UN HRC 14 - June 2010-References To Sri Lanka

Report on
References to Sri Lanka

at the
14 Session of the UN Human Rights Council
th
31st May to 18th June 2010

Geneva, Switzerland
Law & Society Trust (LST)
#3, Kynsey Terrace, Colombo 8, Sri Lanka

Tel: +94 11 2684845, +94 11 2691228
Fax: +94 11 2686843
email: lst@eureka.lk, lstadmin@sltnet.lk
Web: www.lawandsocietytrust.org
Table of Contents
This report contains statements, references, and opinions made on Sri Lanka at the 14th Session
of the UN Human Rights Council, based primarily from the official website of the 14th session of
the UN HRC. While every effort has been made to include all references to Sri Lanka, some
references may be missing and we would appreciate any such omission being brought to our
notice.
PART A: STATEMENTS MADE BY THE SRI LANKAN GOVERNMENT 5

1. General Debate on the Annual Report of the High Commissioner 6
2. General Debate on the Annual Report of the High Commissioner – Right of Reply 8
3. Interactive Dialogue with the Special Rapporteurs on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers, and
Promotion and Protection of Fundamental Freedoms while Countering Terrorism 8
4. Interactive Dialogue with the Special Rapporteurs on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights
while Countering Terrorism, and the Working Groups on Arbitrary Detention, and Enforced or
Involuntary Disappearances on the “Joint Study on global practices in relation to secret detention
in the context of countering terrorism” 10
5. Interactive Dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions 12
6. Discussion on Women’s Human Rights: Empowering Women through Education 14
7. Interactive Dialogue with the Special Rapporteur’s on Right to Health, Violence against Women and
Extreme Poverty 16
8. Panel Discussion on Maternal Mortality 17
PART B: EXCERPTS OF ORAL STATEMENTS MADE BY THE UN IN

REFERENCE TO SRI LANKA 19
9. Update of Annual Report ‐ Ms. Navanetham Pillay – UN High Commissioner for Human Rights 20
10. Statement by Professor Philip Alston, Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary
Executions 20
PART C: EXCERPTS OF ORAL STATEMENTS MADE BY OTHER COUNTRIES

IN REFERENCE TO SRI LANKA 21
11. General Debate on the Annual Report of the High Commissioner (Canada) 22
12. Interactive Dialogue with the Special Rapporteurs on Freedom of Expression, Summary or Arbitrary
Executions, Trafficking in Persons (European Union) 22
13. Interactive Dialogue with the Special Rapporteurs on Freedom of Expression, Summary or Arbitrary
Executions, Trafficking in Persons (United Kingdom) 22
14. General Debate on Human Rights Situations that require the Council’s Attention (Spain on behalf of
the EU) 23
15. General Debate on Human Rights Situations that require the Council’s Attention (Norway) 23
16. General Debate on Human Rights Situations that require the Council’s Attention (Slovenia) 23
17. General Debate on Human Rights Situations that require the Council’s Attention (Slovakia) 24
18. General Debate on Human Rights Situations that require the Council’s Attention (Sweden) 24
19. General Debate on Human Rights Situations that require the Council’s Attention (Ireland) 24
20. General Debate on Human Rights Situations that require the Council’s Attention (Czech Republic) 24
21. General Debate on Human Rights Situations that require the Council’s Attention (Switzerland) 25
22. General Debate on Human Rights Situations that require the Council’s Attention (Japan) 25
2
PART D: ORAL STATEMENTS AND EXCERPTS OF ORAL STATEMENTS MADE
BY NGOS IN REFERENCE TO SRI LANKA 26
23. General Debate on the Annual Report of the High Commissioner (Human Rights Watch) 27
24. General Debate on the Annual Report of the High Commissioner (United Nations Watch) 27
25. Interactive Dialogue with the Special Rapporteurs on Torture, Human Rights while Countering
Terrorism, and the Working Groups on Detention and Disappearances (International Movement
Against All Forms of Discrimination and Racism) 28
26. Panel on Protection of Journalists in Armed Conflict (Article 19) 29
27. Interactive Dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Opinion & Expression (Article 19 &
Cairo Institute of Human Rights Studies) 29
28. Interactive Dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Opinion & Expression (Reporters
without Borders) 29
29. Interactive Dialogue with the Special Rapporteurs on the Right to Freedom of Opinion & Expression,
and Extrajudicial, Arbitrary or Summary Executions (Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development) 30
30. General Debate on Human Rights Situations that require the Council’s Attention (International
Education Development) 31
31. General Debate on Human Rights Situations that require the Council’s Attention (Asian Forum for
Human Rights and Development) 31
32. General Debate on Human Rights Situations that require the Council’s Attention (Amnesty
International) 32
33. General Debate on Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Forms of Intolerance
(International Movement Against all forms of Discrimination and Racism) 32
34. General Debate on Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Forms of Intolerance
(International Educational Development) 33
PART E: EXCERPTS OF REFERENCES TO SRI LANKA IN REPORTS

PRESENTED TO THE 14TH SESSION OF THE UN HUMAN RIGHTS
COUNCIL BY SPECIAL PROCEDURES 34
35. Report of the Special Rapporteur on the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable
standard of physical and mental health ‐ Anand Grover 35
36. Report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of
opinion and expression ‐ Frank La Rue 35
37. Report of the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions – Philip Alston 35
38. Report of the Secretary‐General on cooperation with the United Nations, its representatives and
mechanisms in the field of human rights 37
39. Report of the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers ‐Gabriela Carina
Knaul de Albuquerque de Silva 37
40. Report submitted by the Special Rapporteur on trafficking in persons especially women and
children ‐ Joy Ngozi Ezeilo 37
41. Report of the High Commissioner for Human Rights on the question of the realization in all countries
of economic, social and cultural rights 37
42. Report of the Secretary‐General on Human Rights in the Administration of Justice, including Juvenile
Justice 39
43. Report of the Office of the High Commissioner on the outcome of the Expert Workshop on the Right
of Peoples to Peace 39
44. Report of the Office of the High Commissioner on the outcome of the Expert Consultation on the
issue of protecting the Human Rights of Civilians in Armed Conflict 40
3
PART F: INDIVIDUAL COMPLAINTS, OPINIONS & OTHER REFERENCES
BY UN SPECIAL PROCEDURES IN REFERENCE TO SRI LANKA IN
REPORTS PRESENTED TO THE 14TH SESSION OF THE UN HUMAN
RIGHTS COUNCIL 41
45. Report of the Special Rapporteur on the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable
standard of physical and mental health ‐ Addendum 1: Summary of communications sent and replies
received from Governments and other actors 42
46. Report of the Special Rapporteur on Independence of Judges and Lawyers ‐ Addendum 1:
Communications to and from Governments 49
47. Report of the Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions ‐ Addendum 1:
Communications to and from Governments 54
Study on targeted killings 103
Study on Police oversight mechanisms 103
50. Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of the Right to Freedom of
Opinion and Expression –Addendum 1: Summary of cases transmitted to Governments and replies
received 104
4
Part A
Statements made by the Sri Lankan

Government
5
1. General Debate on the Annual Report of the High Commissioner
Date: 31 May, 1st Meeting
Statement by Hon. Mohan Pieris, Attorney-General of Sri Lanka during the General
Debate on the Annual Report of the High Commissioner
Mr. President,
My delegation notes the High Commissioner’s interest as contained in her statement. Having
seized the opportunity for peace and reconciliation with the end of the terrorist conflict, we in Sri
Lanka now begun to reap its dividends through the meaningful implementation of the necessary
measures to ensure they are enjoyed by every citizen of the country.
It is also noteworthy that the ruling UPFA swept the boards at the parliamentary elections held
on 8th April. This undoubtedly is a resounding endorsement by the people, of the policies being
implemented by the Government, having been able to begin partaking of the peace dividends.
With the ending of the terrorist conflict, the Government of Sri Lanka has now commenced
scaling down of legislative provisions. As a first step in this direction, the Government decided
to withdraw a substantial segment of the Emergency Regulations, and modified several others.
Among those repealed were the emergency provisions having a direct bearing on the freedom of
expression, which has resulted in further strengthening the protective measures in the area of
freedom of opinion and expression, and have been amended in keeping with the relevant
principles of the ICCPR. The roll back of the Emergency Regulations at this juncture is only the
beginning of a process which will be continued as and when the ground conditions become
conducive to their further relaxation.
In keeping with the pledge of President Rajapaksa, that the pursuit of national unity and peace
requires reconciliation among all communities since the defeat of terrorism, the establishment of
a transitional justice mechanism has been one of the foremost priorities of the Government.
In order to accomplish this task, the Government has now established a ‘Commission on Lessons
Learnt and Reconciliation’, with emphasis on restorative justice; focusing among others, for
determining responsibility regarding events in question. This mechanism will soon commence its
work.
Mr. President,
The Government of Sri Lanka during the last week also achieved the completion of the
rehabilitation and releasing of all child soldiers numbering 294 to their parents legally through
court procedure.
It would be appropriate to note that the draft of Sri Lanka’s National Action Plan on Human
Rights has reached near finality and will be submitted to the Cabinet of Ministers soon. The
Victims and Witness Protection Bill as amended will also be presented to Parliament shortly. In
addition, a special committee has also been established to study the provisions of the Code of
Criminal Procedure with a view to addre4ss the issues of torture, which has been subjected to
much discussion.
6
Mr. President,
My delegation wishes to make some observations with regard to the references made by the High
Commissioner in her statement on Sri Lanka.
We are of the view that the High Commissioner’s observations on the Commission on Lessons
Learnt and Reconciliation, which has just been established, regrettably seeks to prejudge its
outcome even before the mechanism has begun its work, which is most discerning. It may be
opportune to remind ourselves of the Biblical saying “Let him who hath not sinned cast the first
stone”. We are sure none of us could boast the capacity to earn for ourselves a place in the litany
of saints. However, every accommodation must be made possible, even an endeavor such as a
Commission of this nature, and that is precisely what the Government of Sri Lanka has sought to
embark on, in a genuine sense of reconciliation.
It is not unusual Mr. President, that sovereign States having emerged from protracted armed
conflicts resort to domestic mechanisms, as encouraged by the Secretary-General of the UN
himself, due to the complexed nature of the issues at hand and their domestic relevance and
better understanding. It is in this context that the Government of Sri Lanka has consistently
upheld and established a domestic mechanism for transitional justice, rather than one with an
international complexion, which would impinge on the very sovereignty that was under threat for
nearly three decades. Further, it is inappropriate to be wholly guided by precedent, that too not
having paid heed to connected issues, in order to keep advocating for a so called “independent
international accountability mechanism”. While history can be interpreted subjectively, its tenets
remain unshaken which should be understood before seeking it as a justification, In this context,
it may be recalled that the Government of Sri Lanka has delivered on related undertakings in the
past. In this instance too we will deliver our commitment as the domestic mechanism’s Warrant
clearly provides for the identification of direct or indirect responsibility, which would hold
perpetrators, if any, accountable for past violations, and will not be deterred by any pressure or
force that will deter us from achieving a lasting peace for our people. We say to those who are
protagonists let this process commence as envisaged, observe its progress constructively and
provide the necessary space without unwarranted and misplaced rhetoric. Permit the people of
Sri Lanka an opportunity of achieving sustainable peace. Action to the contrary would inevitably
lead to serious misgivings with regard to the role of this Council in the minds of our people,
which would necessarily lead to an erosion of the several confidence-building measures in place,
and will surely result in a serious set-back to Sri Lanka’s transitional justice process, which we
have very recently put into place.
It is disconcerting for the Government of Sri Lanka to be needlessly confronted, at this time of
paradigm shift in the hearts and minds of our people, by the observations of the High
Commissioner’s statement, after having taken concrete steps in keeping with domestic
compulsions, to address post conflict reconciliation issues. My delegation looks forward to
constructive engagement with the UN in this regard. Thank you.
7
2. General Debate on the Annual Report of the High Commissioner –
Right of Reply
Date: 31 May, 2nd Meeting
Right of Reply by Hon. Mohan Pieris, Attorney General during the General Debate on the
Annual Report of the High Commissioner
Mr. President,
May I briefly respond to Canada’s concerns regarding issues of governance and human rights in
Sri Lanka in a spirit of true friendship and request that Canada desists from making politically
popular statements that do not reflect contemporary developments in Sri Lanka.
To continue with this style of rhetoric would be counterproductive to the reconciliation process
which has now been set in high gear and which has received an overwhelming mandate of the
people of Sri Lanka.
May we take this opportunity to request Canada to take every measure in persuading the diaspora
to participate in the development process of Sri Lanka which participation would be welcome by
the Government and those resettled in the North and the East.
3. Interactive Dialogue with the Special Rapporteurs on the Independence

