India to carry out DNA tests on Uttarakhand flood skeletons

AFPImage caption-More than 5,000 people who went missing after the floods were presumed dead

17 October 2016

Scientists in India will extract DNA from more than 30 skeletons of suspected victims of devastating floods in 2013 in the northern state of Uttarakhand, police say.

The skeletons were discovered by trekkers last week on a road linking two of the worst affected areas.

Authorities had confirmed that some 600 people died in the floods.

Later the government said that more than 5,700 people were missing and would be presumed dead.

However, authorities said, the exact number of deaths may never be known.

Many bodies were washed away or remain buried under debris. Some were recovered in rivers downstream from the flood zone and cremated in the places where they were found.

"We have constantly admitted that there are dead bodies buried under the huge pile of debris which came with the 2013 flood. The state government continues to launch combing operations to trace skeletons on a regular basis," Uttarakhand chief minister Harish Rawat told the BBC's Raju Gusain.

"We have found 31 skeletons in the latest operation. We have completed the last rites of 23 and will cremate the other eight in a day or two, after completing the DNA sampling process.".

The trekkers found the remains last week on a 27km (16-mile) route between a shrine in Kedarnath and the temple town of Trijuginarayan, reports said.

"It appears most of the skeletons were of local travellers who were familiar with this route. Pilgrims must have followed suit, watching the locals," Atul Jamloki, a member of the trekking group, told The Hindustan Times newspaper.

AFPImage caption-More than 100,000 people were rescued from the Himalayan mountains after the floods

More than 100,000 people were rescued from the Himalayan mountains after the floods and landslides affected more than 4,000 villages.

The 2013 early monsoon rains in the Uttarakhand region were described as the heaviest in 80 years.

Swollen rivers swept away entire villages in the state, where there were many travellers in what was peak tourist season.

How Sri Lanka Demonstrates the Limits of the UN System

 by:Taylor Dibbert-October 20, 2016

In recent years, the island nation of Sri Lanka has received considerable attention from the Geneva-based UN Human Rights Council. Country-specific council resolutions were passed on Sri Lanka annually from 2012 to 2014. These resolutions dealt broadly with alleged wartime abuses, reconciliation and ongoing human-rights violations under the administration of the increasingly authoritarian Mahinda Rajapaksa, who ruled the island nation from 2005 to January 2015. Rajapaksa rejected all three of those resolutions and used developments at the council to drum up domestic political support.

Rajapaksa was ousted in January 2015 and the new government, led by Maithripala Sirisena, promised to rebalance Colombo’s foreign policy and implement a wide-ranging reform agenda. With this in mind, Sri Lanka cosponsored another UN Human Rights Council resolution in October 2015 that laid out a strong transitional justice agenda, including a truth commission and an accountability mechanism to address allegations of wartime abuses committed, by both Sri Lankan government forces and the separatist Tamil Tigers, during the country’s twenty-six-year civil war that ended in May 2009.

Colombo’s compliance with this most recent resolution will be reviewed in detail in March 2017, during the council’s thirty-fourth session. However, even if Sri Lanka were to make significant progress in the coming months, the bottom line is that the country’s transitional justice process will go beyond March 2017, even under the best of circumstances.

There are legitimate worries that, if Sri Lanka falls off the council’s formal agenda, then Colombo may be even less inclined to follow through on its previous commitments. After all, these are difficult, controversial issues; so, sustained international engagement and concomitant diplomatic pressure look more important than ever.

In this context, the passage of another resolution on Sri Lanka during that thirty-fourth session would be eminently helpful. But this is tricky for several reasons. For starters, Sri Lanka’s new government has been welcomed with open arms by a range of Western nations, including the United States—the driving force behind previous resolutions on Sri Lanka. In addition, the United States is not a formal member of the council this year, so a powerful ally may need to do a lot of the diplomatic legwork behind the scenes (something that would need to start soon if there’s any chance of another resolution on Sri Lanka even being tabled in the current political context). The U.S. presidential election adds an additional layer of complexity to the situation, and an outgoing Obama administration looks even less inclined to encourage continued scrutiny on Sri Lanka’s new government.

The UN Human Rights Council can be a good venue to raise awareness about human rights issues and encourage states to conform to international human-rights norms, although it’s not really designed to usher in dramatic changes. This isn’t to suggest that the United States should not devote diplomatic and financial resources there. It should—and it’s better for the United States to be a council member state than trying to influence diplomatic and political processes from the sidelines. However, the recent case of Sri Lanka underscores how messy and complicated multilateral diplomacy at this body can be. It also illustrates the inherent challenges of pursuing country-specific initiatives through a relatively short time horizon.

