jkpo; rptpy; r%f mikak;

Tamil Civil Society Forum

-----------------------------------------------------------------------Vavuniya
27 June 2016
Statement on the Government of Sri Lankas adherence
to its obligations under the Geneva Resolution
In September 2015 the UN Human Rights Council passed a resolution on
Sri Lanka, laying out the foundations for a process for accountability and
justice in Sri Lanka, with the intention of giving effect to the
recommendations of the OISL Report. The resolution mandated the UN
High Commissioner for Human Rights to continue to assess progress on
the implementation of its recommendations and other relevant processes
related to reconciliation, accountability and human rights and present an
oral report at the 32nd session of the council. The report is scheduled to be
presented on the 29th of June 2016. We wish to bring the following to the
attention to the High Commissioner in this regard:
1. The Government of Sri Lanka ever since the resolution was passed,
has put forward a narrative that the resolution was not imposed
upon them by external actors but rather was voluntarily accepted
and self-given. The paragraph of most significance in the resolution
is operative paragraph 6 which emphasised the importance of
participation in a judicial mechanism, including the special counsels
office, of Commonwealth and other foreign judges, defence lawyers
and authorized prosecutors and investigators. In a statement
released jointly by more than 40 Tamil organisations at that time 1,
we emphasised that the Tamil peoples unequivocal stance was that
only an international judicial investigation would provide a fair
chance for truth and justice but that we were willing to give a hybrid
court a chance if such a courts design and control was not left
entirely to the hands of the Sri Lankan Government. We emphasised
that we were willing to explore the possibility of supporting a court
made up of a majority of UN appointed judges and prosecutors.
1 Available here: Joint Statement of Tamil Political Parties, Civil Society
Organisations and Trade Unions (29 September 2015)
https://www.scribd.com/doc/283088337/Joint-Statement-of-Tamil-Political-PartiesCS-Orgs-and-Trade-Unions

Despite describing the obligations under the resolution as

voluntarily given, from the very beginning, the President of Sri Lanka
chose to take the stance that the requirements of paragraph 6 will
not be adhered to. The President has been categorical that foreign
judges would not be included in the proposed judicial mechanism.
When the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights visited the
island, the High Commissioners press release at the end of his visit
noted that both had assured their firm conviction with regard to the
commitments that they had made. But even after the visit the
President continued to claim that foreign judges will not feature in a
judicial mechanism. More recently the Prime Minister has also
publicly taken the position that there will be no foreign judges. We
construe this stance of the Government as amounting to a
fundamental breach of an important obligation in the
UNHRC resolution. The breach is so fundamental that it throws
into doubt the sincerity of the Government as to its commitment to
implementing the obligations under the resolution as a whole.
2. The UNHRC resolution emphasises in paragraph 3 of the need to
consult the victim communities in the design of the transitional
justice mechanisms. A Consultation Taskforce was set up earlier this
year but the consultation process is still in the process of being
designed. It is in this context that a draft legislation has been tabled
in parliament on the 22nd of June by the Government on the setting
up of an Office for Missing Persons. No proper consultations have
been held on this important piece of legislation with the families of
the disappeared. The families were circulated a two page leaflet that
was short on detail with regard to many important issues, and a
meeting was hurriedly put together by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs
on short notice. Many organisations including TCSF have raised
substantial concerns2 with regard to the proposals but the
Government nevertheless has decided to present the bill to
Parliament, indicating that the timing was purely designed to attract
the attention of the High Commissioner in the lead up to his oral
report. The attitude of the Government is indicative of the
callous disregard for the need for a genuine consultative
process. Given that the Prime Minister had declared earlier this
year in Jaffna, that all those reported to have been disappeared
must be dead, the whole initiative lacks bona fides.
3. There is no satisfactory progress on issues relating to re-creating
normal conditions in the North and East of Sri Lanka either. While
2 Available here: Comments on the Draft Proposals for an Office for Missing
Persons, (May 20, 2016) https://www.scribd.com/doc/313260183/Comments-onthe-draft-proposals-for-an-Office-for-Missing-Persons

there has been some release of land in certain areas on the other
hand the Government is continuing with the acquisition of land
elsewhere in the North and East for the security forces. There is
indicative of the lack of a coherent policy with regard to land release
on the part of the Government. Illegal occupation of state land by
the armed forces in particular continues without change. Even
where land has been released there has been no de-militarisation.
This is true of both Valikamam North in Jaffna and Sampur in
Trincomalee. The release of political prisoners has been put on the
back burner. Many prisoners continue to linger in prison without
charge. The commitment to repeal of the Prevention of Terrorism Act
still remains only in word and reports suggest that the legislation
being drafted to replace the PTA may be similar or worse to the PTA
in substance. The PTA continues to be actively used and arrests are
particularly targeted at ex-LTTE cadres. The use of the PTA to
terrorise ex-LTTE cadres continues to hamper their reintegration with
society. White van abductions continue as documented by credible
organisations.
4. The Government continues to deny that systemic crimes took place
and is suggesting that only certain individual crimes took place
during the war. This can only mean the Governments rejection of
the most important findings of the OISL report. The Government also
continues to articulate that the purpose of the investigations would
be to clear the name of the Sri Lankan security forces. This colours
the motives of the Governments intentions with the Transitional
Justice process and does not inspire confidence as to its objectivity.
The Government of Sri Lanka believes that if it successfully handles and
appeases the interests of different sections of the International
Community of States that it can escape from the obligations laid out in the
UNHRC resolution. The unwarranted praise and promotion that the
Sri Lankan Government continues to receive from certain
powerful sections of the International Community, which also
ironically co-sponsored the resolution, will only encourage the
Government to further withdraw from its obligations under the
Geneva resolution and is unlikely to inspire them into honouring
their commitments. The hope of the victims is that such narrow political
considerations that drive member states in their assessment of Sri Lankas
adherence to its self-owned obligations under the resolution will not cloud
the assessment of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights when he
presents his report on the 29th of June. We hope that the High
Commissioner will unequivocally identify the fundamental
transgressions in the approach of the Government to the
resolution thus far and further appropriately advice member-states of

actions that may be required to ensure that the recommendations of the

OISL report are given effect to.

(Signed)

Kumaravadivel Guruparan
Co-Spokesperson, TCSF

(Signed)

Elil Rajan
Co-Spokesperson, TCSF