STF officers assault 2 Tamil youths in Batticaloa

 12 March 2019

Sri Lankan Special Task Force (STF) officers assaulted two Tamil youths in Karadiyanaru, Batticaloa yesterday. 

It is understood the officers launched an attack on one of the youth, Mannan Kajanthan for felling trees. His friend, who attempted to intervene during the attack was also assaulted, sustaining injuries. 

According to locals, STF officers took the injured Kajanthan to the forestry department, however the department refused to see him due to his poor health. 

Kajanthan was only then taken to Eravur hospital by the STF officers. He was later transferred to Batticaloa District Hospital, where he remains admitted.

His family, who have not been allowed to see him, told reporters that he continues to be under the surveillance of the STF whilst in hospital. 

One family member, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said they tried to file a complaint with the police against the attack, however, the police refused to accept it, stating they would not take a complaint against the STF. The families have now approached Human Rights Commission. 

STF troops in Jaffna. Oct 2017

The STF is a paramilitary unit widely understood to be responsible for a range of human rights violations and extrajudicial killings, including a string of massacres of Tamils, such as the 'Trinco 5' murders. 

In a report last year the International Truth and Justice Project (ITJP) identified 56 STF individuals who the group said should not be deployed as UN peacekeepers, including an officer then serving in Africa, as they were involved in extrajudicial killings.

Related Articles: 

04 March 2019 : Sri Lanka's notorious STF to be more heavily armed

28 January 2019 : Kokkadichcholai massacre by STF officers remembered in Batticaloa 32 years on

12 September 2018 : Forest department and STF harass Muslim farmers in Vavuniya

24 October 2018 : STF arrests four Tamil youths in Jaffna

Dual intervention can lead to reduced international pressure

By Jehan Perera-March 11, 2019, 9:20 pm

The report of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights would give an indication of the forthcoming decision of the UN Human Rights Council with regards to its resolution on Sri Lanka. The report is primarily a fact based one. Almost every assertion made is backed by evidence. Particularly damning are the large number of cases given in which serious human rights violations and crimes took place, but which have got stalled somewhere or other in the legal system. Examples would be the murder of Wasim Thajudeen, Sri Lanka’s Rugby captain, and Lasantha Wickrematunge, the editor of the Sunday Leader newspaper. There are some assertions however that can be contested. One such is the assertion that the security forces, when they withdraw from land they have occupied, destroy the buildings of the people and leave behind only a flattened landscape for the people to return to.

Security forces personnel who were attending a university educational programme on peacebuilding denied this allegation when I brought it up before them. They said that the people’s houses would have either been destroyed in previous rounds of fighting or had fallen into disrepair than being purposely destroyed in an act of vindictiveness. They said that the soldiers who now are stationed in the North and East were not those who fought to gain or defend those pieces of land, and that they would much prefer to be stationed outside the North and East than within it. Therefore they do not have an interest in destroying the houses of the people when they vacate the land. The allegation that the security forces behave in this destructive way needs to be independently investigated.

On a previous visit to Jaffna to a new resettlement area, I too heard this allegation from the people who had just been resettled. A Truth and Reconciliation Commission such as the one proposed by the government, but still to be approved by President Maithripala Sirisena, would be indispensable in coming up with the factual situation. The UN Human Rights Commissiner’s report is a fair reflection of the divided thinking about the present reconciliation process in the country and it is not deliberately partisan or condemnatory. On the contrary it appreciates what the Sri Lankan government has done over the past four years especially with regard to the increase in democratic space and sense of security of citizens.

STRENGTHEN STATES

The High Commissioner’s report states that "Since 2015, the general situation has improved with regard to civil and political rights: there have been advances with respect to freedom of expression and assembly, incipient efforts made to consult representatives of civil society, a robust right to information framework has been established, and independent commissions, such as the Human Rights Commission, have been strengthened, and relations between security forces and civilians have improved. As noted above, commendable progress has also been witnessed in the State’s cooperation with United Nations human rights mechanisms. Certain parts within the administration, in particular in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Secretariat for Coordinating Reconciliation Mechanisms, the Office for National Unity and Reconciliation and the independent commissions, have been consistent in their commitment and determination to improve the human rights situation."

From these statements it can be seen that the intention of the UN Human Rights Commissioner is not to undermine or weaken the Sri Lankan government as alleged by the political opposition as a matter of routine. The crude analysis of the opposition sees a conspiracy of international forces together with the Tamil Diaspora to weaken the Sri Lankan state and thereby to pave the way for a separate Tamil state. However, the reality in terms of present day geopolitics is that the international system does not wish to weaken states, which form the bulwark of international order. Weakened states are the ones that are seen as most likely to be penetrated by terror networks and anti-systemic forces that jeopardise the international order. Therefore the strengthening of potentially weak states, and not their further debilitation, is usually the priority of the international community.