Taylor Dibbert is a freelance writer based in Washington, DC.

Image: View of the Human Rights Council during the urgent debate on Syria May 29, 2013. Flickr/Creative Commons/U.S. Mission Geneva

Donning Rajapaksa Feathers?

by Tisaranee Gunasekara-October 22, 2016

 

"Leaders who believe they have a personal right to dominate decision-making in many different areas of policy, and who attempt to exercise such a prerogative, do a disservice to both good governance and to democracy. They deserve not followers, but critics."

Archie Brown (The Myth of the Strong Leader)

The Rajapaksas named it a ‘Humanitarian Operation with zero-civilian-casualties’. The Fourth Eelam War was anything but, a reality no amount of pompous proclamations or glitzy propaganda could efface.

Good governance was a slogan and a promise, but not an accomplished fact. The Sirisena-Wickremesinghe government can sport it like a diadem, but good governance is a goal to be striven for and not a state, which once attained remains eternal. The defeat of the Rajapaksas did not automatically usher in an era of good governance; it merely removed an insurmountable obstacle on the road to that desired end.

The Rajapaksas used the slogan of a Humanitarian Operation as a cynical ploy. It was nothing more than a smokescreen to hide Colombo’s decision to wage the war the Tiger way, with scant regard to basic human rights or decencies.

The Sirisena-Wickremesinghe administration’s approach to good governance combines sincerity, cynicism and opportunism to varying degrees. In the last 21 months, the administration has acted in consonance with as well as in violation of the tenets of good governance.

President Maithripala Sirisena’s curious outburst belongs in a sphere, separate from even the most egregious violations of the principles of good governance. Indefensible deeds such as the Central Bank bond scam were serious setbacks, but did not amount to a strategic departure from the promised course of the Sirisena-Wickremesinghe administration. The President’s speech signalled such a danger, because, in its essence, it was a demand for and justification of selective impunity.

Pared of embellishments, the speech posits two cardinal principals - some people should be above the law, irrespective of the nature of their alleged crimes; and the right to decide who should be prosecuted and who shouldn’t rests ultimately with the president of the republic.

It is a position totally at variance with the ethos of the January 2015 transformation.

The President’s speech did not reflect the differences between the two component parts of the hybrid government. Those SLFPers who sincerely support Mr. Sirisena are likely to be as dismayed as any UNPer at the President’s insistence on impunity for Gotabhaya Rajapaksa. A return to Rajapaksa rule would be uncomfortable and unpleasant for UNPers; but for Sirisena loyalists in the SLFP, such a change can be lethal. If the Rajapaksas return to power, they are likely to treat ‘disloyal’ SLFPers far more harshly than they would UNPers, starting with their former general secretary who played such a pivotal role in their downfall.

The UNP and the SLFP have their differences, but these have not yet reached the point of irreconcilability. So the crisis ignited by the President’s speech was smoothed over, in a remarkably short time. The president himself has tried to defuse the crisis he created by claiming that he was misquoted. He reportedly reminded his concerned ministers that he ended his speech with a statement of confidence in the government’s ability to last the full term.

Maithripala Sirisena is too canny a politician to not know that even with the full support of the Joint Opposition, he cannot form a pure SLFP/UPFA government. The numbers just don’t add up. Maithripala Sirisena is also too astute a man to replace Ranil Wickremesinghe with Gotabhaya Rajapaksa as the prime minister because that would be tantamount to trusting his fate and that of his family to the Rajapaksas.

So the government will survive for the time being. What is at really stake is the fate of the politico-electoral transformation of January 2015. .

Defending Impunity: From Perpetual Treasuries to Clique

The victory over the Rajapaksas was not the deed of one person or one party. It was truly a victory with many parents and even more caregivers. Those who made it happen were motivated by diverse dreams and goals. The central strand binding these diverse aims together was a simple one – that the post-Rajapaksa future should be the antithesis of the Rajapaksa-past.

Impunity was a key characteristic of Rajapaksa rule. President Rajapaksa regarded the law as a political sword to attack his enemies with and a political shield to defend his kith and kin with. The taking over of the AG’s Department and the impeachment of Chief Justice Shirani Bandaranayake were the most noxious mileposts in the Rajapaksa march towards total impunity.

Ending that ruinous march was a primary aim of the January 2015 transformation and a central tenet of good governance.

Impunity receded with the defeat of the Rajapaksas, but it did not die. Some people continued to be above the law, the best case in point being the former Governor of the Central Bank, Arjuna Mahendran and his enterprising son-in-law. Mr. Mahendran’s alleged involvement in the bond scam is not being investigated by any of the many institutions delving into corruption and financial crimes. Apart from losing the governorship – for which the credit should go to Mr. Sirisena – Mr. Mahendran has not had to pay any price for his alleged crime.

