past domestic processes and the need for immediate action by the international community.

Read the note online here.

12 March 2012, Colombo, Sri Lanka: The Centre for Policy Alternatives (CPA) has produced a table that contains basic information pertaining to Commissions of Inquiry (CoI) (1) and committees appointed by the Government since coming into power in November 2005 (2). Section I of the table examines the CoI and Section II contains information pertaining to key committees established during the specific time period (3).

Notes

1. The Commissions listed in this document does not include those established by the National Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka.
2. The commissions and committees listed in this document are limited to those where information is publicly available.
3. As of 9 March 2012.

Access the full table online here, where you can also print or download it as a PDF.

17th February 2012, Colombo, Sri Lanka: Several valuable recommendations are contained in the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission’s (LLRC) Report and they are all the more compelling because they have issued from a Presidential Commission. In pursuance of this, we the undersigned call upon the government of Sri Lanka, in consultation with the Tamil National Alliance (TNA) and the leadership of the Muslims, to take steps to implement the recommendations. In this statement we have highlighted certain important recommendations. The government is morally bound to implement the proposals of its own commission or otherwise stand indicted of a lack of sincerity.

A lasting solution to the ethnic imbroglio can be reached only if power, including police powers, land use and allocation, and fiscal and budgetary authority is devolved to the Provincial Councils in accordance with the Constitution of Sri Lanka; but the government is stalling. In the context of this statement we refer in particular to the Northern and Eastern Provinces. The governance of the Northern Province should be handed over forthwith to democratically elected representatives of the people. We also state that without restoration and empowerment of the civil administration, effective demilitarisation, resettlement of Tamil and Muslim displaced persons, disbanding paramilitary forces, releasing illegally detained persons and rejuvenating the local economy, all talk of reconciliation is a deception.

There have been a number of proposals which if implemented would have gone some way towards ameliorating the conflict; the Mangala Moonesinge Report, President Kumaratunga’s proposals in the 1990s, the draft constitution of 2000, and the Majority Report of the Experts Committee advising the APRC. Now a set of recommendations has been made by the President’s LLRC appointees. Notwithstanding our criticisms of the LLRC in the Concluding Note below we are of the opinion that if the government implements the most important of its Recommendations, progress can be made towards reconciliation of the communities.

Demilitarisation
The ubiquitous presence of and pressure exerted by the armed forces in the Northern and Eastern Province engenders grave and direct fear among the people and inhibits social life. Militarization and armed paramilitary groups are the root cause of harassment and are associated with abduction and other unlawful acts. The spread of military tentacles into reconstruction projects is alarming and military sponsored expansion into small and medium business undertakings are taking precedence and steamrolling the local community out of the neighbourhood economy. Commitment to the concept of the primacy of civilian democracy over military power makes it imperative that the LLRC recommendations quoted below be implemented forthwith and in full. This needs the approval of no Parliamentary Select Committee or endorsement by the TNA. There is no justification for procrastination.

“The Commission, as a policy, strongly advocates and recommends to the Government that the Security Forces should disengage itself from all civil administration related activities as rapidly as possible” – (9.134).

“It is important that the Northern Province reverts to civilian administration in matters relating to the day-to-day life of the people, and in particular with regard to matters pertaining to economic activities such as agriculture, fisheries land etc. The military presence must progressively recede to the background to enable the people to return to normal civilian life and enjoy the benefits of peace” – (9.227)

The importance of demilitarisation extends beyond the North-East. There is alarm in the Sinhalese and Muslim communities in other parts of the country about mounting military involvement in civilian life such as state corporations and businesses, construction and urban development, provincial governorships and the diplomatic service. Demilitarisation of civilian and economic life is the common demand of people of all communities. The peril of military involvement in financial matters and sinecures of prestige has been well learnt in recent years from the Burmese, Egyptian and Syrian examples to name but three.

High Security Zones, paramilitaries and child soldiers
The LLRC Report deals with High Security Zones (HSZs) in paragraph 9.142 and recommends a review for the purpose of releasing more land to the public. We call for the immediate dismantling of all HS zones which serve no rightful purpose. All occupied land must be returned to rightful owners. The Report refers to illegal armed groups in paragraph 9.73 and to the alleged crimes of the EPDP in paragraph 9.208, but only calls for further investigation in both matters. We fail to see why paramilitaries and armed goons are allowed free reign in the Tamil areas at all. It is the duty of the state to disband these unlawful groups forthwith; the state needs no LLRC recommendation to carry out its bounden obligations. We support the recommendation that past activities of these gangs be investigated with a view to prosecution where warranted.

We support the recommendations in the report (9.77 to 9.80) regarding rehabilitation, return to families and provision of employment opportunities for former child soldiers. The recommendations in respect of tracing families or tracing child soldiers (9.81) are also commendable and need to be acted on. These are completely non-controversial matters, but it is regrettable that the government has commenced no action. There is no reason whatsoever for delay.

Unlawful detention
In ten paragraphs in a separate subsection titled “Treatment of Detainees” the Report deals with several aspects of lawful and unlawful detention and the treatment of detainees. The following passages are of particular note.