In the present period there is a theory that the main threats to the international order come not only from aggressive states but also from failing or conflict-prone states, or even from non-state actors. Theories of conflict and instability increasingly point to the weakness of the state as a key factor in the onset of violent conflict – the ‘‘declining state’’. Amongst foreign policy elites, this is a paradigm shift in security thinking: challenges to security come not from rival global powers, but from weak states. As a result, greater efforts and resources have been forthcoming from powerful states to contain, resolve and to some extent prevent civil war. This is especially the case when the potentially weak state is one that supports the existing international order, which is the case with Sri Lanka under the present government.

DIVIDED GOVERNMENT

In the context of this analysis of the international community’s concerns about the vulnerability of weak states, President Maithripala Sirisena’s decision to send a three member delegation to represent him and the government at the ongoing UN Human Rights Council session can be seen as an aid to the government rather than as an obstacle. President Sirisena has said that his delegation will address the international community at the UN forums in Geneva with an intention to persuade them to leave Sri Lanka to resolve its problems by itself without continuing to interfere in its internal affairs. This is in opposition to the already articulated foreign ministry position that Sri Lanka will be a co-signatory to the new resolution that will be jointly produced by the two sides. The dual message from Sri Lanka will send a message to the international community that the Sri Lankan government is a beleaguered one that cannot be excessively pushed.

President Sirisena’s recent role in creating the political crisis that destabilised the country in October last year was specially noted in the High Commissioner’s report. "The High Commissioner joins the Secretary-General in welcoming the resolution of the political crisis in Sri Lanka through peaceful, constitutional means, and applauds the resilience of the country’s democratic institutions. Nonetheless, for seven weeks, the legitimacy and the legality of a number of authorities were in question, which led to further delays in the implementation of the recommendations made in Human Rights Council resolution 30/1, for instance owing to staff changes in key institutions and uncertainty with regard to reporting lines… The political crisis at the end of 2018 further obstructed progress owing not only to the temporary paralysis of institutions but also because it generated fears that another government might not embrace the reconciliation agenda."

With regard to the UN High Commissioner’s report, the two issues that opposition politicians and the media have been most critical of, and using to mobilise opposition to the government, are the High Commissioner’s call for universal jurisdiction principles to be followed in regard to Sri Lankans travelling abroad to be arrested in foreign countries for crimes they may have committed in Sri Lanka, and for a hybrid court which will lead to foreign judges sitting on Sri Lankan courts to judge whether war crimes took place or not. Both President Sirisena and Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe have said that they do not agree with the hybrid court in particular. A scenario in which Sri Lanka speaks in two voices at the UN Human Rights Council will send a message to the international community, especially those countries that have goodwill towards Sri Lanka, that the Sri Lankan government should not be further weakened by their demands.

Six Countries Submit Resolution On Sri Lanka To UNHRC – Full Text

MARCH 12, 2019

The full text of resolution submitted to the UNHRC on Sri Lanka on Monday by Canada, Germany, Montenegro, North Macedonia, the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland:

Promoting reconciliation, accountability and human rights in Sri Lanka  

The Human Rights Council,  

Reaffirming the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations,

Guided by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenants on Human Rights and other relevant instruments,

Reaffirming Human Rights Council resolutions 30/1 of 1 October 2015 and 34/1 of 23 March 2017 on promoting reconciliation, accountability and human rights in Sri Lanka,

Recalling Human Rights Council resolutions 19/2 of 22 March 2012, 22/1 of 21 March 2013 and 25/1 of 27 March 2014,

Reaffirming that it is the responsibility of each State to ensure the full enjoyment of all human rights and fundamental freedoms of its entire population,

Reaffirming also its commitment to the sovereignty, independence, unity and territorial integrity of Sri Lanka,

Recognising the strong role played by Sri Lanka’s democratic institutions in the peaceful resolution of the political situation that arose in Sri Lanka from October to December 2018,

Welcoming the establishment of the Office on Missing Persons in September 2017 and the appointment of its Commissioners in February 2018 and the assumption of its work to fully implement its mandate,

Welcoming also the visits made by the Special Rapporteur on human rights and counter terrorism from 10 to 14 July 2017, the Special Rapporteur on the promotion of truth, justice, reparation and guarantees of non-recurrence from 10 to 23 October 2017, the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention from 4 to 15 December 2017 and the Independent Expert on the effects of foreign debt on the full enjoyment of human rights from 3 to 11 September 2018,

Noting with appreciation the return of some private land previously occupied by the military to civilian ownership while recalling repeated public commitments by the Government of Sri Lanka  to release all private land occupied by the military, to enable local populations to resume livelihoods,

Noting other steps taken by the Government of Sri Lanka to implement Human Rights Council resolution 30/1, including progress towards establishing an Office on Reparations and the submission to cabinet of a concept paper on a Bill to establish a Truth and Reconciliation Commission, the proposed repeal of the Prevention of Terrorism Act 1978 and the preparation of a draft Counter Terrorism Act,  while reiterating in this context the need for further significant progress and encouraging in this regard the adoption of a time-bound implementation strategy,

1. Takes note with appreciation of the comprehensive report presented by the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights to the Human Rights Council at its fortieth session, as requested by the Council in its resolution 34/1, and requests the Government of Sri Lanka to implement fully the measures identified by the Council in its resolution 30/1 that are outstanding;