This month, the bond scam issue exploded into public view again with the revelation that Perpetual Treasuries, the trading firm reportedly owned by Mr. Mahendran’s son-in-law, made a killer profit of Rs. 5.1 billion, post-taxes, in the financial year ending March 2016i.

If the president was genuinely concerned about the trajectory of the FCID and the Bribery Commission, if he didn’t like these supposedly independent institutions playing favourites, he could have talked about the Bond scam and Perpetual Treasuries.

He should have. But he didn’t.

Instead he talked about one of the few things the investigative institutions got right – the Avant Garde scam.

The President expressed indignation about three navy commanders and Gotabhaya Rajapaksa being taken to courts. The four men are charged not with a political crime but with a straightforward financial crime. They allegedly took the very profitable business of maintaining a floating armoury away from the Sri Lankan Navy and handed it over to a private company. By doing so, they allegedly caused a loss to the state to the tune of Rs. 11 billion.

If the President genuinely has a problem with the case, it can mean only one thing – he wants military officials and civilians of his choice to be above the law. His problem with the Bribery Commission and the FCID is not that they are playing favourites, but that they are not playing favourites in tandem with his likes and dislikes.

There is little doubt that Mr. Mahendran and his son-in-law are staying above the law because they enjoy the patronage of PM Wickremesinghe.

That is impunity in action. That is bad.

The President in his speech didn’t demand an end to selective impunity; he demanded the transformation of selective impunity from an aberrant practice into government policy.

That is infinitely worse.

The president reportedly insisted that he be informed before any legal action is taken against top military officials. It is a demand he has no right to make, constitutionally or morally. It is a demand which violates a basic tenet of democracy – the separation of powers. It is a demand which reeks of the past we voted to leave behind on January 8, 2015.

Thanks to the President’s outburst, the government’s commitment to break decisively from the Rajapaksa past has been placed in doubt. Thanks to the President’s outburst, national conversation has shifted from such important matters as the new constitution, the upcoming budget and the new counter-terrorism law (which seems to be broader in scope and more draconian than the PTA) to confused queries and uninformed speculations.

And thanks to the President’s outburst, an event which sent political shockwaves just a fortnight ago has vanished from sight - the attack on a Colombo nightclub allegedly by a brat-pack loyal to the First Son.

When some employees of Clique, a nightclub in Colombo, came under attack, Parliamentarian Wimal Weerawansa claimed that Daham Sirisena, the son of President Maithripala Sirisena, was involved in the incident. The charge was repeated by the media. A statement by the owner of the club, giving a clean bill of health to all VVIP progeny, past or present, intensified rather than lessen the rumours (it sounded a bit like Minister Mervyn Silva’s victim claiming that he tied himself to the tree). Footage from the club’s CCTV cameras appeared on the internet. The deputy media minister informed the media that the President has ordered the police to carry out a special investigation.

Then the President lobbed his verbal smoke grenade. In the consequent confusion, all interest in the Clique incident faded. The fate of the special investigation ordered by the President is unknown; the only thing known is that no arrests have been made, so far.

That emits a familiar smell, a rank smell from the past, the smell of political brats taking the law into their own spoiled hands.

Wages of Broken Promises

If the dream of a democratic Arab world was born in Tunisia, it died in Egypt.

Mohammad Morsi was elected to take the Egyptian revolution forward and to transform the country into a modern democratic state. But once in power, he ignored that mandate and started emulating sectarian and repressive policies of the past. Instead of placing himself at the head of a broad national coalition, he succumbed to a narrow Islamist agenda. He attacked democrats and liberals who played a pivotal role in the revolution, embraced increasingly authoritarian stances, thinking that pandering to the military would suffice to save his government.

When agents of change feel that change has been betrayed, they either turn inimical or become inactive. Mr. Morsi underestimated and antagonised Egypt’s numerically small but politically influential liberal-democratic forces. He didn’t understand that he needed them to keep the Egyptian military away from politics.

It was a deadly mistake, both for Mr. Morsi and for Egyptian democracy.

Mr. Sirisena’s outburst did not make the government collapse. But it dealt a severe blow to the societal legitimacy of both the government and Mr. Sirisena.

Fortunately, there is still space for both the President and the PM to turn away from the precipice and to resume the journey to the future.

Aspirant fiction-writers are often adjured to show, not tell. That rule is far more applicable to politicians.