“However, the Commission expresses concern over some detainees who have been incarcerated over a long period of time without charges being preferred. The Commission stresses again that conclusive action should be taken to dispose of these cases by bringing charges or releasing them where there is no evidence of any criminal offence having being committed” – (9.70).

All places of detention should be those, which are formally designated as authorized places of detention and no person should be detained in any place other than such authorized places of detention. Strict legal provisions should be followed by the law enforcement authorities in taking persons into custody, such as issuing of a formal receipt of arrest and providing details of the place of detention – (9.67).

The commission has put its finger on a pervasive and persistent problem in the breakdown of law enforcement and justice in the country; illegal detention without adequate cause, failure to prosecute or release, and detention at unauthorised locations at which victims are alleged to be tortured or eliminated. Does a responsible government need the recommendations of a presidential commission to eliminate such practices forthwith? The government is dragging its feet while detainees linger in jails and camps.

The next of kin of detainees have the fundamental right to know of the whereabouts of their family members and they have the right of access to detainees. The LLRC notes numerous representations were made about this matter.

“A large number of representations were made with regard to those whose whereabouts are unknown, sometimes for years, as a result of abductions, unlawful arrests, arbitrary detention, and involuntary disappearances” – (9.43)

Land; Return of IDPs; Return of Muslims
Some recommendations in respect of land issues overlap the larger of question of devolution of land powers to Provincial Councils (9.124, 9.126 and 9.150). Other matters such as expediting the return of Muslims evicted by the LTTE to the North and steps to prevent the legitimisation of properties forcibly occupied during the war are worthy of support. These issues will be more complex in implementation than the matters adverted to previously as they require legislation and will certainly need the establishment of administrative support mechanisms. The government must demonstrate its good intentions by declaring its intention to implement these recommendations and state the time frame within which they will be completed.

We recognise that the full reintegration of IDPs into the community and ensuring the return of the Muslims (covered in 9.103 to 9.108 and 9.109 to 9.113, respectively) are important issues. The same is true of the broader discussion in paragraphs 9.121 to 9.152 dealing with several land related matters. While recognising the need for patience on these matters we are perturbed that there seems to be a lack of seriousness on the part of the government in getting started on the job. A matter of more immediate concern is that the provision of basic facilities is neglected while IDPs languish in dire conditions.

Concluding Note
Right thinking people of all communities are dismayed by the whitewash of atrocities against the civilian population committed by the Sri Lankan military in the final stages of the war. The LLRC has ignored allegations about the military targeting safe zones, hospitals, and locations where tens of thousands were packed together. The large scale and permanent displacement of the people of the Vanni and the destruction of homes and built infrastructure portends an effort to change the ethnic population profile of the region. The LLRC has documented LTTE atrocities and concluded that it is guilty of human-rights violations. Taking into account all these we believe that there is prima face evidence of human-rights violations by the government of Sri Lanka and the LTTE; we demand an independent investigation.

The purpose of this statement is to express our dismay that the government is taking little follow up action to get down to simple actions that are not particularly controversial if there is a genuine commitment to democracy, human rights and reconciliation. Since in this statement we wish to emphasise matters that can be implemented expeditiously, we have not engaged in extended discussion of two fundamental concerns; that accountability for human rights violations must be followed up, and that a political solution based on devolution is the only feasible permanent solution. Nor is this document comprehensive since we have not dealt with women’s issues, education, compensation, restrictions on travel and the hard to understand delay in rebuilding the railway to the north – a one time artery of commerce and people movement.

Signatories

1. Priyadarshani Ariyaratne
2. Niran Bandaranaike
3. Lionel Bopage
4. Kumar David (Prof)
5. Sunanda Deshapriya
6. Nirmal Ranjith Dewasiri
7. Marshal Fernando
8. Sarath Fernando (Monlar)
9. Bhavani Fonseka
10. Mano Ganesan
11. Sivaguru Ganesan (Prof)
12. N Ganesanathan (Dr)
13. Ruba.H.Gnanaratnam
14. Farzana Hanifffa (Dr)
15. S.H. Hasbullah (Prof)
16. Rohini Hensman (Dr)
17. Jay Jayasingam
18. Kumara Illangasinghe (Bishop Emeritus)
19. M. C. M. Iqbal
20. Vickremabahu Karunaratne (Dr)
21. S. V. Kasynathan (Dr.)
22. Uvindu Kurukulasuriya
23. Sumanasiri Liyanage (Dr)
24. S. Nagendra
25. Suppiramaniam Nanthikesan
26. Anita Nesiah (Dr)
27. Devanesan Nesiah (Dr)
28. Lanka Nesiah
29. Vasuki Nesiah
30. Nigel V. Nugawela
31. Rajan Philips
32. Mirak Raheem
33. Lionel Rajapakse
34. Mahinda Ratnayake
35. Surendra Ajith Rupesinghe
36. Jeanne Samuel
37. Shireen Saroor
38. Pakiasothy Saravanamuttu (Dr)
39. Willie Senanayake (Dr)
40. Sabapathy Sivagurunathan
41. Daya Somasundaram(Dr)
42. Ram Subramaniam
43. Jonathan V Thambar
44. J. Thiruchandran
45. Selvy Thiruchandran (Dr)
46. Bradman Weerakone
47. Lal Wijenayake
48. E Vivegananthan