2. Welcomes the positive engagement of the Government of Sri Lanka with the High Commissioner and the Office of the High Commissioner since October 2015, and with relevant special procedure mandate holders, and encourages the continuation of that engagement in the promotion and protection of human rights and truth, justice, reconciliation and accountability in Sri Lanka;

3. Requests the Office of the High Commissioner and relevant special procedure mandate holders, in consultation with and with the concurrence of the Government of Sri Lanka, to continue to strengthen their advice and technical assistance on the promotion and protection of human rights and truth, justice, reconciliation and accountability in Sri Lanka;

Read More

FOUR MAJOR TAMIL DIASPORA GROUPS WELCOME OHCHR REPORT ON SRI LANKA

Image: Thousands of mothers are still waiting for the answers and justice for their disappeared children. (c)s.deshapriya.

12/03/2019

(GENEVA, March 11, 2019 /PRNewswire/ ) The Australian Tamil Congress (ATC), the British Tamils Forum (BTF), the Canadian Tamil Congress (CTC) and the US Tamil Political Action Council (USTPAC) today welcomed the UN Office of the High Commissioner’s report to ongoing 40^th session of the UN Human Rights Council on progress made in implementing the transitional justice program Sri Lanka committed to in 2015’s Resolution 30/1, reaffirming that commitment in 2017’s 34/1, following atrocity crimes committed during and after the war that ended in 2009

The OHCHR under the leadership of different High Commissioners has been instrumental in ensuring that human rights and accountability in Sri Lanka remain under the international spotlight.  Mr. V. Ravi Kumar, General Secretary of the British Tamils Forum noted, “We are pleased with the forthright and thorough assessment done by High Commissioner Bachelet in her report and endorse her calls “for the Government to demonstrate sustained commitment and leadership to move that agenda forward”, and “for the Council to continue to monitor and engage on developments in the country.”

“The report, in many aspects, is spot-on,” said Mr. M. Manokaran, Chairman of the Australian Tamil Congress (ATC).  “While acknowledging some positives such as engagement with UN systems and incipient institution-building, the report rightly points out that these actions ‘have yet to produce concrete benefits for individual right holders,’ and ‘such slow progress in establishing meaningful transitional justice measures has engendered mistrust among victims and other stakeholders.’ As for the non-existent progress in criminal accountability, we fully concur with the report’s assessment that ‘virtually no progress has been made in investigating or prosecuting domestically the large number of allegations of war crimes and crimes against humanity collected by OHCHR in its investigation, and particularly those relating to military operations at the end of the war.'”

The report categorically states that the Government has not moved fast enough with tangible confidence-building measures – viz. restitution of the land held by the military; repealing the Prevention of Terrorism Act; effective conclusion of the cases of the remaining security detainees; no decisive progress on several emblematic cases involving security forces; stopping security force surveillance, harassment and torture; security sector reforms; and devolution of political authority. Dr. Vadivelu Shanthakumar, Chairman of the Canadian Tamil Congress, stated, “The abject failure to build confidence among the victimized Tamil community, which is essential prerequisite for successful transitional justice agenda, demonstrates the lack of will and urgency on the part of the Sri Lankan Government and its leaders.”

Mr. S. Seetharam, President of the US Tamil Political Action Council, said, “We concur with the High Commissioner’s view that ‘Sri Lanka has failed to seize the opportunity provided by the Human Rights Council to establish a trustworthy domestic mechanism to address impunity’ and support her call for the ‘application of universal jurisdiction principles’ and to explore ‘alternative measures including some forms of international investigation and prosecution to ensure that those most responsible for the most serious crimes are prosecuted,’ while Sri Lanka firmly remains in the UNHRC agenda.”

Mr. Kumar went on to say, “We believe the High Commissioner’s recommendations to ‘Prepare a comprehensive strategy on transitional justice, with a time-bound plan to implement the pending commitments,’ and to ‘Invite OHCHR to establish a full-fledged country office’ are critically important if Sri Lanka is going to make any systematic and meaningful progress in implementing Resolution 30/1. We earnestly request the High Commissioner and her office to do all that they can to ensure the contents of this report, particularly these two important recommendations, are reflected in the resolution being considered by the Human Rights Council at present, and to also include provision mandating the OHCHR to assist Sri Lanka in devising and implementing such a time-bound plan.”

-USTPAC

Prez, PM, MR must jointly resolve national question: Sampanthan

12 March 2019 

President Maithripala Sirisena, Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe and Opposition Leader Mahinda Rajapaksa should get together to resolve the national issue, TNA Leader and MP R. Sampanthan told Parliament today.

He said there was no reason why all three leaders could not come together and come up with a reasonable solution to the national issue based on the 13th Amendment to the Constitution.

“All these leaders have committed themselves to a political solution as stated by them in the past. Former president Rajapaksa committed himself several times to a political solution. He did so on the day that the All Party Representative Committee (APRC) was set up. He also made the same commitment through the joint statement issued after war in May 2009. Even the present government has informed UNHRC that it is committed to a political solution. In addition there was a select committee headed by then MP Mangala Munasinghe to come up with a solution. This committee came up with some proposals while former president Chandrika Kumaratunga also come up with a proposal for a new constitution. Agreements were reached on some issues. However no final solution was reached. One cannot understand why a final solution cannot be reached given the situation,” the TNA leader said.