The president should show his commitment to the basic principles of good governance by not interfering with the work of independent commissions and by ensuing that the promised investigation into the Clique attack happens. If the media reports about the President’s son being involved are correct and he evades the law thanks to his father’s protection, the discredit will accrue to both the father and the son. Mr. Sirisena just needs to look at the Rajapaksa sons to know how ruinous impunity is, both to the fathers who enable it and to the sons who benefit from it. Someday, Mr. Sirisena will have to leave office. Someday his son will not have a powerful father to protect him. If Mr. Sirisena’s successor is a Rajapaksa, Daham Sirisena will find himself in the same unenviable position the two older Rajapaksa sons are in today.

The PM should show his commitment to the basic principles of good governance by allowing the police and the law to treat the bond scam as the crime it is.

If they fail, October 2016 will mark the beginning of the end.

In myths, the king becomes a tyrant when he forgets the source of his power. In myths, the source of that power is divine, god/gods, who proceed to punish the king for his transgression.

Myths depict a timeless human phenomenon. The only difference is that in real life, the source of the power is not divine but human. When it comes to democratic leaders, the sources of power are voters and those social forces that create/sustain a favourable climate opinion.

The punishment is the same, be it in myth or reality – disgrace and fall from power.

i http://www.dailymirror.lk/article/Perpetual-Treasuries-month-profit-exceeds-Rs-bn-leaked-CB-report-117433.html

New faces but the (hauntingly) old mindset

Sunday, October 23, 2016

Governments may come and go in Sri Lanka but the anti-reform and anti-liberties mindset seems firmly entrenched. This is now proven beyond all shadow of a doubt. The only difference therein is that of gradation.
So the gullible may gladly murmur ‘this is better than what was there before.’ That, in fact, happens to be the case. But if we are reduced to talking merely of degrees of state abuse, surely this defeats that much heralded ‘people’s revolution’ last year? And if so, then we must recognize the unpleasant reality for what it is

Misleading rhetoric of victims versus suspects

The problem here is not necessarily confined to the political leadership. Indeed it is safe to say that whatever may be the faces in seats of power, this anti-reform mindset is continued by their fawning followers masquerading as policy advisors. Sometimes it is evidenced, (more disconcertingly) even by those supposed to act as members of oversight bodies exercising checks on abuse.

Let us take the highly misleading rhetoric on victims versus suspects as one example. So it is argued in some quarters that giving legal aid to suspects immediately after arrest offends the rights of victims. A foremost proponent of this view is unfortunately the Minister of Justice, infuriated at having to unbecomingly back-step on a proposed amendment to the Criminal Procedure Code which promised legal aid to suspects and then rendered that redundant by stipulating that this must be after the police records the statements.

Yet this pitting of victims against suspects is an argument that is hollow at its very core. It runs contrary to the entire weight of documented cases before the courts which shows that the free hand given to the police after an arrest leads to the most brutal torture. Simply put, the suspect’s right of prompt access to legal counsel is a much needed and salutary check on widespread impunity.

Where is the notion of minimum force?

In fact, one may have been compelled to concede that there is some merit in the Justice Minister’s rhetoric if Sri Lankan law enforcement had been shown to be successful in its methods. But the contrary is the case. What overwhelmingly presents before us is a picture of incompetent law enforcement run wild.

This is seen most recently in the deaths of two undergraduates in Jaffna. The shooting deaths, first covered over as accidents, were then justified on the basis that the youths were shot as they did not stop their motorcycle when commanded to. But where is the notion of minimum force as reiterated in the law and in Departmental Orders issued by the Inspector General of Police (IGP)? Do the Sri Lankan police need to be taught the basics of these safeguards?

Regardless this tantalizing dance continues with one link reinforcing another in the anti-reform mindset. First there was the now withdrawn amendment to the Criminal Procedure Code. Closely following upon the heels of that proposal was the leaked legal and policy framework for a new counter-terrorism law.

Making inventive claims

As warned in these column spaces last week, this draft was more terrifying than the archaic Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA) that it purported to replace, given its range of chilling new offences that constituted a severe infringement of civil liberties. If carried into law, this promises to turn back the page on several decades of progressive judgments by the Supreme Court. Here again, the counter-terror draft provides that access of a suspect to lawyers can be given only after the initial statements are recorded in the police station.

Uncannily, the very same reasoning prevails elsewhere as well. This leads one to suspect a uniformly common and retrogressive hand in all these misadventures. For example, Sri Lanka’s fifth periodic report to the United Nations Committee against Torture (UNCAT) submitted earlier this year proceeds on the same lines. In fact, the phraseology of the UNCAT report does little justice to both commonsense and the English language as the flourishing claims that it makes do not logically support its conclusions.