of Judges and Lawyers, and Promotion and Protection of Fundamental
Freedoms while Countering Terrorism
Date: 03 June, 9th Meeting
Statement by Hon. Mohan Pieris, Attorney General of Sri Lanka during the Interactive
Dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges & Lawyers, and
Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental
Freedoms while Countering Terrorism on the Compilation of Good Practices on Legal and
Institutional Frameworks and Measures that Ensure Respect for Human Rights by
Intelligence Agencies while Countering Terrorism, Including their Oversight, UN Human
Rights Council, 2 June 2010
Mr. President,
We have keenly followed the report of the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and
lawyers and must hasten to congratulate on the depth of the very extensive research that has gone
into the compilation of her report. The material contained therein is extremely useful and would
surely contribute to the legal literature of this Council. May I be permitted the indulgence
however to add a slightly different dimension that the Special Rapporteur might take note of. As
observed by Linn Hammergren in an article on the subject of judicial independence, it is said that
8
for decades, enhanced independence has been understood as central to strengthening judicial
activity. However, more recently it has been joined by another element, the demand for greater
judicial accountability in the absence of which the drive for independence may go too far giving
rise to a plethora of new issues. In other words, in a classically independent environment, the
judiciary is now places in the circumstances that it now faces a new kind of responsiveness. This
situation has placed the judiciary in a dilemma. It must be appreciated that the more independent
the judiciary becomes the more accountability should be provided to prevent the judiciary from
being uncontrolled subject to the condition that the degree of accountability does not prejudice
its independence. In other words, the judicial independence and accountability should be
balanced and that the preservation of human rights although paramount cannot be considered as a
free pass to be relived of the obligation to be accountable. It is my delegation’s sincere wish that
this aspect of the matter must be driven home in our common goal of upholding the rule of law
through human rights.
Mr. President,
We have also carefully considered the contents of the report of the Special Rapporteur on the
promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism,
Mr. Martin Scheinin and find the report extremely comprehensive and useful to those of us who
are in the threshold of drafting appropriate legislation, which will lay down the good practices on
legal institutional frameworks and measures that would ensure respect for human rights by
intelligence agencies in the course of combating terrorism. May I hasten therefore to congratulate
the Special Rapporteur Scheinin on the hard work that has gone in to the compilation of this
report and would sometime in the future draw on his expertise.
Mr. President, I can assure this Council that the 35 elements that have been set out appear to
capture the fundamental concerns with the balance one must seek to strike between the
enthusiasm in the collation of intelligence for the preservation of national intelligence and
upholding human rights.
We fully concur that good practices in the work of intelligence services not only refers to as you
put it, to what is required by International Law, including Human Rights Law, but must surpass
the boundaries of legally binding obligations. Although we in Sri Lanka are yet to have a body of
legislation dealing with this subject directly, we are able to identify and follow a substantial
number of the 35 elements of good practices that are contained in Mr. Scheinin’s report, and are
careful to ensure that this work took serious cognizance of the rights of the subject in the course
of the gathering of such intelligence. We have built in to the mechanism a series of
administrative checks and balances that have to be mandatorily followed and subject to stringent
supervisory measures. In the case of the more sensitive issues, where the freedom of the subject
would require some interference with our criminal procedure and the Constitutional obligations,
such action would require the sanction of our courts.
Our courts have been quick to jealously guard the rights of subjects by being slow to
accommodate such interference unless it was satisfied that there is a real threat to national
security. We also agree that intelligence services should be overseen by a combination of
executive parliamentary and judicial oversight.
9
We also agree that a mechanism of executive and judicial review must be available to the
members of the community who believe that his rights have been infringed and that a
mechanism, must be built in for appropriate reparation if such a person suffered damage or harm
as a result of the unlawful actions of the intelligence services. We also believe that such activity
of intelligence service must guarantee the equal protection of the law in terms of the constitution
of the republic. This would include the arbitrary use of such powers that the intelligence service
may enjoy.
Mr. President,
In the run-up to the setting up of the necessary infrastructure we are also mindful that the
personnel recruited as members of an intelligence service must display a degree of
professionalism based on the respect for rule of law, that they must operate in a strict regimented
and closely supervised environment and trained to recognize and appreciate the principles of
proportionality as enshrined in the principles of public law.
Mr. President, we have already entered into many memoranda of understanding between the
intelligence agencies of foreign states which contain parameters for intelligence exchange and
the safeguards in the use of such information exchange. I must also hasten to add that we have
notwithstanding the signing of many MOUs with other States, incorporating some very salutary
features on the exchange of intelligence that the response when a request was made for all
practical purposes has been relatively slow. I would therefore strongly urge that the sharing of
intelligence when requested be taken as a matter to be given urgent priority, more particularly in
matters pertaining to terrorism and the transmission of funds for terrorist activities, financial
crimes inclusive of money laundering.
Finally, Mr. President may I on behalf of my delegation reiterate our commitment to our
common goal of ensuring the world be a safer place to live in whilst assuring to ourselves the
right to a full an unimpeded enjoyment of all human rights. Thank you.
4. Interactive Dialogue with the Special Rapporteurs on the Promotion

and Protection of Human Rights while Countering Terrorism, and the
Working Groups on Arbitrary Detention, and Enforced or Involuntary
Disappearances on the “Joint Study on global practices in relation to
secret detention in the context of countering terrorism”
Interactive Dialogue with the Special Rapporteurs on the promotion & protection of
human rights while countering terrorism, and the working groups on arbitrary detention,
and enforced or involuntary disappearances on the “Joint Study on global practices in
relation to secret detention in the context of countering terrorism” – Ambassador
Kshenuka Senewiratne
Mr. President,
10
My delegation has taken note of the “Joint Study on global practices in relation to secret
detention in the context of countering terrorism” compiled jointly by two mandate-holders and
two working groups of council.
Mr. President,
At the outset, my delegation wishes to update the information contained in the report with the
contemporary developments in Sri Lanka in particular the recent decision by the Government to
roll back the Emergency Regulations. As we stated during the general debate under item 2, with
the ending of the terrorist conflict, the Government of Sri Lanka has now commenced the
process of scaling down the Emergency Regulations. As a first step in this direction, the
Government in early May this year decided to withdraw a substantial segment of the Emergency
Regulations, and modified several others.
The Government of Sri Lanka does not wish to indefinitely continue with the Emergency
Regulations. The roll back of these regulations at this juncture is only the beginning of a process
which will be continued as and when the ground conditions become conducive to their further
relaxation.
Despite these new developments, my delegation wishes to make some observations on the
substance of the section dealing with Sri Lanka.
With regard to the caseload of alleged enforced or involuntary disappearances, the study has
failed to provide an accurate picture of the current status. Following a careful analysis, it appears
that only 3 incidents had taken place in 2009, indicating a sharp downward trend of
disappearances over previous years. The Government is keeping the Working Group on
Disappearances informed of the progress made in clarifying the recent as well as past cases.
The report also refers to concluding observations on Sri Lanka made by the Human Rights
Committee in 2003, and one observation made on the issue of torture has been taken out of
context in this study to put special emphasis on supposed secret detention in the country.
We have also noted that some assertions in the report on the question of detention are almost
entirely based on hearsay. In this regard, we wish to emphasize that all detention in the context
of countering terrorism had been made within the legal framework that governed such detention.
Whether it be arrest under normal law or anti-terrorist legislation; legal safeguards are firmly
entrenched in Sri Lanka so as to ensure the rights of suspects. Illegal arrest and detention
tantamount to infringement of our Constitutional Chapter on fundamental rights and any
infraction of these process rights would give rise to the intrusive jurisdiction of the Supreme
Court. The remedy of habeas corpus is acknowledged to be a bulwark against abuse or executive
powers of arrest and detention and this constitutionally entrenched right has been in existence in
Sri Lanka as an efficacious remedy for any illegal detention. According to the Emergency
Regulations that have now been scaled-down, detention has to be at an authorized place that has
to be gazetted and the places of detention are thus in public domain. Moreover, the Magistrate is
notified of the detention within 72 hours along with simultaneous notification to the kith and kin
immediately upon arrest and a presidential directive to this effect has also been in existence. Any
violation of these enactments exposes an errant State agent to visitation or prosecution in
addition to a civil suit and this panoply of safeguards and remedies demonstrate that
11
incommunicado detention has not taken place in Sri Lanka and under no circumstances would
Sri Lanka derogate from this State policy and practice.
Mr. President,
Quite contrary to the assertions in the report, the surrendees and detainees were not held
incommunicado or in secret facilities. A legal regime has been put in place for their rehabilitation
and release. The Emergency Regulations of 2005, as amended recently, governs their status.
Restorative justice initiative has culminated in 8,025 of the surrendees and ex-combatants
undergoing rehabilitation with a view to release and reintegration into civilian life and fruitful
means of livelihood. 2,322 of them have already been released and 1,314 of them with high
degree of involvement in crimes would be prosecuted with indictments expected by the end of
the year. Even with regard to them, the Government of Sri Lanka would launch prosecutions
only when there is evidence of a higher degree of culpability. All have had process rights such as
access to legal counsel and to their families.
We would also like to notify that a dedicated team of attorneys has been specially assigned by
the Honorable Attorney General to expeditiously deal with cases pertaining to the detainees in
order to accomplish the transitional justice process and that this program will draw to a close by
a final consideration to this effect before the end of the year.
5. Interactive Dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial,

Summary or Arbitrary Executions
Date 03 June, 11th Meeting
Interactive Dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary

Executions, Mr. Philip Alston
Mr. President,
My delegation has taken note of the statement delivered by Mr. Philip Alston, Special
Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions.
With regard to the concerns Mr. Alston expressed today on Sri Lanka once again is a
demonstration of a statement reeking with bias and overbearing in his usual style, belated in
character and extremely unhelpful and unconstructive especially in the backdrop that a Lessons
Learnt and Reconciliation Commission is to commence its inquiries shortly.
Mr. President,
The Government of Sri Lanka will not shy away from investigating into any credible alleged
violation of human rights that has taken place in the past. The recent establishment of the
Commission on Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation is a clear testimony of this commitment. In
12
my statement to this Council on 31 May, I provided a detailed account of the mandate of this
Commission.
My delegation wishes to make the following specific observations on the remarks made by the
Special Rapporteur. His views with regard to an international inquiry, is regrettably
counterproductive to the objectives of a home-grown mechanisms of the Lessons Learnt
Commission, and regretfully based on unsubstantiated, uncorroborated heresay supplied by
certain interested parties, who he seem to give credence to on a continued basis. We have been in
the recent past privy to such information spread around the globe with a singular motive of
destabilizing Sri Lanka and scuttling the reconciliation process which has been resoundingly
endorsed by our people through an overwhelming mandate given to the government. It is equally
regrettable that a personality of Prof. Alston’s caliber who is expected to ensure impartiality and
independence in the delivery of his mandate, seeks to prejudge the outcome of the Commission
before the mechanism has begun its work, by continuously calling for an independent
international inquiry ad-nauseam.
It is not unusual, Mr. President, that sovereign States having emerged from protracted armed
conflicts resort to domestic mechanisms, as encouraged by the Secretary-General of the UN
himself, due to the complex nature of the issues at hand and their domestic relevance and better
understanding. It is in this context that the Government of Sri Lanka has consistently upheld and
established a domestic mechanism for transitional justice, rather than one with an international
complexion, which would impinge on the very sovereignty that was under threat for nearly three
decades. Further, it is inappropriate to be wholly guided by precedent, that too not having paid
heed to connected issues, in order to keep advocating for a so called “independent international
accountability mechanism”. While history can be interpreted subjectively, its tenets remain
unshaken which should be understood before seeking it as a justification, In this context, it may
be recalled that the Government of Sri Lanka has delivered on related undertakings in the past. In
this instance too we will deliver our commitment as the domestic mechanism’s Warrant clearly
provides for the identification of direct or indirect responsibility, which would hold perpetrators,
if any, accountable for past violations, and will not be deterred by any pressure or force that will
deter us from achieving a lasting peace for our people. We say to those who are protagonists let
this process commence as envisaged, observe its progress constructively and provide the
necessary space without unwarranted and misplaced rhetoric. Permit the people of Sri Lanka an
opportunity of achieving sustainable peace. Action to the contrary would inevitably lead to
serious misgivings with regard to the role of this Council in the minds of our people, which
would necessarily lead to an erosion of the several confidence-building measures in place, and
will surely result in a serious set-back to Sri Lanka’s transitional justice process, which we have
very recently put into place.
It is disconcerting for the Government of Sri Lanka to be needlessly confronted, at this time of a
paradigm shift in the hearts and minds of our people, by the observations of Special Rapporteur
Alston, after having taken concrete steps in keeping with domestic compulsions, to address post
conflict reconciliation issues.
Mr. President,
13
The Special Rapporteur and I are both aware of the importance of complying with the rules of
natural justice without which inquiry could be credible or complete and will be critiques at the
end for lack of administrative fairness. It is surprising that a trained mind like that of a Special
Rapporteur would continuously seek to embarrass a sovereign government, which has brought a
30-year old conflict legitimately to an end.
Mr. President,
Is it that Special Rapporteur Alston finds it difficult to accept that the terrorist conflict in Sri
Lanka has come to an end? Or does it trouble him that during the last one year we have not heard
a report of a gun and to see the country fast moving to near normalcy? Mr. President, the present
time perhaps is inappropriate to discuss numbers but I can assure this council that Mr. Alston’s
reference to 30,000 civilians dying is no more than an irresponsible statement made at the behest
of persons interested in resuscitating the conflict so that they can be gainfully occupied
otherwise, especially considering that the Government provided facilities for 300,000 internally
displaced in welfare villages at the end of the conflict.
I must in conclusion add that my delegation is not surprised by Special Rapporteur Alston’s
approach in the execution of his mandate which is symptomatic of a consistent course of conduct
which supports our view that this Council should take cognizance of a failure in the past to
follow a procedure in the Code of Conduct as set down by this Council.
6. Discussion on Women’s Human Rights: Empowering Women through