“The former president in particular committed himself to a political solution several times. Therefore we appeal to him to join the other two leaders and come up with a solution."

The TNA leader recalled that the civil war would have been avoided had the parties concerned conferred with each other and found a permanent solution and urged the main parties to commit themselves to a solution.

“We are giving you enough opportunities to resolve the national issue,” he said and added that

the economy should be an export-oriented one that draws investors from here and abroad and should create opportunities for the youth. “You will not be able to draw investors and create opportunities for the youth without resolving the national issue” the TNA leader said. (Yohan Perera and Ajith Siriwardana)

Sri Lanka: The 'White Vans' never went away

By Ralph de Silva

---

10 MARCH 2019

Torture and rape of Tamils by the Sri Lankan security forces is continuing according to the United Nations. On Friday (8) the High Commissioner for Human Rights, Michelle Bachelet, issued her annual report on Sri Lanka which said the lack of progress on human rights clearly showed the country should remain on the agenda of the Human Rights Council in Geneva.

MAJ. GEN. SHAVENDRA SILVA

The wide-ranging report examines problems around the return of land in conflict areas, emblematic court cases, legislative reform and the failure to establish most of the promised transitional justice mechanisms. The UN High Commissioner also expresses concern about the appointment of Sri Lanka’s new Chief of Army Staff, Shavendra Silva given the allegations documented by the UN Panel of Experts and the OISL report against troops under his command in the final phase of the war. It is rare for a UN report to comment on an individual like this but the report also stresses the importance of Sri Lanka’s 2015 commitment to vet and screen public and security officials.

In particular the human rights office of the UN recommends that the UN system as a whole applies stringent vetting procedures to Sri Lankan police and military personnel going for peacekeeping operations, military exchanges and training programmes. This is a clear red flag for the Department of Peacekeeping Operations which had to repatriate a Sri Lankan peacekeeper last year from Mali because of the risk that he could have been involved in the alleged violations of international law documented by the UN’s own investigation.

Abduction & illegal detention

Perhaps most significant is that the UN firmly corroborates reports of continued “white van” abductions in 2016-2018 in the north of the island, based on a preliminary assessment investigation which the JDS understands involved two UN staff working for several months meeting victims abroad. As a result, OHCHR says it finds reasonable grounds that the accounts of abduction, illegal detention, torture and rape, including of men, are credible. The report also points out that the risk of new violations increases when impunity for serious crimes goes unchecked. And it speaks of continued harassment or surveillance of human rights defenders and victims of human rights violations which it says are incompatible with the reconciliation agenda.

This comes in the face of denial from Colombo regarding ongoing torture, especially allegations of torture by the Sri Lankan military. Some politicians had suggested such accounts of torture, including even those victims with very visible torture scars on their backs from being burned with a hot metal rod, were fake.

A TAMIL TORTURE VICTIM

However on Wednesday the Supreme Court in Britain allowed an appeal by a Tamil man called KV, whom it had been suggested faked his scars by allowing someone else to torture him, probably under anaesthetic.  The UK’s most eminent Judges unanimously ruled that such an occurrence was likely to be “extremely rare” and “inherently unlikely” and the ruling was hailed as a victory for placing proper value on independent expert forensic medical evidence when examining torture.

Ongoing torture

What the UN report does not indicate is the scale of the ongoing abductions by the military and police. The International Truth and Justice Project (ITJP) has reported that its lawyers documented 76 cases of security force torture between 2015 and 2017, while the UK’s biggest rehabilitation charity, Freedom from Torture, says it documented 16 cases in the same time period. These two organisations alone have collected evidence of at least 100 victims abroad who were violated while the coalition government was in power but this may be the tip of the iceberg.

The UN report also makes it clear that an amnesty cannot be considered for alleged perpetrators of international crimes in Sri Lanka and is not currently in the draft Truth Commission legislation. The report reiterates the position of the former High Commissioner for Human Rights that a hybrid court is needed to achieve accountability - something Sri Lanka ruled out after agreeing to Resolution 30/1 which provided for such a hybrid. The UN points out that claims that Sri Lanka can deal with its past through a domestic process ring hollow given there has been no attempt even to set one up. In a damning remark the report says “since 2015, virtually no progress has been made in investigating or prosecuting domestically the large number of allegations of war crimes or crimes against humanity collected by OHCHR in its investigation, and particularly those relating to military operations at the end of the war”.

One of the recommendations of the High Commissioner is that Member States should prosecute Sri Lankans accused of war crimes and crimes against humanity under universal jurisdiction. The ITJP has called on countries to arrest Shavendra Silva under universal jurisdiction if he travels abroad.☐

© JDS

How Sri Lanka wards off war crimes investigators

By ANA PARARAJASINGHAM-MARCH 6, 2019

At the 40th session (February-March 2019) of the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC), which began on February 25, Sri Lanka is expected show that it has complied with Resolution 30/1, which was passed during the 30th  session (September-October 2015). Between March 2012 and March 2014, three resolutions were passed by the UNHRC calling on the Sri Lankan government to promote reconciliation, accountability and human rights. The main component of these resolutions called for an impartial international investigation into alleged war crimes committed during the final phase of the civil war.