So out of a host of such contradictions, paragraph 19 of the UNCAT state party report refers to the 2012 regulations issued by the Inspector General of Police (IGP) ensuring that a lawyer representing a suspect in police custody may meet the Officer in Charge (OIC) of the relevant police station to ascertain the reasons for the arrest. Inventively but quite incorrectly, it is claimed that consequently, the ‘right of a suspect to see a lawyer immediately after an arrest is effectively safeguarded.’

Claims belied by practical realities

Of course, this is not actually the case. Merely providing that the lawyer may ‘interview’ the OIC is a far cry from expressly providing that the suspect has access to independent legal counsel, as evidenced in all developed jurisdictions. Ironically the Government pats itself on the back in quoting the now withdrawn CCP amendment in full in these paragraphs with obviously no inkling of the backlash that it (inevitably) attracted.

Other absurdities predominate. In the 2016 UNCAT report and the draft policy on a new counter-terror act, the production of a suspect before the Judicial Medical Officer (JMO) for a medico-legal examination is paraded as a sufficient safeguard against torture. But let us look at practical realities. As extensively documented and remarked upon by the Supreme Court, medical examinations frequently take place in the presence of the perpetrators or are directed to junior doctors with little experience in the documentation of injuries. Delay in such medical examinations is common.

Sometimes JMOs have complained that the police officers bring a decoy before them rather than the actual (tortured) suspect. Some doctors even support the police version or collude in deadlier crimes, as exemplified in the most gruesome controversies over the disappearance of forensic body items of murdered ruggerite Wasim Thajudeen.

Radical shift in mindset required.

There must be a radical shift in the mindset as reflected in post January 2015 policy reforms. Absent this, it is of little use for the head of State to personally intervene to give directions in a particular case or two or for the Government to expound on the State’s willingness to change.

We eagerly await even the tentative beginnings of such a genuine policy shift.

NEW UN REPORT HIGHLIGHTS FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION VIOLATIONS ACROSS THE GLOBE

( David Kaye; UN photo)

By Ashley Gorski.-22/10/2016--Just Security

UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, David Kaye, yesterday issued his fourth report, a comprehensive survey of global trends i n restrictions on freedom of expression. From Chinese cybersecurity legislation and the censorship of social media, to the detention of journalists covering the Black Lives Matter protests, Kaye’s 24-page study addresses an array of threats to this fundamental right, and it presents several recommendations for state action. As with his prior reports, this latest study shines a much-needed international spotlight on increasing threats to freedom of expression in a digital age.

Read the full report as a PDF:report-to-un-promotion-and-protection-of-the-right-to-freedom-of-opinion on line here

First, some quick background: Both the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (“ICCPR”) – a treaty ratified by the United States and 167 other countries – guarantee the right to seek, receive, and impart information of all kinds. Under Article 19 of the ICCPR, any restriction of the right to freedom of expression must satisfy three conditions: it must be provided by law, have a “legitimate objective,” and be necessary and proportionate. Organized around this framework, Kaye’s report surveys government laws, prosecutions, activities by non-state actors, and other repressive measures around the world that violate these standards.

Legality

Although interferences with freedom of expression must be prescribed by law, Kaye identifies several key ways in which states fall short of this standard. For instance, laws intended to combat the threat of terrorism are often extremely vague, and therefore fail to meet the requirement that restrictions on freedom of expression be formulated with precision. Not only do vague laws fail to provide sufficient notice about what constitutes unlawful behavior, but they are frequently “so general as to permit officials excessive discretion to determine their meaning.” Examples include China’s recent draft cybersecurity legislation, which would require individuals to “observe public order and respect social morality,” and Kenya’s 2015 counterterrorism legislation, which criminalized “obscene, gory or offensive material which is likely to cause fear and alarm to the general public.” In addition, legislative processes often fail to consider state obligations under human rights law, and courts and other independent third-party reviewers routinely lack the necessary authority to evaluate rights violations.

Interestingly, Kaye describes the United States as a positive example of state efforts to satisfy the legality requirement – but he leaves no doubt that we still have a long way to go. He explains that the United States “has engaged in a public debate, including in Congress, that has begun to address, albeit in limited ways, the excessive discretion in intelligence and law enforcement in the context of digital surveillance.” Of course, much U.S. surveillance law remains secret, is unduly vague, vests excessive discretion in the executive branch, and fails to provide courts (or independent bodies such as the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board) with sufficient authority to remedy rights violations. Indeed, as underscored by the recent controversy surrounding the secret court order directing Yahoo to search all users’ incoming emails, it is plain that U.S. surveillance law is far too opaque to satisfy the ICCPR’s legality standard. (Even Congress is still seeking answers on the legal basis for and scope of Yahoo order.) Beyond that, there are a host of U.S. surveillance programs that have far-reaching implications for freedom of expression and that have never been publicly debated by Congress or reviewed by any court. In addition, surveillance authorities such as Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and Executive Order 12,333 are drawn so broadly that executive branch employees wield tremendous discretion in conducting bulk surveillance and in choosing which targets to spy on. Without question, these authorities run afoul of the legality requirement.