Education
Statement of the Delegation of Sri Lanka During the Annual Day Discussion on Women’s
Human Rights: Empowering Women through Education
Mr. President,
At the outset, my delegation wishes to thank the panelists for their valuable contributions to the
topic of this discussion, which is a very timely initiative of the Human Rights Council.
Promoting gender equality and the empowerment of women has been a focus of successive
governments, while maintaining a gender neutral recruitment policy supported by Constitutional
guarantees of equality. We have witnessed a remarkable improvement in the situation of women
which has been made possible due to the increased sensitivity to their gender issues and a firm
government policy that seeks to empower women and address their grievances.
Attitudinal changes that favour the position of women in society have been possible largely due
to high levels of educational attainment and women being thereby recognized as equal partners
and valuable contributors to the development process.
Mr. President,
14
In Sri Lanka, education is viewed as a basic right and is supported by a Government policy that
has made schooling compulsory for those between 5-14 years. According to the 2006 statistics,
50.14% of the school population was girls and of the teaching cadre, 69% were women.
Sri Lanka has almost achieved the second MDG of achieving universal primary education. While
enrolment figures are marginally higher for boys in primary school level – 51% as opposed to
49% for girls – the figure is higher for girls at junior secondary level – 51% as opposed to 49%
for boys.
Mr. President,
With regard to the tertiary education, the higher number of women completing tertiary education
is translated into higher participation of women in the formulation of government policy, holding
public office and in this sphere performing functions at senior levels. Overall, there has been an
appreciable increase in the percentage of women among the total number admitted to universities
in Sri Lanka. BY 2005/2006 in each of the subject streams other than Physical science, higher
numbers of women were admitted although their percentage out of the number of women that
qualified for admission, was lower in all the streams other than the Arts stream. This is an
indication of the level of performance. This adequately demonstrates higher educational
attainments by females.
Women’s representation in University has increased rapidly and the only subject areas in which
they are markedly under-represented are in Engineering (20.4%) and Computer Science (33.3%).
For the first time, policy and programme documents have been made gender sensitive integrating
concerns in the same manner and have also underscored the importance of reducing the gender
imbalance in enrolment in technical and vocational education institutions. These measures
continue to empower women in Sri Lanka in spite of the traditional norms that influence
stereotyping gender-based role in employment.
Mr. President,
These measures have had a salutary effect on the overall literacy rate in the country. The present
literacy rate for women is 89.9 percent and Men 93.2 percent yielding a gender differential of 3.3
percentage points. The ratio of literate women to men among youth, between 15-24 years, stands
at 101 women per 100 men demonstrating that the literacy rates of young women has surpassed
that of men.
As we have just highlighted in brief, we have integrated the Millennium Development Goals into
the national development agenda and have already achieved goals relating to equitable primary
education, child mortality and maternal mortality, access to safe drinking water and literacy, is
on target to reach the remaining indicators.
Finally, we believe that the investment in education has, as its ultimate objective, the increase in
national income, reduction of poverty and the promotion of human development.
Thank you.
15
7. Interactive Dialogue with the Special Rapporteur’s on Right to Health,
Violence against Women and Extreme Poverty
Statement of the Delegation of Sri Lanka during the Interactive Dialogue with the Special
Rapporteur’s on Right to Health, Violence against Women and Extreme Poverty
Mr. President,
My delegation wishes to thank the three mandate-holders for their reports and to congratulate
them for the in-depth treatment of the respective mandates.
At the outset, my delegation would like to inform that Sri Lanka’s draft National Action Plan on
Human Rights has been finalized and will soon be submitted to the Cabinet of Ministers, who
will refer the matter to a Select Committee of Parliament for study and recommendation. This
draft Action Plan has incorporated a number of measures aimed at strengthening the existing
provisions in the field of economic, social, cultural, civil and political rights, impinging on
several international conventions.
Mr. President,
The recommendations of Mr. Anand Grover have taken into account the realities in a meaningful
manner which has culminated inter alia in the far-reaching recommendation to decriminalize sex
work and related practices by complementing an appropriate regulatory framework within which
such workers can enjoy as of right safe working conditions.
While thanking the Special Rapporteur for his focus on HIV AIDS in his report, I am pleased to
make the observation that the reported cases of HIV AIDS in Sri Lanka are the lowest in the
region due to social and cultural ethics practiced by society at large and the awareness
programmes on the effects of the disease.
With regard to the issue of right to health, the proposed National Action Plan has incorporated,
among others, the rights of patients, through a national consultative process on the subject. The
proposed National Action Plan also envisages a Charter of Patient’s Rights to be enacted as a
legal instrument. The notion of patient’s rights has been incorporated in some of our statutes and
we are confident that the provisions in the proposed National Action Plan will further
complement and strengthen the existing legislation in this field.
With regard to the report of the Special Rapporteur on violence against women, my delegation
wishes to state that the Domestic Violence Act and Penal Code of Sri Lanka contain prohibitions
against impious attacks on women. In fact our laws on the amelioration of women’s rights have
been legislated in consonance with the Constitutional provision which states that there should be
no discrimination on the ground of sex and that special laws must be enacted to promote
women’s rights. Several committees have been appointed to go into the personal laws in the
country and ascertain how best discriminatory practices inherent in such laws can be eliminated.
With regard to the report of the Independent Expert on the question of human rights and extreme
poverty, we are pleased to note that she has made social pensions the focus of her second report
to the Council. My delegation welcomes this aspect. We wish to in this regard state that Sri
16
Lanka’s Pension Law has been recently amended to give parity of status to widows, widowers
and orphans and the category of beneficiaries who would qualify to obtain these social benefit
schemes has been expanded. On the issue of addressing inequities and alleviation of poverty, Sri
Lanka has been in the forefront in having enacted poverty alleviation specific legislation in the
past.
The Independent Expert’s conclusions are noteworthy and far-reaching in dealing with some of
the pressing socio-economic issues of older persons in our societies.
8. Panel Discussion on Maternal Mortality
Statement of the delegation of Sri Lanka at the Panel Discussion on Maternal Mortality,
Human Rights Council, 14 June 2010
Mr. President,
My delegation is pleased to join this panel of discussion on Maternal Mortality, which we

believe is a human rights issue of tremendous impact and utmost urgency.
As we did in March 2009, Sri Lanka is pleased to subscribe to the Joint Statement, which has
been delivered today by Colombia, highlighting the importance of “addressing preventable
maternal mortality and morbidity under a human rights perspective” due to unacceptably high
number of women who die each year during or after pregnancy and childbirth or from reasons
associated with childbirth. Therefore, we join others in our collective call to raise awareness on
the human rights implications of this phenomenon, which affects both developing and developed
countries. As we have reaffirmed in the joint statement, greater commitment and political will
are required by governments to successfully reduce women’s deaths and disability related to
pregnancy.
Mr. President,
Sri Lanka has integrated the Millennium Development Goals into the national development
agenda and is on track in reaching most of the indicators while some have been already achieved
at the national level. Among the notable achievements are those relating to infant mortality and
maternal mortality.
Mr. President,
Sri Lanka’s commitment to safe motherhood ensures that pregnant women have adequate care
throughout the pregnancy and at delivery. Approximately 95% of pregnant women are registered
with public health midwives appointed to local institutions, and approximately 98% of the total
births come within the purview of institutional deliveries.
17
The proportion of births attended by skilled health personnel is around 98.5% and if the current
trend continues, 100% coverage is expected to be achieved by 2015, thus surpassing the MDG
target.
Mr. President,
According to statistics at the Family Health Bureau of the Ministry of Health, the current
maternal mortality rate is about 39.3 per 100,000 live births and this is the lowest in South Asia.
With near-universal access to health care, and 98% Institutional deliveries, Sri Lanka is on-
course to meet the MDG on improving maternal health.
Mr. President,
Despite these achievements, we see no room for complacency. The Government will spare no
effort to further strengthen the capacities for comprehensive routine reporting of births and
deaths. We are also in the process of ameliorating the skills base for all aspects of the health
information system. Preventing maternal mortality is one of the central goals of maternal and
child health service. It is also necessary to improve service delivery for pregnant mothers,
especially those in remote villages, plantations, and in the Northern and Eastern provinces, in
order to improve their health and well-being.
Finally Mr. President, Sri Lanka reiterates its going commitment to securing the rights of women
in further addressing the issues related to maternal health.
Thank you.
18
Part B
Excerpts of oral statements made by the UN in

reference to Sri Lanka
19
9. Update of Annual Report - Ms. Navanetham Pillay – UN High
Commissioner for Human Rights
Date: 31 May, 1st Meeting
Opening Statement - Ms. Navanetham Pillay – UN High Commissioner for Human Rights
“Ladies and Gentlemen, Allow me now to update you regarding specific human rights situations
in many parts of the world.
The past month has marked the first anniversary of the end of the conflict in Sri Lanka. I call on
the council to reflect on the commitments made by the Government of Sri Lanka when the
Council held its special session to address the serious concerns which had arisen in the last stages
of the fighting in that country. Since then, some progress has been made in return and
resettlement of internally displaced persons and the partial relaxation of emergency measures.
Concrete initiatives must now follow to provide justice and redress to victims and generally to
promote accountability and longer-term reconciliation. The Government has recently created a
Commission on Lessons Learned and Reconciliation to address some of these questions.
However, based on previous experience and new information, I remain convinced that such
objectives would be better served by establishing an independent accountability mechanism that
would enjoy public confidence, both in Sri Lanka and elsewhere.”
10. Statement by Professor Philip Alston, Special Rapporteur on

Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions
Statement by Professor Philip Alston, Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary or

Arbitrary Executions
“This conclusion, based on careful empirical analysis, indicates that the international community
will often need to insist that an international inquiry takes place where particularly serious
allegations are made and where domestic practice has been unconvincing. To assert in such
circumstances that matters should be left entirely to a domestic inquiry will generally be
tantamount to an abdication on the part of the international community. Let me cite two
examples. The first concerns the attack on the humanitarian flotilla off Gaza. I believe that there
is a compelling need for an objective and impartial international investigation to ascertain the
facts and make recommendations. The second concerns allegations that as many as 30,000
persons were killed in Sri Lanka in the closing months of the conflict and that grave violations of
human rights and humanitarian law were committed. In this case also there is a need for an
independent international inquiry. While the Council rejected this proposal a year ago, there is
now a great deal of new evidence which would warrant effective action.”
20
Part C
Excerpts of oral statements made by other

Countries in reference to Sri Lanka
21
(Canada)
“Throughout Sri Lanka’s 26-year armed conflict, Canada has consistently registered its concerns
related to governance and human rights. Canada looks to the Government of Sri Lanka to move
expeditiously towards a viable political solution that satisfies the legitimate aspirations of all Sri
Lankan citizens, regardless of language, religion or ethnicity. Canada supports efforts to promote
human rights, national reconciliation, accountability, and reconstruction within a united Sri
Lanka.”
12. Interactive Dialogue with the Special Rapporteurs on Freedom of

Expression, Summary or Arbitrary Executions, Trafficking in Persons
(European Union)
3) “We would be grateful for the Rapporteur’s impression of the situation for freedom of opinion
and expression in Sri Lanka, Venezuela, Tunisia and Zimbabwe. We note the welcome recent
move in Zimbabwe to license more national newspapers, but that significant restrictions on
journalist’s activities remain. Regarding pending requests for country visits, will the Special
Rapporteur press for an invitation to visit these countries?”
13. Interactive Dialogue with the Special Rapporteurs on Freedom of