However, at the 30th session, the UNHRC relaxed its call for an international inquiry by opting for a hybrid court that included both international and local judges and prosecutors to conduct the probe into war crimes.  At the UNHRC’s 34th Session in March 2017, the Sri Lankan government was allowed by way of Resolution 34/1 a period of two years to meet the requirements outlined in the 30/1 Resolution.

Having vehemently opposed the resolutions passed between 2012 and 2014, the Sri Lankan government co-sponsored resolutions 30/1 and 34/1. This appeared to indicate a willingness to cooperate with the UN, signaling a change in the attitude of the new government under President Maithripala Sirisena, who had taken over from the hard-line Mahinda Rajapaksa in January 2015. Instead, it turned out to be part of a broader strategy to thwart any probe into alleged war crimes.

According to Human Rights Watch, despite government pledges, there has been little progress in prosecuting those responsible for wartime abuses or providing justice for victims. This comes as no surprise in view of President Sirisena’s declaration in November 2017, within seven months of co-sponsoring a resolution extending the probe by a further two years, that “There won’t be electric chairs, international tribunals or foreign judges. That book is closed.”

On February 12, Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe presented to cabinet a memorandum to establish a Truth and Reconciliation Commission, similar to what was established in post-apartheid South Africa. There was no mention of any probe into alleged war crimes. This was promptly condemned by former United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay, who was highly critical of the Sri Lankan government in an interview with Ceylon Today, saying:

‘’I am disappointed to learn that on the eve of the interactive dialogue on the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights’[OHCHR] report on Sri Lanka in the UN Human Rights Council, the government of Sri Lanka is resorting to yet another delaying tactic to escape……implementation of Resolution 30/1.”

A large number of Tamil people, including infants and children under 10 years, who surrendered to the army division under Silva’s direct command were never to be seen again and are now regarded as having “disappeared”

Ignoring Pillai’s strong criticism, on February 16, nine days before the commencement of the UNHRC’s 40th session, Prime Minister Wickramasinghe sealed the issue once and for all by calling on the Tamils to “forget the past and move forward” implicitly dismissing any investigation into war crimes agreed under Resolution 30/1. Journalists for Democracy Sri Lanka  (JDS) pointed out that after four years of inaction to prosecute the armed forces accused of war crimes and crimes against humanity, Wickremesinghe had made it clear that the government has no intention of establishing accountability.

The Sri Lankan Prime Minister’s actions were not surprising. Since co-sponsoring Resolution 30/1, Colombo has done little to implement the resolution. This was quite evident even by early last year.

Universal jurisdiction

Therefore, it was not surprising that the then high commissioner for the UNHRC,  Zeid Ra’ad Al-Hussein, should urge member states to explore other avenues to foster accountability in Sri Lanka, including the application of universal jurisdiction. Unfortunately, actions taken in pursuance of universal jurisdiction do not succeed where the alleged criminal enjoys diplomatic immunity. In Sri Lanka’s case, many of the alleged war criminals are senior diplomats or enjoy immunity because of their high office. Indeed there were at least three instances where attempts to foster accountability 
through the application of universal jurisdiction against alleged Sri Lankan war criminals failed.

Colombo’s behavior since then has been deliberately provocative. In early 2019, Major General Shavendra Silva, an alleged war criminal, was appointed as chief of staff of the army. This was the man under whose command places designated as safe zones (no fire zones) and hospitals were deliberately bombed, resulting in the deaths of tens of thousands. Also, a large number of Tamil people, including infants and children under 10 years, who surrendered to the army division under Silva’s direct command were never to be seen again and are now regarded as having “disappeared.”

 The human rights organization International Truth & Justice Project (ITJP), which has focused its work on atrocities committed during the Sri Lankan civil war, called the appointment “a shocking new low for Sri Lanka“.

Although the UNHRC can pass resolutions, it has no mandate to implement resolutions or impose sanctions. At best, its resolutions are just recommendations.

Aware of this shortfall, the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ), an international non-governmental organization which promotes human rights and the rule of law, in its written submission to the 40th Session of the UNHCR, argued that the gravity of the crimes committed and the failure to mete out justice fully warrants referral to the International Criminal Court or the creation of another international mechanism to facilitate criminal accountability. The ICJ’s recommendations carry considerable weight as it is a standing group of 60 eminent jurists (including senior judges, attorneys and academics) with consultative status with the UN since 1957.

 Much will depend, however, on how the ICJ’s argument is acted upon as the process requires the matter being referred to the UN’s Security Council.

In the meantime, Sri Lanka has been successful in warding off any investigations into war crimes. Its strategy of duplicity, delay and defiance appears to have paid off.

SRI LANKA: OMP WELCOMES INCLUSION OF ITS INTERIM RELIEF PROPOSALS IN BUDGET

Image; Families of the disappeared persons continue their campaign for justice.