Necessity to Protect a Legitimate Objective

The report also surveys restrictive measures that have legitimate objectives but are neither necessary nor proportionate, including certain forms of surveillance, forced decryption, internet shutdowns, and efforts to counter violent extremism. Under Article 19 of the ICCPR, “legitimate objectives” include restrictions necessary for the protection of national security or of public order.

In this section of the report, Kaye presents a powerful critique of states’ overreliance on invocations of “national security” and “public order” to attempt to justify their interference with freedom of expression. He rightly emphasizes that “national security” should be “limited in applications to situations in which the interest of the whole nation is at stake, which would thereby exclude restrictions in the sole interest of a Government, regime, or power group.”

Kaye also proposes a path forward: “[o]ne way to resist unjustifiable or arbitrary invocation of either [national security or public order] is to insist that Governments demonstrate the risk that specific expression poses to a definite interest in national security or public order, that the measure chosen complies with necessity and proportionality and is the least restrictive means to protect the interest, and that any restriction is subject to independent oversight.” (Emphasis added.)

This is a welcome gloss on the traditional human rights analysis, and Kaye should be applauded for his efforts to narrow these ever-expanding justifications for restrictions on freedom of expression. In future reports, I hope that Kaye will build on this approach to consider laws that are not intended to prohibit “expression” per se. For example, the U.S. government invokes national security (among other justifications) to conduct a wide range of bulk surveillance programs under Executive Order 12,333. This spying unquestionably interferes with freedom of expression, but the executive order does not expressly prohibit any particular expression. In those circumstances, what specific risk must the United States identify? How can we focus the international law inquiry to preclude generic appeals to national security?

In his discussion of states’ over-broad invocations of national security, Kaye also highlights the U.S. government’s attempt to compel Apple to unlock the iPhone of one of the individuals responsible for the San Bernardino shootings. In early March of this year, Kaye sent a letter to the federal judge presiding over the government’s motion in that case, outlining the relevant considerations under the ICCPR and attaching his earlier, excellent report on human rights and secure communications. Although Kaye’s letter explained that the court’s order “implicates the security, and thus the freedom of expression, of unknown but likely vast numbers of people,” it stopped short of concluding that the government’s request violated Article 19. In the report, however, Kaye takes the next step, characterizing the court’s order as disproportionate. This is a positive development, and I would like to see Kaye continue to engage directly with courts in response to government attempts to require companies to compromise the security of their devices.

Illegitimate Objectives

The report also surveys measures taken by state and non-state actors that lack a legitimate objective under Article 19. Kaye identifies several trends, including the criminalization of criticism, which often targets political and human rights activists; restrictions on expression relating to religion and belief, especially by non-state actors such as ISIL; and the singling out of expression by members of certain groups, such as LGBT individuals, women, and artists. Critically, Kaye also devotes significant attention to the assault on reporting, in which “[t]he tools used to criminalize criticism are also applied against those who practice journalism.” His report discusses the detention of journalists in Ethiopia, Iran, and Egypt, as well as the detention of reporters covering the 2014 Black Lives Matter protests in Ferguson, Missouri.

Conclusions and Recommendations

Kaye concludes by encouraging states to be “particularly mindful of the context of digital rights,” and to avoid adopting legal rules that undermine the freedom of expression of digital actors. The report also urges states to review and, where necessary, revise national laws; engage with special procedures of the Human Rights Council; support or establish regional or sub-regional monitoring; and to support independent media and civic space.

Kaye’s final recommendation is grounded in a trenchant analysis of state leadership. He finds that “many States with strong histories of support for freedom of expression – in law and in their societies – have considered measures liable to abuse in their own countries or to misuse when applied elsewhere.” Accordingly, he urges governments to reconsider new policies intended to enhance surveillance or to limit internet security, as they often fail to meet the tests of necessity and proportionality. The United States is a case-in-point, with its long history of championing freedom of expression. Although the United States largely refrains from the most egregious assaults on freedom of expression, it plainly falls short of its obligations under the ICCPR in several respects. Not only are its laws liable to abuse at home, but they help set the benchmarks for laws and practices elsewhere.