Expression, Summary or Arbitrary Executions, Trafficking in Persons
(United Kingdom)
“Promotion of freedom of expression and a free media is essential for exposing corruption and
fighting discrimination. The UK is concerned about the state of media freedom in all parts of the
world, and attacks on journalists. We would like to ask the Rapporteur how he plans to support
governments to tackle impunity for such attacks. We would also be grateful for his views on how
states might best implement access to information legislation and encourage pluralism of
ownership of and access to the media?
• We would be grateful for the Rapporteur’s assessment of the situation for freedom of
expression in Sri Lanka and his suggestions on what steps are needed to encourage and
support media freedom there. In this regard, does the Special Rapporteur have a view on
the investigations into attacks on prominent journalists in Sri Lanka, such as the
disappearance of Prageeth Eknalygoda (Lanka E News) in January 2010 or the
assassination of Lasantha Wickrematunge (Sunday Leader Editor) in January 2009?”
22
14. General Debate on Human Rights Situations that require the Council’s
Attention (Spain on behalf of the EU)
“With regard to the situation in Sri Lanka, the EU acknowledges some improvement of the
overall situation since the end of the war one year ago, especially in recent weeks. However, we
remain concerned about the situation of journalists and human rights defenders, and the lack of
adequate investigations of alleged violations of human rights concerning abductions and
enforced disappearances, arbitrary detentions and extra-judicial killings. We call upon the GoSL
to fully disband the Emergency Regulations and to grant the ICRC access to alleged former
LTTE-fighters. We take note of a “Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission” and reiterate
our conviction, that only a comprehensive and truly independent inquiry which also addresses
the issue of accountability, can contribute to national reconciliation. The EU supports the
intention of the UN Secretary General to establish a panel of experts as a first step.”
Attention (Norway)
“Norway supports the call for an independent and credible investigation of the allegations of
violations of human rights and international humanitarian law in connection to the war last year
in Sri Lanka. The National Commission on Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation is a positive step,
and we hope that the Commission will prove to be an effective accountability mechanism.
Finding a political solution acceptable for all communities remains vital and necessary to achieve
reconciliation among the people of Sri Lanka. We support the UNSG’s initiative on establishing
an expert panel to advise him on these issues.”
Attention (Slovenia)
“The situation of journalists and human rights defenders in Sri Lanka and the lack of
corresponding investigations of alleged violations of human rights, remain a matter of serious
concern. We urge the Sri Lankan authorities to allow an independent and impartial investigation
of all alleged violations of international human rights and humanitarian law as a matter of
priority and urgency.”
23
Attention (Slovakia)
“I would like to use this opportunity to call on the Government of Sri Lanka to ensure due
investigation of and accountability for all allegations of HR and humanitarian law violations by
both sides of the decades-long armed conflict especially during its final stages.”
Attention (Sweden)
“Evidence from multiple sources show that both parties to the conflict in Sri Lanka committed
grave violations of international and humanitarian law during the conflict. So far, however, Sri
Lanka has failed to take any meaningful steps to investigate the alleged violations, even though
ensuring that there is a process for accountability for serious violations is crucial.”
Attention (Ireland)
“We are also seriously concerned about the situation in Sri Lanka. Although pleased that the war
which ravaged the country for so many years is now over, we are very concerned about the plight
of the many IDPs still in camps. They need to be facilitated to return to their homes at the very
earliest opportunity. It is vitally important that some process of reconciliation begin to address
the root causes of Tamil grievances and to bring harmony and peace to that country. It is also
important that allegations and evidence that grave breaches of humanitarian law were
perpetuated by both sides in the conflict in the final stages of the war are fully investigated and,
in that context, we support calls for a formal independent inquiry be initiated without delay.”
Attention (Czech Republic)
“The Czech Republic wants to express series concerns about the lack of adequate progress of
investigations so far conducted related to alleged violations of human rights during the war
24
between the Sri Lankan security forces and the LTTE in the first half of 2009 committed by both
sides. The Czech Republic is in favour of an independent and internationally scrutinized
investigation and would positively appreciate, if the Sri Lankan authorities were receptive to
such an investigation. We also call upon the Sri Lankan authorities to intensify and speed up
concrete measures towards a genuine national reconciliation and resettlement of IDPs.”
Attention (Switzerland)
General Debate on Human Rights Situations that require the Council’s Attention -
Switzerland – Press Statement
DANTE MARTINELLI (Switzerland) said Switzerland welcomed the mechanism for
conducting independent enquiries one year after hostilities which had taken place in Sri Lanka
and reiterated Switzerland’s appeal to Sri Lankan authorities to cooperate with international
institutions.
Attention (Japan)
General Debate on Human Rights Situations that require the Council’s Attention – Japan -
Press Statement
AKIO ISOMATA (Japan) said that in Sri Lanka, the Government should continue to work
towards improving the situation. The issue of impunity regarding human rights violations should
be addressed transparently, and in conformity with international standards, and there should be
progress towards national reconciliation. Japan would continue to support the Government of Sri
Lanka.
25
Part D
Oral statements and excerpts of oral

statements made by NGOs in reference to Sri
Lanka
26
(Human Rights Watch)
“Human Rights Watch also strongly supports the High Commissioner’s call for the creation of an
independent international accountability mechanism for violations of international law during the
internal armed conflict in Sri Lanka, which ended last year.
Last May in Colombo, President Mahinda Rajapaksa promised Secretary Ban-Ki-moon that the
government would investigate war time abuses. Since then, the Sri Lankan government has not
undertaken any meaningful steps to investigate serious and well-founded allegations of abuses,
despite new evidence of atrocities during the fighting.
The Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission, which President Rajapaksa established in
May 15, 2010, falls far short of what is necessary to ensure accountability. The commission’s
mandate-focusing on the failure of the 2002 ceasefire-is very limited and does not explicitly
allow an investigation into alleged violations of international law. The terms of reference do not
provide for victims and witness protection program. The commission will not hold proceedings
in public, raising questions about the transparency of the commission’s work. And there are
concerns about whether the commission will be impartial and independent. For instance he
chairman of the commission, a former attorney general, came under serious criticism for his
office’s alleged interference in the work of the country’s 2006 Presidential Commission of
Inquiry.”

(United Nations Watch)
“We fully support the High Commissioner’s continuing demand for an independent international
accountability mechanism for the civilians victimized in Sri Lanka’s war last year.
According to the recent report of the International Crisis Group, tens of thousands of civilians
died. Given the precedent of last year’s council investigation of another situation-and that Sri
Lanka’s death toll is at least 20 times more-we join the High Commissioner’s call for justice, and
ask: do not human rights principles, logic, and basic humanitarian priorities require that the
council act for the victims in Sri Lanka?
From lessons learned, we recommend that the mechanism called for by the High Commissioner
should avoid prejudging the conclusion of the investigation in its founding resolution; and that its
members include only those without a predetermined commitment to a particular outcome. In
other words, it must not only be independent and international, but impartial.”
27
25. Interactive Dialogue with the Special Rapporteurs on Torture, Human
Rights while Countering Terrorism, and the Working Groups on
Detention and Disappearances (International Movement Against All
Forms of Discrimination and Racism)
“Sri Lanka has continued to fail to address the ever growing problem related to disappearances.
Since 1989 reports and documentation related disappearances have piled up with no effective
responses from the authorities. For instance in a report submitted by the Committee on
Disappearances of the HRC-SL released in October 2003 states the following “Four Presidential
Commissions of Inquiry into Involuntary Removals and Disappearances of persons have
reported on a total of about 30,000 complaints. The complaint referred to us constitute only a
minor fraction of total number of disappearances. The All Island Commission appointed by the
then President Chandrika Bandaranaike published in March 2001 have not been presented in
Parliament. There has been little or no public discussions on any of the observations and
recommendations made in them. We quoted from this report to illustrate the seriousness related
to the prevailing culture of impunity in Sri Lanka where no effective investigations have taken
place related to disappearnces from 1989 to 2009 over 2 decades. Thousands more disappeared
in the period from 2006 to 2009 during the recent war. Since the establishment of the working
group, 12, 226 cases have been transmitted to the Government. Of those, accordig to the WG’s
report to 13th HRC, 5,651 still remain outstanding. The recent case of journalist Prageeth
Eknaligoda who disappeared on 24th January 2010 is a case in point.
The question is often asked as to who wants the past investigated. Clearly the victims do,
whereas those who are directly or indirectly responsible for the crimes and whose who favour a
cover up, do not. Families and NGOs working with victims have provided adequate information
to the WGID.
Available documentation reveal that thousands of innocent persons could be arressted,

indefinitely detained, tortured, raped and killed and their bodies disposed with no information
provided and no records kept. While those directly involved in such acts are directly responsible
but so too those complicit in any stage of these operations. Special responsibility lies with those
at the apex of the command structure who permitted this state of affiars to exist.
It is not a conspiracy against any government to call for investigations related to human rights
violations of this nature. It is the duty of the international community bound together to uphold
human value and dignity to raise the voices for accountability. We as civil society are engaging
with the UN system and various mechanisms calling for justice for victims in Sri Lanka and put
an end to the impunity.
Thank you.”
28
26. Panel on Protection of Journalists in Armed Conflict (Article 19)
“Article 19 welcomes the panel discussion the protection of journalists in armed conflict and
supports the comments made by Messrs La Rue and Schmidt. This is a human rights issue which
deserves more focused attention and action on by the Human Rights Council. Media workers
around the world – in states such as Iraq, Sri Lanka, the Philippines and Mexico – have been the
subject of very serious and targeted threats, disappearances, physical attacks and killings in
situations of armed conflict and other violent conflicts.
Yet, too often, a culture of impunity surrounds such attacks on journalists. The denial of
journalists’ human rights during conflicts leads to a ‘chilling effect’ on journalists freedom of
expression, impedes the public’s ‘right to know’ and is a significant restraint upon the media’s
role as a watchdog of state.”
27. Interactive Dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of

Opinion & Expression (Article 19 & Cairo Institute of Human Rights
Studies)
“We appeal to states – such as Iran, Sri Lanka, Tunisia and Venezuela – to cooperate with the
Special Rapporteur by accepting his requests for country visits. We urge all states to positively
support the Special Rapporteur in carrying out his mandate.”
28. Interactive Dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of

Opinion & Expression (Reporters without Borders)
“We are likewise concerned by the lack of response to a number of your letters to the
government of Sri Lanka where journalist and cartoonist Prageeth Eknaligoda is disappeared
since last January.
Mr. La Rue, do you intend to solicit urgently visits to these countries? Last Monday here the Sri
Lankan Attorney-General Mr. Mohan Pieris gave assurances that a number of emergency
restrictions on freedom of expression had been lifted. We note, however, that at the time of filing
your report you had not received any reply to your letter regarding press freedom violations in
the lead-up to the recent elections. A visit on your part would certainly help to reassure the
international community that Sri Lanka is living up to its commitments and indeed encourage the
authorities to do so.”
29
29. Interactive Dialogue with the Special Rapporteurs on the Right to
Freedom of Opinion & Expression, and Extrajudicial, Arbitrary or
Summary Executions (Asian Forum for Human Rights and
Development)
“Mr. President, we are deeply troubled to hear from the Special Rapporteur that impunity
continues to be a persistent trend and obstructs the protection of journalists and freedom of the
press. In Sri Lanka, though the conflict between the state forces and the Liberation Tigers of
Tamil Elam (LTTE) came to an end one year ago and Parliamentary elections concluded in
April, we are distressed to find that the recent relaxation of the Emergency Regulations have not
contributed to fully guaranteeing media freedom in Sri Lanka. Criticism of the government’s
human rights record by journalists, activists and trade unionists continue to be interpreted as
supporting terrorist activities. In this light, the draconian Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA)
must be repealed immediately. As long as the PTA remains in force, the selective lifting of the
Emergency Regulations is insufficient toward addressing the atmosphere of impunity and
ensuring accountability. To date, the killing of senior editor Lasantha Wikrematunge who was
killed on 8th January 2009 and the disappearance of write and cartoonist Prageeth Eknaligoda,
which took place on 24th January of this year remains unsolved. We welcome the pardon granted
to journalist J.S. Tissanayagam last month. However, we stress that his physical security must be
guaranteed by the authorities and he should be able to conduct his work free from fear and
intimidation. We regret that the repeated visit requests by the Special Rapporteur have not been
responded by the government so far.
Turning to the report of the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, arbitrary or summary

executions, we wish to highlight in particular his concluding remarks expressing his serious
regret over the lack of specific action by the Council to respond to the reports and
recommendations of the Special Rapporteur. As stated, if the Human Rights Council “has the
political will, it can do vastly more to prevent unlawful killings around the world and put into
place much more effective mechanisms for accountability.” We put our full support behind this
final statement which comes after 6 years of his devoted work in discharging the mandate. We
would like to express our sincere appreciation for the work of the Special Rapporteur. Mr. Philip
Alston, your insight and expertise have benefited the Council particularly when addressing
chronic human rights violations in Sri Lanka and the Philippines. We wish you success in your
future work supporting victims of human rights violations in your different capacity.
Thank you Mr. President.”
30
Attention (International Education Development)
Date: 09 June, 21st Meeting