12/03/2019

(Colombo Gazette/March 11, 2019 ) The Office on Missing Persons (OMP) welcomes the inclusion of its interim relief proposals in the 2019 Budget.

On 5 March 2019, the Government proposed the allocation of Rs. 500 million in the 2019 Budget, to provide Rs 6,000 monthly relief to support families of missing persons, including members of the armed forces and police identified as ‘missing in action.’

As proposed in the budget, this monthly relief will be provided to families who have obtained Certificates of Absence, until the Office for Reparations resolves their claims.

The OMP welcomed the inclusion of this proposal in the 2019 Budget, which was recommended by the OMP to the Government in its Interim Report of August 2018.

The OMP said it is committed to assisting the implementation of this proposal and expanding the reach of this program to enable the thousands of families of the disappeared and missing to access this relief.

In its Interim Report, the OMP recommended that a financial aid programme be implemented to provide a monthly living allowance of Rs. 6,000 to the surviving spouse, child/children and/or surviving parent/s of a missing/disappeared person, who has no permanent income (para 45(a), Interim Report) and may be affected by other vulnerabilities.

The OMP notes that the linkage of the monthly relief to the possession of a Certificate of Absense (COA) poses a challenge. The OMP has a legal responsibility to facilitate the provision of COAs and is in the process of devising methods to increase awareness and assist families to apply for COAs.

Recognising the challenges that prevent families of the disappeared and missing from obtaining COAs, the OMP is currently engaged in efforts to address these challenges. Noting these challenges and the notes the small proportion that currently possess COAs, the OMP will collaborate with the Government to expand the relief to other families of the disappeared and missing through other modes of documentation and verification.

The OMP made a number of other recommendations relating to interim relief including debt relief, housing, education, vocational training and livelihood development and employment. One such recommendation is that the families of the missing and disappeared be included in financial aid programmes and loan schemes such as ‘Enterprise Sri Lanka’ to help families achieve economic independence (para 45(b), Interim Report). The OMP welcomes the Government’s decision to provide families of the missing and disappeared preferential access to relevant ‘Enterprise Sri Lanka’ Loan Schemes in the 2019 Budget. The families are required to join the livelihood programs coordinated by the Office for National Unity and Reconciliation (ONUR). Following the submission of the Interim Report in August 2018, the OMP initiated follow up action on the recommendations on interim relief and justice, and will continue to engage with multiple state and government agencies to ensure their implementation.

Under the Office on Missing Persons (Establishment, Administration and Discharge of Functions) Act, No. 14 of 2016, the OMP has a duty to provide or facilitate administrative assistance, and welfare services to relatives of missing persons (Section 13(1)(e)).

Recognising the economic hardships faced by families of the disappeared and missing, the OMP identified the importance of providing interim relief to the most vulnerable among these families as vital, until compensation and other forms of reparation are provided to address their complex needs and acknowledge the harms suffered.

The OMP notes that the acceptance of relief measures cannot be regarded as a waiver of the right to adequate, prompt and effective reparations and to seek judicial remedies for accountability (para 44, Interim Report), and stands committed to fulfilling its mandate. (Colombo Gazette)

From 1983 To Digana Communal Violence: The Crisis Of Impunity In Sri Lanka!

By Mohamed Harees –MARCH 11, 2019

Lukman Harees

The anti-Tamil pogrom, also known as “Black July,” started on the night of July 23, 1983, which caused the mass exodus of Tamils from the island to many Western countries ,and sparked the start of a 26 year-old war that ended in May 2009. The war ended but with serious allegations of violations of international human rights and international humanitarian law being levelled. After the end of the war against Tigers, a sense of triumphalism prevailed in the country initiated by the majoritarian lobby interpreting the war victory as the win over the Tamils , which resultantly marginalized and alienated the Tamil community. Then the supremacist groups close to the higher echelons of power ventured to marginalize the next numerically smaller community –the Muslims, instilling fear and a sense of insecurity among them by way of well- orchestrated spate of violence, hate attacks, boycott campaign and pogrom style campaigns inflicting much damage on the community in the Post-war period.

The common thread for all these violent acts is a culture of impunity that has persisted in the island from the time Sri Lanka gained independence 71 years ago. Sri Lanka has been unable to hold accountable the perpetrators of these spate of violence, riots or the war that ended in 2009, despite its continued commitments to international organizations –a lack of substantive movement towards accountability pervaded specially in the past decade. The government continues to shield the perpetrators from any form of accountability. As Sri Lanka stands in its own shadow,  it should reflect on the harm that impunity has caused to its’ international image and the gradual erosion of confidence of its’ people in the process of rule of law .Failing to hold those accountable for their actions, and inactions that lead to harm and loss, and compensate the victims adequately, fails humanity as a whole. Thus, almost ten years after the end of the war, Sri Lanka is still grappling with its recent past and many challenges remain unresolved and many of the physical, emotional and psychological wounds of war and communal violence remain unhealed.