In a future report, I hope that Kaye will have the opportunity to address one issue in greater detail: secret state exchanges of data derived from mass surveillance programs. The international agreements governing this information-sharing are largely hidden from the public, but it is clear that these data swaps can have profound consequences for those subject to surveillance. States must not be permitted to circumvent domestic and international law by contracting out their spying. Because information-sharing itself infringes on the right to free expression, it should be prescribed by public law, necessary to achieve a legitimate aim, and proportionate.

Just Security

Police Shooting of Two Jaffna Students should be Condemned Strongly

Sundiraja and Nadaraja seem to be good friends, studying their degrees in Arts in the third year. This is about two important lives lost for themselves, their families, dear ones and friends. These are two important lives lost for the country and to their community due to the police brutality.

by Laksiri Fernando

( October 22, 2016, Sydney, Sri Lanka Guardian) The police shooting and the killing of two Jaffna University students on the 21^st should be condemned strongly, and the blatant killers should be brought to justice without delay. By shooting to the head of the motorcycle riders, it is very clear that it was done not to stop the vehicle, but to kill. If it were to stop the vehicle, then the shooting could have been done to the vehicle or the tires.

Anyway, there is no apparent reason for the police to stop and search vehicles in such a manner in Jaffna today and these incidents would remind the circumstances under which many militant organizations emerged in the Peninsula in the late 1970s and early 1980s. The history should not be allowed to repeat by the actions of the unmindful, callous or possibly chauvinist police or army officers. The police or the army should not act or allowed to act on the impression that they monitor and control a subjugated people.

Sundiraja and Nadaraja

This incident among others highlights the urgency of screening very carefully the police officers and the army stationed in Jaffna and the North and the need to recruit more and more Tamil officers to take over the security of those areas among other reforms within the police and the armed forces. Within a constitutional overhauling (i.e. a new constitution), handing over the ‘community policing,’ including traffic checks, to the provincial councils could be considered, if the handing over of complete subject of ‘law and order’ is premature at the moment given national security considerations.

From all the news reports available at the moment, it appears that Sundiraja Sulakshan and Nadaraja Gajan were completely innocent students who were travelling that night after attending a private party at Chunnakam. They were travelling home. Are they prohibited of attending parties at night? Are they prohibited of riding motor cycles without interference at night? These are the questions one should ask to unravel the reasons behind.

Sundiraja and Nadaraja seem to be good friends, studying their degrees in Arts in the third year. This is about two important lives lost for themselves, their families, dear ones and friends. These are two important lives lost for the country and to their community due to the police brutality. On the other hand, according to the available reports, after the incident, the police officers have handed over the wounded to the hospital as if they had met with an accident! It is the medical officers who have detected the gun shots on the head. Thanks are due to the two reporters of the Divaina (22 October) this time giving a true picture of the incident to the Sinhala readers.

Those among the Sinhalese who believe or advocate that Jaffna and the North should be kept under the yoke of the Sinhalese, through the army and the police should be ashamed of the incident. It is true that unlike in the past or under the previous regime, swift action has been taken to immediately interdict and arrest all those who were involved in the shooting and the attempted cover up. Similarly, the judicial and disciplinary enquiries should be performed to deliver justice without delay. Those who involved are five in number. This is a matter that Jaffna should strongly protest. This is a matter that not only the Jaffna University but also other universities should protest in solidarity.

Most important might be for the Police Commission, the Office for Reconciliation (ONUR) and also the relevant Ministers and Ministries to carefully look at the police placements in Jaffna and the North/East and recommend necessary measures to avoid such incidents and to alleviate any further fears that the people may have in respect of the police handling of the civilians. Education of police officers, weeding out of undesirable (chauvinist) elements, and the use of technology (e.g. CCTV) to monitor situations could be adopted among others. These may be necessary in the short run until more permanent arrangements are made under devolution or even after. What is increasingly clear is that more ‘shared responsibility’ should be placed on the provincial councils particularly in the North and the East in managing ‘law and order’ with the central government. The trust that the Tamil people placed on the President and the government should be fulfilled. The situation in Jaffna and in the North should not be oppressive.

President orders impartial probe into death of Jaffna Uni students

October 22, 2016

President Maithripala Sirisena has instructed authorities to conduct an impartial inquiry into the death of two university students in Jaffna and report to courts. 

The incident is believed to have taken place at around 11.30pm on Thursday when the two youths were traveling on a motorcycle towards Kokuvil.

The two Tamil students of the Jaffna University were allegedly shot dead on Thursday night near a police checkpoint at Kokuvil, Kulappidy junction in Jaffna.