“International Education Development and the Association of Humanitarian Lawyers, draw
attention to our written statements to this session, NGO/8 regarding the Uyghur people in East
Turkestan in China and NGO/11 regarding the Tamil people in Sri Lanka. United Nations action
has been, in our opinion, grossly inadequate to save the Tamil people from near annihilation. AS
former high commissioner Arbour recently stated about this situation “There must come a point
where you really have to ask: Are you now paying a price that is so high that you become almost
complicit in the terrible actions by governments.” We think that this statement could equally
apply to the situation of the Uyghurs. We are pleased that the Secretary-General and the High
Commissioner are still pushing for an independent, international investigator in the situation in
Sri Lanka, especially the events that took place during April and May 2009. As one helpful
initiative to address both these and similar situation, we recommend that the High Commissioner
set up a task force on the situation of ethnic nationalities, who are distinct from minorities, who
have traditional homelands, distinct cultures and languages, and a history of self-government, but
who have been overpowered or subsumed by a dominant government made up of other ethnic
groups.”
Attention (Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development)
“Thank you, Mr. President. FORUM-ASIA would like to urge the Council’s unwavering
attention to grave human rights concerns in Sri Lanka. Mr. President, more than 60,000
internally displaced persons (IDPs) in Sri Lanka still remain in Vavuniya, Mannar and Jaffna
camps, uninformed about their resettlement plans. Many areas of the Vanni where the most
intense clashes took place remain out of bounds to most national and international humanitarian
actors, media as well as civil society observers. Any clear plans for reconciliation and healing
between the different ethnic communities are still missing. The increase in Singhalese-only
language signboards and Buddha statues in Tamil majority areas and the inhibiting of several
religious commemorative events in the North to remember the families and friends who were lost
in the war indicate that there is little will of the government to affirm the equality and dignity of
minority communities. While the government of Sri Lanka stresses that there are domestic
mechanisms for accountability in place, we are of the view that the Commission on Lessons
Learned and Reconciliation lacks the mandate to offer adequate justice and redress. As such, we
reiterate the call by the High Commissioner to establish an independent international
accountability mechanism. We also urge the Council to abide by its collective responsibility to
engage in regular follow-up debate on the progress of implementation to its Special Session
outcomes and the Joint Communiqué between the government of Sri Lanka and the UN
Secretary-General.”
31
Attention (Amnesty International)
“Mr. President,
In 2008, Sri Lanka promised this council that it would take all necessary measures to prosecute
and punish perpetrators of violations of international human rights and humanitarian law.1
In May 2009, on the basis of compelling evidence that war crimes had been committed by both
sides in the final phase of Sri Lanka’s armed conflict, Amnesty International called for an
independent investigation. At its Special Session on Sri Lanka, this Council rightly condemned
LTTE attacks on the civilian population and its practice of using civilians as human shields.
However, it failed to acknowledge or act on credible reports that the Sri Lankan armed forces
killed thousands of civilians when they fired artillery into areas they knew were densely
populated with displaced civilians.
The end of the armed conflict should have been an opportunity for Sri Lanka to fulfil its
commitments on accountability, but little progress has been made. Historically, national inquiries
have simply not worked as mechanisms of justice in Sri Lanka. Successive government
investigations have rarely resulted in prosecutions, let alone convictions. Amnesty International
once again calls on the Council to support independent international investigation and demand
measures to ensure accountability of all sides in the armed conflict.”
33. General Debate on Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and

Related Forms of Intolerance (International Movement Against all
forms of Discrimination and Racism)
“Mr. President,
IMADR wishes to express our concern regarding the situation of IDPs in Sri Lanka. Out of more
than 290,000 people displaced since 1st April 2010 in Sri Lanka , only 142,772 have returned to
their villages, in fact many of them are in temporary shelters, unable to return to their homes due
to lack of infrastructure, incomplete de-mining or on the basis of security considerations and
takeover of their lands by the military. 64,093 are still in camps in Vavuniya and Jaffna and
about 92,791 with host families.
- There is grave concern regarding the capacity of the UNHCR and other aid agencies engaged in
provision of relief to these IDPs to continue their work over the next few months.
- In several places in the Vanni, the takeover of land by the Army and Navy prevents IDPs from
returning to their places of origin, for example in Mullikulam and Sannar in Mannar districts.
32
2 IDP women have been raped this month at Visvamadu by armed forces personnel where
resettlement is going on. The judicial process is taking place. It is the responsibility of GOSL to
prevent any such occurrences in future.
In terms of budgetary allocation, the government of Sri Lanka continues to give extraordinary
priority to military expenditure - the budget allocation for resettlement of IDPs is about 1% of
the defense expenditure which is estimated 210 billion rupees for 2010.”
34. General Debate on Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and

Related Forms of Intolerance
General Debate on Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Forms of

Intolerance (International Educational Development) - Press Statement
KAREN PARKER, of International Educational Development, said peoples sometimes found

themselves being brought together artificially in a single State. Sometimes their willingness for
separation had led to a soft separation, as was the case for the Slovaks and Czechs, but
sometimes in wars and bloody conflicts, as in Sri Lanka and Kyrgyzstan. While the ethnic
Uzbeks who had been amassed on the Uzbek border deserved all the support they had received,
one could not help but think of how such actions would have helped the Kurdish people.
33
Part E
Excerpts of references to Sri Lanka in reports

presented to the 14th session of the UN
Human Rights Council by Special Procedures
34
35. Report of the Special Rapporteur on the right of everyone to the
enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental
health - Anand Grover
Reference: A/HRC/14/20
Website Link:
http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/14session/A.HRC.14.20.pdf
15. Despite these recent developments in decriminalization, bringing many States into
conformity with international human rights obligations, a significant number of countries
maintain criminal penalties for consensual same-sex conduct. Some States have taken steps to
broaden the application of existing laws, or to impose harsher penalties for same-sex conduct.
Section 365A of the penal code of Sri Lanka formerly prohibited male homosexual acts, but was
subsequently amended to be “gender-neutral”, resulting in the criminalization of female same-
sex conduct.1
36. Report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of

the right to freedom of opinion and expression - Frank La Rue
Website Link:
2. Pending requests
23. As of March 2010, the following requests from the Special Rapporteur were pending: the
Islamic Republic of Iran (request made in February 2010), Sri Lanka (request made in June
2009), Tunisia (requested in 2009), and the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela (requests made in
2003 and in 2009).
37. Report of the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or

arbitrary executions - Philip Alston
Website Link: http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/14session/A.HRC.14.24.
pdf
B. Killings during armed conflict

38. In many of the countries I have visited, armed conflicts have resulted in many unlawful
killings. These include Afghanistan, the Central African Republic, Colombia, the Democratic
Republic of the Congo, Israel, Lebanon, the Philippines and Sri Lanka.
1
Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, “Sri Lanka: laws proscribing homosexual acts and whether they are
applied in practice – the treatment of homosexuals by authorities, by society at large and by the Muslim
community”, 17 January 2008.
35
39. Much of the mandate’s work on killings in armed conflict has sought to clarify the
relationship between human rights and humanitarian law, starting with the basis for the
mandate’s coverage and investigation of armed conflict killings. In 2004 (E/CN.4/2005/7, paras.
5-11 and 45) and 2007 (A/HRC/4/20, paras. 18 and 20-24) I showed that, from the very
beginning of the mandate, Special Rapporteurs have reviewed the legality of killings under
international humanitarian law, and that the mandate covers, without exception, violations of the
right to life in international and non-international armed conflicts. These analyses, as well as
reports on Afghanistan, Israel and Lebanon, and Sri Lanka, explained the coextensive protections
of, and complementary relationship between, human rights and humanitarian law.2
41. Over the course of the mandate, the responsibility of rebel or insurgent groups to observe
international humanitarian law has repeatedly been explained and emphasized, including in
country reports on Sri Lanka (E/CN.4/2006/53/Add.5, paras. 26, 30 and 33). Too often, and
especially in insurgency contexts, civilians are trapped between State and rebel forces, or
between warring rebel factions, in a struggle to avoid being threatened or killed by one or more
sides.
(c) Where non-State armed groups are parties to an armed conflict, such groups have their own
direct legal responsibilities for any killings they commit in violation of international
humanitarian law. Where a group exercises significant territorial and population control, and has
an identifiable political structure, it may also be important for the Special Rapporteur to address
complaints directly to the group and to call for it to respect human rights and humanitarian law
norms.3 This has been the approach in reports on Afghanistan, Colombia, the Democratic
Republic of the Congo and Sri Lanka.
H. Reparations of killings
56. Whenever a State is responsible for an unlawful killing, international law requires reparations
in the form of compensation and/or satisfaction. This obligation is based in general customary
international law, as well as duties arising from human rights and humanitarian law.4 The State is
also required to ensure that victims have access to remedies, including judicial remedies, for
violations of their rights.
57. As a general matter, a great deal more can and must be done by States to meet their
reparations obligations. Governments in many countries visited by the mandate, such as Kenya
and Sri Lanka, have not met their obligations, either because they have not created reparations
programmes, or because programmes are difficult for victims’ families to access, or because tort
remedies have undue jurisdictional impediments. Reparations should also be adequately
provided for under post-conflict transitional justice mechanisms. This is often not the case (see
A/HRC/14/24/Add.2).
2
E/CN.4/2005/7, paras. 48-53; A/HRC/4/20, para. 19; A/HRC/2/7, paras. 15-16; E/CN.4/2006/53/Add.5, paras. 24-
33; and A/HRC/11/2/Add.4.
3
See A/62/265, paras. 37-44.
4
A/HRC/11/2/Add.4, para. 35, footnote 35.
36
Allegation or urgent action letters were sent December 2004 – March 2009 to Sri Lanka.
Of the countries which received letters, 30% received only one letter during the period under
review. Over 70% received five or less letters. Sri Lanka (24).
• Of the 15 countries that received the most communications, those that performed relatively well
in responding (where their “no response” rate was less than 30 percent) included Sri Lanka,
China, Yemen, the Philippines, and Colombia.
• Of the 15 countries that received the most communications, those with more than 30% of their
responses categorized as “largely satisfactory” were: Colombia, Sri Lanka, China, the
Philippines, and Brazil.
38. Report of the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and

lawyers -Gabriela Carina Knaul de Albuquerque de Silva
Website Link: http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/14session/A.HRC.14.26
en.pdf
9. The Special Rapporteur recalls that the following country visit requests are pending - Sri
Lanka (1999);
39. Report submitted by the Special Rapporteur on trafficking in persons

especially women and children - Joy Ngozi Ezeilo
Website Link:
25. SAARC, established in 1985 by Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan and
Sri Lanka, adopted a Regional Convention on Combating the Crime of Trafficking in Women
and Children for Prostitution in January 2002. The Convention calls for cooperation amongst
member States in dealing with various aspects of prevention, prohibition and suppression of
trafficking in women and children for prostitution, and repatriation and rehabilitation of victims.
40. Report of the Secretary-General on cooperation with the United

Nations, its representatives and mechanisms in the field of human rights
Website Link:
http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/14session/A.HRC.14.19_en.pdf
37
Advance Edited Version
11. Sri Lanka