With regard to the victims of the 1983 anti-Tamil pogrom , in July 2004, President Kumaratunga issued a national apology for the July ’83 riots as an interim reconciliation measure and appointed a special commission to pay compensation to victims who lodged claims with the Commission. Then, thirty-five years after , it was only last year, that this government apparently engaged in a series of measures including the launch of Enterprise Sri Lanka in the North, laying out a vision for a future of hope, engaging with the people and very importantly for women’s issues, cancelling micro credit loans up to Rs.100,000 mostly for the single women headed households, among other measures. 

However, displaced Muslims in the North are yet to be treated fairly. Although the end of the civil war created high hopes among the northern Muslims that their displacement would come to an end and they would be able to return to their traditional villages, no concrete plan or program was initiated by successive post-war governments. These displaced Muslims have voiced their grave concerns and wanted the government to recognize their displaced status and facilitate their return and resettlement in their traditional villages. However, the authorities continued to neglect these issues.

Muslims in the Post War Period

However, despite the nation’s resolve not to allow any repeats, the mentality, the politics and rhetoric which enabled and created July’83 has sadly not entirely left our public discourse. Worryingly the same rhetoric later emanated from the self-proclaimed saviours of the Sinhala people particularly in the Post-war period , in relation to the Muslim community, which instigated mini pogroms from Dharga Town Aluthgama in 2014, to Ampara and Digana Kandy during this Yahapalana government which ironically promised the country- national reconciliation and to ensure such impunity will not be repeated. Perhaps the most enduring lesson of July 1983 was not learnt and at worst repeated. 

It may be boring to the readership to remind over and again how a well-orchestrated hate campaign against the Muslims ,was organized with tacit support from those in power. So let me just comment on min-1983 type pogrom which happened in Aluthgama in 2014, causing three deaths and extensive destruction of Muslim owned properties. The whole episode of orchestrated hate attacks on Muslims and their properties in Aluthgama reportedly began when a Buddhist priest alleged that some Muslim youths attacked him without any provocation. The fiery monk Ven Galagoda Atte Gnanasaraharped on that incident, made a provocative ‘Aba Saranai’ speech and the rest was history. However, 4 ½ years later, in February this year, the judiciary held that there was no case and acquitted all the Muslim youth jailed, in view of the number of contradictions and the unreliability of the evidenceagainst them. Kalutara Magistrate Chandima Edirimanne acquitted all three accused on 27/02/2019, in the case where three Muslims from Dharga Town were charged with causing hurt by attacking Ven. Ayagama Samitha Thero, Chief Prelate of the Kurunduwatte Sri Wijerama Viharaya, Dharga Town and his driver Vishwa at Aluthgama on 12th June 2014.  

This belated acquittal should be viewed in the light of consistent demands from the Muslim community to institute an impartial Presidential commission to inquire into these disturbances and hold those responsible to account. The previous regime simply ignored this demand while the Yahapalana regime which promised to do so have also been evasive of this demand to-date for reasons of political expediency. The nation then stood aghast when the then Defence Secretary and his puppet deputy DIG of the area worked hand in gloves to ensure that Ven Gnanasara stood above the law. Will the law enforcement authorities charge Ven Ayagama for making a false complaint which led to a major catastrophe?  Judging by the past, this will not happen. 

Read More

Mannar Mass grave, Karannagoda case and how the due process would vindicate the Sri Lankan State

 12 March 2019

y last week’s column has caused some contention. Certain things need to be clarified. Two former security forces commanders, Lt. Gen Daya Ratnayake, former commander of Army, and Admiral Tisara Samarasinghe, the former commander of Navy telephoned me to tell that they did not oppose the legal action being taken against the former Navy Commander Admiral Wasantha Karannagoda.   
Their intervention has been misrepresented, they said, adding that they had no objection to legal action being taken against any members of the security forces where there is a prima facie case. But, they observed that the existing procedure that is being followed in investigations tend to discriminate against the security forces members.  That was in response to my reference to the press conference held by three former commanders of security forces two weeks back.  
An excerpt from Gen Ratnayake at the press conference: “We do not have a problem with prosecuting soldiers and officers who have committed crimes, however, our problem is the current procedure being followed. A procedure that respects the dignity of their office should be adopted in investigating these offences. We request the President and the government to intervene into the matter and resolve issues faced by military personnel.”  

“When there is Geneva sessions, we suddenly react, like the fish that jumped out of water, and arrest soldiers, prolonging their legal cases. There are reports in media, Admiral Karannagoda is also about to be arrested. Admiral Karannagoda is the former Navy Chief who defeated the sea Tigers. He has done a huge service to the country. Also in the recent past, there was an attempt to arrest the current chief of defence staff, the chief of staff of the Army and members of the intelligence wing. Most of them have been released, often without a charge.”  
Excerpt from Admiral Tisara Samarasinghe: “We have to recognize the dignity and enormous work done by the soldiers. However, we are lacking in that. We do not want to talk about the existing investigations. If someone has done something wrong, they need to be punished, but, do not disparage the image of the security force.”  
The bone of contention, as it appears, is not the investigations in principle, but the procedure. I regret any misrepresentation caused.  