Though police initially denied the shooting saying they had died in an accident, a post-mortem report, however, found bullets lodged in one of the bodies.

Preliminary inquiries have revealed that the police officers at the checkpoint had ordered the youths to stop the motorcycle but after had failed to do so, the policemen had opened fire at them. 

The student riding the motorcycle was shot in the head causing him to lose control and crash into a roadside wall. They were both killed in the accident. 

The five policemen, who were manning the check point, were arrested and suspended with immediate effect. They were remanded till November 04 after being produced before the Jaffna Magistrate’s Court today (22). 

The victims, aged 23 and 24, are said to be third year students in the Arts Faculty of the University of Jaffna and are residents of Jaffna and Kilinochchi.

Condemning the incident, the Tamil National Alliance (TNA) has sought an independent investigation into the incident.

TNA leader and Opposition Leader R. Sampanthan had notified President Sirisena regarding the matter and requested an impartial investigation into the deaths. 

The President has instructed the Inspector General of Police (IGP) to immediately investigate the incident. 

Meanwhile heavy police presence has been reported in Jaffna and surrounding areas in wake of the deaths.  

A high ranking officer told Ada Derana that additional police personnel have been deployed in order to tighten the security in the area. 

The Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka (HRCSL) has also launched an investigation into the deaths. 

The inflation rate increases within a month

Oct 22, 2016

The Department of Census and Statistics says the year on year inflation based on the National Consumer Price Index for the month of September 2016 has been calculated as 4.7%. 

In a communiqué issued on the Index Director General of the Department Dr. Amara Satharasinghe states that although inflation in August 2016 was 4.5% and in September the contribution to the inflation from food groups and non-food groups was 2.1% and 2.7% respectively. and The Department released the NCPI for the month of September 2016 that was calculated at 113.5 which shows an increase of 0.2 index points compared to the previous month’s index.
 
The  increased  price of the food such as banana, papaya, lime, onions, rice, coconut, mango, chicken, lentils Mysore, pineapple, peas and dried sprats has  mainly affected. However, some of the vegetables, green chilies, eggs, potatoes, fresh fish and  wheat flour prices have dropped down . accordingly, The expenditure value of the food commodity group has increased by 0.07 percent in September 2016 compared to August 2016.
 
This monthly change is due to the increase of expenditure value of food items and an increase of expenditure value of non-food items. 
 
The  increased  price of the alcoholic beverages, tobacco and drugs, education, clothing and footwear, the various categories of goods and services and hotels and restaurants segment also has mainly affected on the inflation rate .

Lawlessness On The Sea And Anarchy In The Streets – The Government’s Failure To Protect The Seas And Fishing Community In Kalpitiya

October 22, 2016

On Friday, October 21st, protests in Kalpitiya reached a boiling point as violence broke out. Villagers from the Thalawila and Kandakuliya fishing communities gathered in force and created a blockade at Kurinjampitiya Junction, just a few kilometers south of Kalpitiya town. The blockade started yesterday (20/10/16) morning as a peaceful sit down protest.

The fishing communities are protesting against illegal ‘laila’ and ‘suroku’ fishing practices that take place in Kalpitiya waters. They say that over the past five years they have noticed a significant drop in the fish population and now the situation at sea is becoming dire.

The protesters consisting of women and children gathered after a fisherman was allegedly threatened out at sea by a laila group consisting of 10 boats. They told him to get out of their fishing area or they would attack him. People sat peacefully throughout the day and night chanting slogans and stating they will not leave until this situation is resolved. No traffic was allowed to pass and vehicles were lined up on either side of the blockade. Only ambulances, school vehicles and an air force truck were allowed to pass. One navy truck tried to pass but the group forced them to turn around.

This (21st) morning a large group of 200 or more people who were allegedly laila fishermen and laila supporters came to the blockade to face down the village protest. It is said that the supposed laila group attacked the protesters, consequently igniting a large scale fight. The attacking group soon fled back to Kalpitiya town. In their retreat the protestors burned one lorry and three motorbikes belonging to alleged laila fishermen.

It is said that the advancing “laila group” moved freely past the Kalpitiya Navy camp, police station and courthouse. Police were on site but were able to do little to stop the violence. Ambulances were seen rushing off from the scene of the fight.

Allegedly the retreating group went on to burn fishing boats in the Kalpitiya area. By this point it is said that Kalpitiya Navy forces took action against the laila group after receiving orders from higher command. By about 1:30 pm the police force had grown and was now equipped with riot gear, but still were positioned behind the front line of the protesters. By 3pm a few STF trucks had arrived and were stopped a couple kilometers away from the scene, but troops had not been deployed.

Read More