40. In a letter dated 17 March 2010, the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of
the right to freedom of opinion and expression and the Special Rapporteur on the situation of
human rights defenders sent an urgent appeal to the Government of Sri Lanka, in connection
with the apparent existence of a worrying and increasing trend aimed at delegitimizing the
activities of human rights organizations, individual human rights defenders and journalists
working in Sri Lanka. Such attacks and threats have tangibly intensified following the eleventh
special session of the Human Rights Council: “The human rights situation in Sri Lanka”, held on
26 and 27 May 2009. It is reported that the Human Rights Minister commented in The Hindu
newspaper (1 April 2009) that “the people who go and sit in cafeterias in the UN and lobby
people in a very subjective manner putting forward those kind of sentiments (against Sri Lanka)
would be inviting a very stern response from the Government of Sri Lanka”.
41. In their letter, the Special Rapporteurs expressed their concern that the media campaigns,
threats and harassment of and intimidation against a number of human rights defenders and
journalists, in particular Sunanda Deshapriya, may be related to their legitimate activities in
defence of human rights, in particular to their international advocacy and outreach efforts. Mr.
Deshapriya, a prominent journalist and human rights defender, has been living in exile in
Switzerland since May 2009, due to the threats received and the ongoing denigration campaign
in the media following his participation and intervention at the tenth session of the Human
Rights Council in March 2009 and the eleventh special session on Sri Lanka in May 2009. He
has been accused of being a “traitor” and a “liar” due to his participation in the special session.
Videos containing death threats against him have been posted on a social networking site; he has
received numerous threatening text messages and has been vilified in television and radio shows
and in a number of editorials.
42. Mr. Deshapriya, along with 30 other human rights defenders and journalists, appeared on a
list published on the Sri Lankan news website Lanka News Web on 3 March 2010, allegedly
compiled by the State Intelligence Service of Sri Lanka. The list contains the names of
individuals who have been engaged in “international outreach” on issues related to human rights
and grades them according to their perceived importance to the intelligence services. Several
human rights defenders and journalists are referred to variously as providing several local and
international outlets with information on human rights issues and internally displaced persons, as
international platform speakers on media/human rights, and as persons who speak on human
rights and media freedom and who are involved in advocacy overseas. While the purpose of the
list remains unclear, it gives rise to a serious concern about the physical and psychological
integrity of the individuals contained therein.
43. The Special Rapporteurs expressed further serious concern that some of the threats may be
related to the fact that the people referred to above had cooperated with the Human Rights
Council and special procedure mandate holders. Given the extent of the allegations, there was an
overarching concern that the threats, attacks and negative media campaign may form part of a
broader attempt to delegitimize the activities of human rights defenders who are critical of
actions and policies of the Government. At the thirteenth session of the Human Rights Council,
during the interactive dialogue with the High Commissioner for Human Rights, the delegation of
Sri Lanka expressed its firm resolve not to countenance or tolerate acts of violence or
38
intimidation against journalists and human rights defenders. This necessarily involved taking
adequate measures to investigate and punish perpetrators of any violence against those persons.
Sri Lanka also observed that the very amorphous nomenclature of “human rights defenders” was
used very loosely to encompass just about every form of activity however distantly associated
with the sphere of human rights promotion and protection. The delegation explained that the
Government of Sri Lanka had to discourage persons representing themselves as such and making
assertions for collateral purposes of political gain and causing embarrassment to the Government
in pursuit of extraneous agendas in the name of human rights.
41. Report of the High Commissioner for Human Rights on the question of
the realization in all countries of economic, social and cultural rights
Website Link:
D. Committee on Migrant Workers

15. The Committee on Migrant Workers continued to address the enjoyment of economic, social
and cultural rights of all migrant workers and members of their families. During 2009, the
Committee held two sessions and considered the initial reports submitted by Azerbaijan, Bosnia
and Herzegovina, Colombia, the Philippines and Sri Lanka.
42. Report of the Secretary-General on Human Rights in the

Administration of Justice, including Juvenile Justice
Website Link:
34. In 2009, UNICEF further strengthened its focus on upstream policy advocacy and legal
reform work, supporting new or amended pieces of legislation in Kenya, Central African
Republic, Indonesia, Kyrgyzstan, Djibouti and Sri Lanka.
43. Report of the Office of the High Commissioner on the outcome of the
Expert Workshop on the Right of Peoples to Peace
Website Link:
39
2. The expert consultation was announced on the website of the Office of the High
Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR). On 3 December 2009, notes verbales were sent to
all permanent missions in Geneva. The expert workshop was held in Geneva on 15 and 16
December 2009. Representatives from 21 Member States of the United Nations: Argentina,
Armenia, Bahrain, Belgium, Bolivia (Plurinational State of), Brazil, Cuba, Egypt, Finland,
Greece, Jordan, Philippines, Russian Federation, Senegal, Singapore, Slovenia, South Africa, Sri
Lanka, Sweden, Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of) and Viet Nam, as well as a representative
from the Holy See and representatives from civil society organizations, attended the workshop.
44. Report of the Office of the High Commissioner on the outcome of the
Expert Consultation on the issue of protecting the Human Rights of
Civilians in Armed Conflict
pdf
5. The expert consultation was held in Geneva on 31 March 2010. Representatives from 24
Member States of the United Nations: Argentina, Armenia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bosnia
and Herzegovina, Brazil, Canada, Egypt, Ethiopia, France, Germany, Greece, Pakistan, the
Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Sri Lanka, Sweden, Switzerland, the Netherlands, Turkey, the
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the United States of America and
Uruguay, as well as representatives the European Union and the European Council and
representatives from civil society organizations, attended the expert consultation.
40
Part F
Individual Complaints, Opinions & Other

References by UN Special Procedures in
reference to Sri Lanka in reports presented to
the 14th session of the UN Human Rights
Council

41
45. Report of the Special Rapporteur on the right of everyone to the
enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental
health - Addendum 1: Summary of communications sent and replies
received from Governments and other actors
Reference: A/HRC/14/20/Add.1
Add.1EFS.pdf
Addendum 1: Summary of communications sent and replies received from governments