"I believe the Sri Lankan judiciary is better equipped to decide on the legal strength of the Karannagoda’s case than me or Mr. Seneviratne"

In practice though, these concerns are much more than semantic. They exude a degree of distrust and sense of grievances of the security forces apparatus in the legal process. On the other hand, investigating branches, primarily the CID has claimed that the co-operation from the security forces in on-going investigations is less than ideal. Interestingly,CID Director SSP Shani Abeysekera once alleged in the open court that a former official of the attorney general’s department had been impeding the CID probe into the alleged abductions of 11 youth by a Navy unit.   Sri Lanka’s challenge would be to strengthen the legal process in a way that it would address the immediate concerns raised by the security force members, at the same time, ensuring the equality before the law and the due process. There entails tough trade-offs. When these difficult questions arose, the tendency in the past was to opt to an eyewash or the complete abandonment of investigations. However, Sri Lankan institutions have come a long way since then and are in a position to devise means to address these multitude of grievances, while remain credible.  

Then there was my good friend Malinda Seneviratne (Karannagoda, ‘Rule of Law’ and the Season of Silliness in Geneva, March 7, 2019) who disagreed with my reasoning that Karannagoda’s trial, among other things would uphold the rule of law.    “Karannagoda’s case is a weak initiative in this sense.” “…Karannagoda’s case is all of that (appeasing the Tiger rump and the European states) plus political expedience at home for the simple (and simplistic) reason that he, Karannagoda, was commander during the Rajapaksa years,” he wrote.  
I believe the Sri Lankan judiciary is better equipped to decide on the legal strength of the Karannagoda’s case than me or Mr. Seneviratne. That is not least because, though the Rajapaksa shills had refused to acknowledge, local courts have manifested their integrity in a series of landmark judgements. The rule of law entails also the trust in these apparatus.   
The problem in Sri Lanka is that all its disparate stakeholders are willing to trust the courts only when it delivers in their favour. When it does not, the court suddenly becomes a partisan political machinery.  

This is a ploy exploited by all shades of ethnic and political configurations. Each political party has sought to delegitimize the state apparatus, depicting it as an instrument of the political party in power. Of course, there were good reasons to have a healthy dose of reservation when charlatans reign as chief justices and the Apex court was at the beck and call of the president, the ruling cohort and their stooges.   
However, the Sri Lankan courts have come a long way since those miserable days, in particular, thanks to the 19th Amendment to the Constitution. Mr. Seneviratne ought to acknowledge, and indeed, celebrate this positive internal transformation of the Sri Lankan state.   
Also, if he looks around, Mr. Seneviratne would find a whole bunch of unusual bedfellows who have refused to acknowledge this transformation: The LTTE rump, their acolytes, fringe diaspora and NGO lobby that serve the interests of their foreign donors.   

If he looks a little deeper into the recent history, he could also see this is the trade mark strategy adopted by Tamil nationalism (or exceptionalism) in order to delegitimize the Sri Lankan state from the day one of the independence. And this was a wicked ploy. It produced defeat, sorrow and pain.   
Trust in the state apparatus, especially, when they manifest integrity, is an integral part of a mature democracy. For instance, as much as free and fair elections, conceding the defeat in these elections is integral for the success of an electoral democracy. That many countries, especially in the developing world, have failed to evolve a political culture reflective of these basic ethical requirements, has effectively turned elections into mayhem and riots.   

"The court order did not please the rights activists and lawyers"

Similarly, as much as the independence of the court, the public trust therein, is integral for the rule of law. However, the skewed process of political and social empowerment in South Asia, which took place in the absence of institutional empowerment and grassroots enlightenment created societies and conditions that can easily be exploited by smart con-men.   
Last week, a US based radiocarbon dating service revealed that the bone fragments of the Mannar Mass grave belonged to the period 1400- 1650 AD. That effectively ruled out the military complicity in the grave. However, going by the social media chatter, a good deal of activists seem to be disgruntled to the extent to doubt the authenticity of the report. That reaction is understandable and proof of vested interests associated with these groups. They are Tiger shills whose existence is defined by their hatred to the Sri Lankan state.   When Mr. Seneviratne discredits the legal process simply because he does not like this government, he is , unbeknownst to him, aiding his nemesis.   

Also during the last week, after hearing a FR petition filed by Admiral Karanagoda, the Supreme Court issued an order preventing his arrest.  The court order did not please the rights activists and lawyers. There were attempt to discredit the lawyers who appeared on behalf of the petitioner. Some naysayers went as far as to imply that President Sirisena had intervened to secure the court order. This is the low that Sri Lanka’s chattering classes would stoop to discredit things when it does not do their bid.   
On the other hand, the acolytes of joint opposition, which represent an equally destructive political ideology have made it part of their morning routine to discredit courts- a rather odd fascination for unabashed apologists of the authoritarian former regime which delivered court rulings from the president’s house.   So it is not just the Tiger rump that is discrediting the State. The Rajapaksa shills, Sinhala ultra-nationalists, minorities all do that. The UNP will do the same when it gets back to the opposition. That is the outcome of an unmanaged and unhinged effort at the nation building.