and other actors
Sri Lanka
Communication sent
255. On 16 April 2009, the Special Rapporteur on the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the
highest attainable standard of physical and mental health sent an urgent appeal to the
Government of Sri Lanka to call attention to information received concerning the health situation
of persons treated within the Vanni region, as well as of internally displaced persons (IDPs)
treated in hospitals and other health facilities in areas outside the Vanni.
256. Reportedly, with regard to the availability of adequate supplies of essential medicines,
thousands of persons in the “no-fire zone” allegedly would be at risk because of a critical lack of
access to medicines. Health services then would be concentrated at makeshift medical points
inside the “no-fire zone.”
257. According to the information received, approximately 5,000 individuals were reporting
daily to each medical point. However, due to the limited medical supplies, treatment was limited
to first aid and triage. There were increasing reports of minor injuries resulting in amputations
due to an inability to treat them. Five shipments of medical supplies were made between 19
February and 21 March 2009, but allegedly none of the shipments received was sufficient to
meet the needs of the affected population.
258. Furthermore, it was alleged that in February 2009 the Ministry of Health in Colombo
ordered eight doctors and 1,000 medical and health workers to leave the Vanni region. Defence
Ministry officials allegedly threatened medical workers with dire consequences for “helping
supporters of terrorists.” It also was reported that the Ministry of Defence held back urgently
needed medical supplies in Vavuniya from being dispatched and that hundreds of deaths could
have been prevented if basic facilities and medicines were made available.
259. With regard to a new health facility in Pulmuddai, it was alleged that the makeshift health
facility established in Pulmuddai with the assistance of the Indian authorities could only provide
immediate care, and was not suited to provide emergency health care to the large number of
patients coming from the Vanni region. Allegedly, there were only three doctors, six nurses and
30 attendants at this health facility, which had received 493 patients as of 23 March 2009.
According to information received, patients were transported by boat to the beach in Pulmuddai,
where the Sri Lanka Navy (SLN) would check them before being provided medical attention in
the health facility. After receiving medical assistance, patients allegedly were registered by the
42
Sri Lanka Army (SLA) and subsequently transferred to hospitals in Vanuniya, Padaviya,
Mannar, Colombo and Anuradhapura, or welfare camps in Vanuniya.
260. Allegedly, out of the 493 patients brought to Pulmuddai as of 23 March, only 100 were
treated in this facility, whereas a large number of patients requiring immediate surgery and other
complicated health conditions were transferred to the Padaviya hospital (125 patients) and the
Vanuniya IDP camps. It was alleged that patients with serious injuries and those who underwent
surgical operations faced serious health risks in the IDP camps in Vanuniya due to the outbreaks
of chicken pox and scabies that have been reported to occur there. It was alleged further that the
Trincomalee hospital, which was better equipped to treat patients from the Vanni region,
especially those requiring immediate surgery, no longer would be used since the establishment of
the new health facility at Pulmuddai. The decision to transfer patients to the hospital in Padaviya
rather than to the one in
Trincomalee alleged was based on political, rather than medical, reasons.
261. It also was alleged that due to security restrictions, only persons and organizations
authorized by the Ministry of Defence would have access to the Pulmuddai health facility, and
that ICRC, UNHCR, UNICEF and other organizations providing assistance to IDPs so far have
not been granted access to this facility. Furthermore, patient lists – which are necessary, amongst
other things, to identify ailments and provide special care – allegedly were not made available to
service providers.
Observation
262. The Special Rapporteur regrets that at the time of the finalization of the report, the
Government has not transmitted any reply to his communication.
Communication sent
263. On 29 April 2009, the Special Rapporteur on the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the
highest attainable standard of physical and mental health together with the Independent Expert
on the issue of human rights obligations related to access to safe drinking water and sanitation,
and the Special Rapporteur on the right to food sent a joint urgent appeal to the Government of
Sri Lanka. The Special Procedures brought to the attention of the Government information that
they had continued to receive concerning the persisting serious humanitarian situation, including
access to food, water and health care of internally displaced persons (IDPs) in the Vanni region.
264. According to the information received, IDPs in Vanuniya had been unable to have regular
access to sufficient and adequate food as the food distribution system had been subject to delays
and unclear procedures. It had been reported that IDPs may receive food ration cards but only
after having registered. The registration process reportedly had been very long. In some places it
appeared that there were no registration mechanisms in place yet.
265. Reportedly, there had been instances of people fighting over access to food which, in one
case, had resulted in the death of a 7 year old. It also had been reported that paramilitary and
other groups had been providing for unorganized and ad-hoc distributions of small amounts of
food, which, since they could not satisfy needs, had contributed to fuelling a tense and frustrating
situation within IDP camps and sites. Reports indicated that at some of the sites, including the
screening site of Omanthai, IDPs had not received any food for three consecutive days. It
appeared that due to the critical situation in the food sector, the Government had committed to
43
providing cooked food for the first three days of new arrivals at the camps. At the time of the
communication it remained to be seen whether the Government had the capacity to implement
this measure.
266. It also was reported that the health situation in the Vanni region had further deteriorated.
Due to malnutrition and dehydration, the population was becoming weaker and more vulnerable
to infectious diseases. Chicken pox and watery diarrhoea epidemics already had been reported as
well as a case of typhoid fever. Treatments for diabetes, hypertension, cancer, different
psychiatric conditions and other chronic diseases were still unavailable.
267. It also has been alleged that even though some transit sites received daily ambulance visits,
the majority was without a full-time doctor and some reported no doctors’ visit for a few days. It
also was reported that there was no data concerning the number of deaths, but it appeared that the
majority was that of infants under two years old and the elderly. In addition, referrals to hospitals
remained problematic since the Ministry of Health had not developed a contingency plan.
Consequently, the likelihood of preventable deaths during new arrival influxes was very high.
The situation in hospitals receiving IDPs was reported to be increasingly difficult, as they were
extremely under-staffed and severely overcrowded. In Vanuniya there was an estimated 1,500 to
1,800 patients with a bed capacity of 600. A similar situation was reported in Chettikulum
hospital that currently was treating more than 520 patients with a bed capacity of 140. IDPs who
had received lifesaving surgery reportedly were dying due to a lack of post-operative care
capacity.
268. It was alleged that there was an urgent need for professional mental health support, as
significant numbers of IDPs reportedly were suffering from mental trauma as a result of their
experience during the conflict. In addition, it was alleged that since 1 April hardly any shipment
of food, medical supplies or non-food relief items had been delivered to the no fire zone. It
further was alleged that for the previous six months, shipment of essential medicine and medical
supplies for the people in the no-fire zone had been met with consistent delays in clearance from
the Ministry of Defence, which consequently was hindering access to life-saving supplies.
Chronic water shortages and limited access to scant water supplies had been reported at
Omanthai as well as in most of the transit sites. It also was alleged that the quality of drinking
water was not satisfactory and that the Ministry of Defence had not been clearing consistently
the supply of chlorine tablets to treat water supplies in the no-fire zone.
269. In the transit sites and IDP camps, reports emerged of insufficient toilet facilities and an
inadequate drainage system to manage the situation, particularly with heavy rains. It also was
reported that sanitation facilities and water supplies were located far away from the blocks at
Menik Farm zone 3, creating access problems particularly for the elderly and the disabled, and
security concerns for women and children. Furthermore, the lack of adequate access to sanitation
reportedly was leading to increased open defecation, which could cause serious health problems
for the entire IDP population.
Response received
270. By letter dated 11 May 2009, the Government of Sri Lanka sent a reply regarding the
communication sent on 29 April 2009. In addition to addressing concerns regarding the
availability of food and adequate nutrition, the Government denied allegations that people in the
IDP camps would suffer from epidemics. It admitted, however, that the health situation is
44
problematic due to a large number of people living in the camps. Additionally the Government
included some statistics indicating the amount of supplies provided for the people from the
LTTE-controlled zones. Finally the Government informed the Special Rapporteur that it
requested more detailed information to a number of Ministries in Sri Lanka.
Communication sent
271. On 26 May 2009, the Special Rapporteur on the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the
highest attainable standard of physical and mental health, together with the Chairperson of the
Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, the Chairperson of the Working Group on Enforced or
Involuntary Disappearances, Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to
freedom of opinion and expression, and Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman
or degrading treatment or punishment sent an urgent appeal to the Government of Sri Lanka. It
concerned information received regarding Dr. Thangamutha Sathiyamoorthy, the regional
director of health services in Kilinochchi, Dr. Thurairaja Varatharajah, the regional director of
health services in Mullaitivu, and Dr. V. Shanmugarajah, medical superintendent at
Mullivaaykkaal field hospital.
272. According to the information received, Dr. Sathiyamoorthy, Dr. Varatharajah and Dr.
Shanmugarajah are government employed and had been treating the sick and wounded in the
conflict zone in northeastern Sri Lanka until they left the “no-fire zone” with approximately
5,000 other civilians on 15 May 2009. The Sri Lankan Army detained the three doctors on 16
May 2009, under the broad arrest and detention powers of security forces pursuant to the
Prevention of Terrorism Act. The physicians were last seen on the morning of 15 May 2009 at a
holding area at Omanthai check point. An official of the Ministry of Health stated on 18 May
that Government forces handed over the physicians to the police.
273. Dr. Shanmugarajah and Dr. Sathiyamoorthy apparently are being held at a detention centre
of the Terrorist Investigation Division in Colombo. However, their relatives are not aware of
their exact whereabouts and neither has had access to a lawyer. Dr. Varatharajah was seriously
injured and is reported to have been airlifted by the Sri Lankan Air Forces from the Omanthai
checkpoint to an unknown destination.
274. Reportedly, while working in the conflict zone, the doctors provided detailed eyewitness
reports to the media and the international community from hospitals and makeshift medical
centres. Their reports detailed the suffering of ordinary civilians, many of whom died from war-
related injuries. Their reports also highlighted continuous shelling of areas with large
concentrations of non-combatants.
Response received
275. By letter dated 28 May 2009, the Government of Sri Lanka responded to the
abovementioned urgent appeal sent on 26 May 2009. It indicated that Dr. Varatharajah was
injured and is now undergoing treatment, and will be well looked after by his colleagues from
the Ministry of Health. The Government cannot publicly reveal where he is since his life may
still be under threat from LTTE elements. However, the Government would be happy to discuss
the issue with the Special Rapporteurs in Geneva.
45
276. With regard to the other two doctors, they are in custody and the circumstances in which
they made certain statements, under duress, over the last couple of months are being
investigated.
277. By letter dated 15 July 2009, the Government indicated that Dr. Thangamutha
Sathiyamoorthy, Dr. V. Shanmugarajah and Dr. Thurairaja Varatharajah surrendered to the
Army when they arrived at Omanthai checkpoint on 15 May 2009. Dr. Varatharajah, who was
injured at the time of surrender, was admitted to the General Hospital on Colombo. He was
released on 6 June 2009.
278. The three doctors were detained under section 19(1) of the Emergency Regulation on
charges of their alleged links with the LTTE organization, disseminating false information to the
international media, and supplying medicine and medical equipment to the LTTE from
Government hospitals. They are now being held in protective custody by the Criminal
Investigation Department in Colombo, pending the completion of the investigations. They have
been visited by the ICRC and their families on several occasions, and were given healthcare
services.
279. At a media briefing on 8 July, all three doctors stated that they were forced by the LTTE to
speak to foreign media and provide exaggerated information on civilian casualties. They also
said that they were not under duress to attend the media briefing organized by the Media Centre
for National Security.
280. By letter dated 3 August 2009, the Government indicated that investigations so far have
revealed that Dr. Shanmugarajah moved to Mullaitivu and joined the LTTE in 1995. He worked
as a doctor at Puthuikuvuruppu Hospital run by the LTTE. During the peace accord in 2002, he
completed his medical degree and served as a Government doctor in an LTTE controlled until
2009.
281. While he was serving at a makeshift hospital in Mullaivaikkal in May, a member of the
LTTE Medical Wing informed him that the BBC in London would contact him, and that he
should say that shelling by the Government troops continued and that scores of civilians and
patients were dying as a result, which he did.
282. Dr. Sathiyamoorthy was appointed to the Kilinochchi Base Hospital in 2000 and was
promoted as the acting Medical Superintendent.
283. Between February and March 2009, when he was at Puthkuduiruppu makeshift hospital, a
member of the LTTE Medical Wing informed him that the BBC in London would contact him,
and that he should say that there was a severe shortage of drugs and those scores of civilians and
patients were dying as a result, which he did.
284. Dr. Varatharajah was appointed Director of Health Services in Mullaitivu District in
December 2008. In early 2009, he was given a check for 5 million Rs. by the leader of the LTTE
Transport Wing, to purchase a jeep used by a Tamil National Alliance Member of Parliament.
On instructions of the LTTE member, he bought the jeep and used it for his official and private
work. At the request of the LTTE Medical Wing, medical equipment and drugs were given to the
LTTE from the Government Hospitals in Mullaitivu District. These were then taken to LTTE
46
makeshift hospitals to treat the injured LTTE cadres. BBC correspondents contacted him on
several occasions, and he gave them exaggerated casualty figures. He also reported shelling by
the Government troops to several other news agencies.
On 14 May he sustained injuries due to LTTE shelling.
285. All three doctors had access to healthcare facilities at the expense of the state, and were
visited on several occasions by the ICRC and their families. In addition, physical exercises,
reading and writing material and draft boards are available. No complaint has been lodged by or
on behalf of these doctors.
Communication sent
286. On 27 August 2009, the Special Rapporteur on the right of everyone to the enjoyment of
the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health, together with the Special
Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Special
Rapporteur on human rights defenders and the Chairperson of the Working Group on Arbitrary
Detention sent a joint urgent appeal to the Government of Sri Lanka. It was brought to the
attention of the Government information concerning Mr. Charles Raveendran Navaratnam, aged
45, employed by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and Mr. Kanthasamy
Sounthararajan, aged 31, employed by the United Nations Office for Project Services.
287. Reportedly, on 11 June 2009 Mr. Navaratnam was questioned at his home by a person
addressed as the “OIC” and several other persons in civilian clothes. He was informed that he
had to be taken away for an inquiry, and was taken to a dark blue Pajero Jeep (Registration No.
61-7068), where he was immediately handcuffed. He was then blindfolded and asked to indicate
where the “goods” were. He denied any knowledge about this, following which he was beaten
and stricken with an iron rod on his head. He was threatened with being killed if he did not
reveal “the truth.” He was then taken to Vepankulam, where he was beaten in the stomach, neck
and face, including the mouth, ears and jaw, as well as on his legs with a wooden baton. He was
taken to a house where other persons were being held. He spent the night handcuffed and with
his legs chained.
288. On 12 June 2009, he was again interrogated about the “goods” and asked whether he knew
certain individuals. He denied any knowledge and was beaten again. He was also taken to the
Menik Farm and Technical College Internally Displaced Persons Camp, where he was ordered to
identify LTTE suspects, which he failed to do. He spent the night at the Vanuniya Police Station,
where he was forced to sleep with his legs chained.
289. On 13 June 2009, at about 8:30 a.m., he was taken away in the same jeep and stopped at the
Petrol Station close to Vanuniya Kachcheri. There, the persons in the jeep got out and forcibly
took Mr. Kanthasamy Sounthararajan, indicating that he was being taken for questioning and
would be released after an inquiry. He was questioned about some suspected persons and was
beaten when he denied any information. Both men were then taken to Temple Road where
international nongovernmental organizations and United Nations Agencies have their offices.
They were both directed to tell whether staff in these organizations had any connections with
terrorists. They denied any knowledge and were threatened with death. In the afternoon, they
were taken in the direction of Vanuniya Mannar Road and stopped at a cemetery in
Bharathipuram. Mr. Sounthararajan was taken out, beaten and threatened with a pistol. However,
when bystanders arrived on the nearby road he was forced back into the jeep. Later that day, both
47
men were taken to Colombo and were held in a building behind Borella Police Station. There
they were subjected to prolonged interrogations by several police officers and beatings and were
later transferred back to Borella Police Station.
290. On 25 June 2009, they were examined by officers of the International Committee of the Red
Cross. Later, they were permitted visits by relatives, staff of their employing agency and their
lawyers. The next day, they were forced to sign a statement in Sinhalese, a language that they did
not understand. They are still being held at the Borella Police Station, and it is believed that they
were arrested for “actively engaging in LTTE activities”. A fundamental rights application was
filed in the Supreme Court for both men. The Supreme Court gave them leave to proceed and
instructed the Judicial Medical Officer (JMO) to examine the detainees and submit a report to the
court. They were examined by the JMO on 26 June. On 23 July, the police took them back to the
JMO and requested him to write a new report based on documentation provided by the police.
However, the JMO refused. As a result of the beatings, both men suffer from back pain, partial
loss of hearing and severe headaches.
Observation
291. The Special Rapporteur regrets that at the time of the finalization of this report, the
Communication sent
292. On 5 August 2009, the Special Rapporteur on the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the
highest attainable standard of physical and mental health sent an urgent appeal to the
Government of Sri Lanka to call attention to information received concerning the detention of
300,000 internally displaced persons interned in forty camps in and around Vanuniya and other
areas allegedly against their will without freedom to enter or leave the camps.
293. According to the information received, 300,000 persons are being detained in the camps
against their will and that the nature and scale of their injuries and their deteriorating health is
developing into a large-scale humanitarian crisis. The current provision of health services
allegedly are be inadequate in meeting the IDPs’ needs in terms of coverage, comprehensiveness
and quality.
294. It was alleged that there are more than five deaths a day in the welfare centres within the
camps due to starvation and malnutrition. On one day alone there were 14 death of older persons
registered. Allegedly, there were over 8,500 chicken pox cases in Vanuniya and large numbers of
injured, including those who have recently undergone amputation surgeries, who would be
reportedly not receiving care. The incidence of hepatitis A, typhoid and respiratory tract
infections reportedly have been on the rise, which indicates overcrowded and poor sanitary
conditions in part of the camps. Considerable gaps in the provision of health services allegedly
exist, despite the existing government efforts services have not been continuously available, no
psychosocial care services have been provided, and services to provide basic sterile services, as
well as surgical and reconstructive services for those injured in conflict, have been absent. In
addition, reportedly restrictions on movement imposed within the camps have hindered access to
medical assistance and access to the camps, and approval to provide the full range of necessary
health services have been restricted for NGOs and international agencies.
48
295. Furthermore, the absences of adequate water supply and of a health and hygiene promotion
programme allegedly have exacerbated the current situation, similar to the alleged lack of
protection provided from sexual and other forms of violence.
Observation
296. The Special Rapporteur regrets that at the time of the finalization of the report, the
46. Report of the Special Rapporteur on Independence of Judges and

Lawyers - Addendum 1: Communications to and from Governments
Website: http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/14session/A.HRC.14.26_en.pdf
Addendum: Communications to and from Governments
Country Communication Subject of Nature of Status of reply

sent Communication violation alleged
Sri Lanka JUA (2), JAL (1) Individuals (5) Access to lawyer Reply received
(3) (1) No
response (2)
Sri Lanka
Communication sent
987. On 7 April 2009, the Special Rappporteur sent an allegation letter jointly with the Special
Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment concerning
Mr. Sunil Shantha.
According to the information received:

988. At 2:30 p.m. on 1 March 2009, three police officers went to Mr. Sunil Shantha’s home.
When he identified himself, one of the police officers grabbed him by his stomach, while the
other two officers grabbed him and forced his hands to the back. He was then assaulted on the
face, back and stomach, and dragged along the road to a police jeep, where they made him sit on
the floor with his legs shackled.
989. Once they arrived at the Meegahatenna Police Station, the police officers assaulted Mr.
Shantha with a pole because he was unable to get out of the jeep. Once inside, Mr. Shantha’s
hands were tied with a rope, and a pole was put through his arms and legs, and lodged between
two tables. This method of hanging is locally known as the Dharma Chakra, or wheel of
enlightenment. Mr. Shantha was continuously asked to return stolen goods, allegations which he
denied.
990. For the next two days, Mr. Shantha was left in the same room with his left leg shackled to
one of the table legs, and his right hand to another. During this time, he was given neither food
49
nor water, nor was he allowed to go to the bathroom. He also gave a statement to the Sub-
Inspector and signed a piece of paper without knowing what was written on it.
991. On 3 March, he was taken to the Meegahatenna Hospital, where he was examined. The
doctor who saw him recommended that he be admitted, but he was taken back to the
Meegahatena Police Station. At about 5:30 p.m., he was presented before the Mathugama
Magistrate, and threatened by the Sub-Inspector if he mentioned the assault. The Magistrate
informed Mr. Shantha that there were two charges of theft and one of assault against him.
992. Mr. Shantha’s lawyer informed the Magistrate that he had been assaulted by the police, and
he referred him to the Prison Hospital in Kalutara, where he received medical treatment until 11
March. When Mr. Shantha appeared again in court, his legal representative did not appear. She
later informed Mr. Shantha’s family that she had been threatened by the police. On 13 March,
Mr. Shantha was sent home.
993. On 16 March, a complaint was sent to the chairperson of the National Human Rights
Commission, the National Police Commission, the Inspector General of Police, the Attorney
General and the Senior Superintendent of the Kalutara Police.
Communication received
994. At the time this report was finalized, no response to this communication has been received.
Communication sent
995. On 26 May 2009, the Special Rapporteur sent an urgent appeal jointly with the
Chairperson-Rapporteur of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, Chairman-Rapporteur of
the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances, Special Rapporteur on the
promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, Special Rapporteur
on the situation of human rights defenders, Special Rapporteur on the right of everyone to the
enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health, and Special
Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment regarding
Dr. Thangamutha Sathiyamoorthy, the regional director of health services in Kilinochchi, Dr.
Thurairaja Varatharajah, the regional director of health services in Mullaitivu, and Dr. V.
Shanmugarajah, medical superintendent at Mullivaaykkaal field hospital.

996. Dr. Sathiyamoorthy, Dr. Varatharajah and Dr. Shanmugarajah are Government employed
and had been treating the sick and wounded in the conflict zone in North-eastern Sri Lanka until
they left the “No Fire Zone” with approximately 5,000 other civilians on 15 May 2009. The Sri
Lankan Army (SLA) detained the three doctors on 16 May 2009, under the broad arrest and
detention powers of security forces pursuant to the Prevention of Terrorism Act. The physicians
were last seen on the morning of 15 May 2009 at a holding area at Omanthai check point. An
official of the Ministry of Health stated on 18 May Government forces handed over the
physicians to the police.
997. Dr. Shanmugarajah and Dr. Sathiyamoorthy are apparently currently held at a detention
centre of the Terrorist Investigation Division (T.I.D) in Colombo. However, their relatives are
not aware of their exact whereabouts and neither has had access to a lawyer. Dr. Varatharajah
50
was seriously injured and is reported to have been airlifted by the Sri Lankan Air Forces (SLAF)
from the Omanthai check point to an unknown destination.
998. While working in the conflict zone, the doctors provided detailed eyewitness reports to the
media and the international community from hospitals and makeshift medical centres. Their
reports detailed the suffering of ordinary civilians, many of whom died from war-related injuries.
Their reports also highlighted continuous shelling of areas with large concentrations of non-
combatants.
999. Concerns are expressed that the three doctors may be held in reprisal for providing
information about the situation of civilians in the conflict zone. In view of their reported
incommunicado detention at unknown places of detention, which could put them at risk of
enforced disappearance, and in view of the reported serious injuries of Dr. Varatharajah, grave
concerns are expressed as regards their physical and mental integrity.
1000. Without expressing at this stage an opinion on the facts of the case and on whether the
detention of the abovementioned persons is arbitrary or not, we would like to appeal to your
Excellency’s Government to take all necessary measures to guarantee their right not to be
deprived arbitrarily of their liberty and to fair proceedings before an independent and impartial
tribunal, in accordance with articles 9 and 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and
articles 9 and 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
Communication received
1001. In letters dated 28 May 2009, 15 July 2009 and 3 August 2009, the Government
responded to the communication sent on 26 May 2009, which are summarized as follows:
1002. Dr.Thangamuththu Sathiyamoorthy, Dr. Veerakethipillai Shanmugarajah and Dr.

ThurairajahVaratharajah surrendered to the Army when they have arrived at Omanthai check
point on 15 May 2009. Dr. Thurairajah Varatharajah who was injured at the time of surrender
was admitted to the General Hospital Colombo on the same day. Later he was discharged (6 June
2009). All the doctors were detained under section 19 (1) of the Emergency Regulation on
charges of their alleged links with the proscribed LTTE organization, disseminating false
information to the international media and supplying medicine including medical equipment to
the LTTE from Government hospitals. All the doctors are presently in the protective custody of
the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) headquarter Colombo, pending completion of
investigation.
1003. Dr. Thurairajah Varatharajah had been visited by ICRC representatives on 28 May 2009
and on 6 June 2009. The spouse and sister of Dr. Thurairajah Varatharajah visited him on 30
May 2009, 13 June 2009, 20 June 2009, 27 June 2009 and 4 July 2009. Dr. Thurairajah
Varatharajah was taken to ward No. 32 of the General Hospital Colombo on 24 June 2009 for a
medical check-up and brought back to the CID on 26 June 2009.
1004. Dr. Thangamuththu Sathiyamoorthy had been visited by ICRC representatives on 21 May
2009 and on 6 June 2009. The father, mother and brother of Dr. Sathiyamoorthy visited him on
23 May 2009, 30 May 2009, 6 June 2009, 30 June 2009 and 4 July 2009. His spouse and
children visited him on 20 June 2009.
51
1005. Dr. Veerakethipillai Shanmugarajah had been visited by ICRC representatives on 21 May
2009 and 6 June 2009. Family members visited him on 4 July 2009 at the CID.
1006. All three doctors were given healthcare facilities. At a media briefing held on 8 July 2009
at the Media Center for National Security all three doctors have stated that they were forced by
the LTTE to speak to foreign media and provided exaggerated information on civilian casualties.
1007. They have also said that they were not under duress to attend the media briefing arranged
by the MCNS.
Comments and observations of the Special Rapporteur:

1008. The Special Rapporteur thanks the Government of Sri Lanka for its response elaborating
on the circumstance surrounding the arrest and detention of Dr. Thangamutha Sathiyamoorthy,
Dr. Thurairaja Varatharajah, and Dr. V. Shanmugarajah. The Special Rapporteur however regrets
that the government did not provide information whether the doctors had access to counsel
during their detention and if they were guaranteed fair proceedings before an independent and
impartial tribunal. The Special Rapporteur would also like to receive information on the current
status of the judicial proceedings concerning them.
Communication sent
1009. On 31 December 2009, the Special Rapportuer sent an allegation letter jointly with the
Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
concerning Mr. Wanni Athapaththu Mudiyanselage Nilantha Saman Kumara, aged 31.

1010. On 26 October 2009, Mr. Kumara joined several villagers outside a shop by the
Nahettigkulama jam tree in Galgamuwa to search the jungle for some goods which had been
stolen. A few hours later, he was stopped by the police and asked to accompany them to the
Galgamuwa Police Station. Upon arrival at the station, he was detained without a warrant or
formal charges against him.
1011. Two hours later, he was taken to a room in what appeared to be the private wing of the
police residential barracks behind the Crimes Division. Mr. Kumara was interrogated by
Inspector Ataputtu, Police Constable Wijeratne and other officers, all dressed in civilian clothes.
The police indicated that he had been detained on suspicion of theft at the shop and of a water
pump, charges which Mr. Kumara denied.
1012. Subsequently, Mr. Kumara was subjected to the “Palestinian hanging”, whereby his shirt
was removed, his lower arms were wrapped in cloth, his hands were forced behind his back and
tied with a rope which was attached to a nylon rope that hung from a bean in the ceiling. The
other end of the nylon rope was secured to a steel bed. Mr. Kumara was then told to stand on a
box; the rope was pulled tight and the box was then kicked from under his feet, leaving him
hanging. Inspector Ataputtu gave orders to the other officers to leave Mr. Kumara hanging until
he confessed to the crimes. He was taken down approximately two hours later, but the procedure
was repeated that evening. The second time, he was released after approximately 30 minutes, but
was then beaten and kicked for three hours. Although by this time the police had allegedly
received information indicating that Mr. Kumara had not been involved in the theft at the shop,
he was still accused of stealing a water pump.
52
1013. The following day, Mr. Kumara was once again hung for approximately two hours.
Although he needed medical attention, none was provided. That evening, Inspector Atapattu told
Mr. Kumara that he could be released the following day if he confessed; otherwise, he would be
presented before the court. When Mr. Kumara denied his involvement, he was grabbed by the
hair and dragged to the same room where he was beaten and stripped, and his hands were tied.
He was then subjected to the “Dharma Chakra” or wheel of enlightenment, by which he was
forced to squat and wrap his hands over his knees, while a metal pipe was inserted through the
space between his knees and elbows, and was balanced on two tables. While in this position, a
bottle of petrol was poured in his anus. Water was also poured on him to relax the muscles.
1014. On 28 October, Mr. Kumara’s cellmate was ordered to bathe and dress him, since he could
not move his arms. They were both taken to the Criminal Division, but a statement was only
taken from Mr. Kumara’s cellmate. They were then taken to the Out-Patient Department of
Galgamuwa Hospital, where a physician, Dr. Roja, completed a Medico-Legal Examination
Form without examining Mr. Kumara.
1015. Afterwards, Mr. Kumara and his cellmate were taken to the Magistrate’s Court in
Galgamuwa. They were not allowed to inform their families or contact a lawyer. Mr. Kumara
was not questioned or addressed by the magistrate, but was remanded. He was then transferred to
Wariyapola Prison, where he informed the guards about his torture and signed a statement
indicating his experience.
1016. The following day, Mr. Kumara was taken to Wariyapola Hospital. The accompanying
officer informed the doctor of the torture, but the doctor reportedly accused Mr. Kumara of lying
and refused to examine him.
1017. On 6 November, Mr. Kumara was presented before the Galgamuwa Magistrate’s Court.
He was released on bail. Three days after, Mr. Kumara went to the Galgamuwa Hospital, but Dr.
Roja once again refused to examine him and indicated that he should go to the Anuradhapura
Teaching Hospital. Mr. Kumara went there the following day, where he received adequate
treatment and was examined by a Judicial Medical Officer.
1018. On 17 November, one of the alleged perpetrators visited Mr. Kumara at his home to
inquire into the possible action he was intending to take. On 19 November, Mr. Kumara
submitted a complaint to the Inspector General of Police, the National Police Commission, the
Attorney General and the National Human Rights Commission.
1019. Without in any way implying any conclusion as to the facts of the case, we should like to
appeal to your Excellency’s Government to seek clarification of the circumstances of the arrest,
detention at the police station and remand to detention in prison of Mr. Kumara. We would like
to stress that each Government has the obligation to protect the right to physical and mental
integrity of all persons. This right is set forth inter alia in the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Convention against
Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.
Communications received
1020. At the time this report was finalized, no response to this communication has been received.
53
Comments and observations of the Special Rapporteur:
1021. While the Special Rapporteur thanks the Government of Sri Lanka for the reply sent to her
communication of 26 May 2009, she regrets that no replies have been received to the
communications sent on 7 April and 31 December 2009 and calls upon the Government of Sri
Lanka to provide a substantive answer to those allegations as soon as possible.
47. Report of the Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary or

Arbitrary Executions – Addendum 1: Communications to and from
Governments
Add1.pdf
Advance Version
Addendum: Communications to and from Governments
Table of Communications
Communications Governments Numbers and Alleged Character of
sent responses category violations of replies
received of individuals the right to received
concerned life
Sri Lanka 1 UA Group Violations of No response

concern: right to life in
about 6432 armed
civilians, conflict
including 454
children
1 AL Group concern Violations of Cooperative but
(incl. 2 right to life in incomplete
unknown armed response
men) conflict
1 UA 2 females Death threats No response
(journalists)
1 AL 1 male Death in No response
custody
AL 3 males Receipt
(opposition Excessive acknowledged
party force
leaders)
54
Sri Lanka: Civilian casualties during military offensive by the Sri Lankan armed forces in
Mullaitivu district
Violation alleged: Violations of the right to life during armed conflicts, especially of the
civilian population and other non-combatants, contrary to international
humanitarian law
Subject(s) of appeal: Group of persons (about 6432 civilians including about 454
children)
Character of reply: No response
Observations of the
Special Rapporteur: The Special Rapporteur regrets that the Government of Sri Lanka has
failed to cooperate with the mandate that he has been given by the General
Assembly and the Human Rights Council.
Urgent appeal dated 30 April 2009
I write to your Excellency’s Government with regard to the number of civilian casualties of the
ongoing military offensive by the Sri Lankan armed forces in the so-called No Fire Zone in
Mullaitivu district.
According to information I have received:

From 20 January to 21 April 2009, an estimated 6432 civilians were killed, of whom 5580 were
killed in the so-called No Fire Zone in Mullaitivu district, including an estimated 454 children.
Approximately 85% of those killed died as a result of shelling of the No Fire Zone. On 24
February 2009, your Excellency’s Government announced that it would no longer fire heavy
weapons into the No Fire Zone. The average number of civilians in the No Fire Zone killed each
day by shelling, however, did not decrease after this announcement.
On 7 April 2009, for instance, at 7:30 a.m. four or five artillery shells reportedly hit the area near
Pokkanai primary health center, where hundreds of civilians were waiting in line near a food
distribution center, killing at least 13 civilians immediately and wounding over 50 others. The
shells were 120mm rounds and were apparently fired from positions of the Sri Lankan Army to
the south. The make-shift hospital in Putumattalan received 133 wounded civilians and the dead
bodies of 20 persons on that day. On the morning of 8 April 2009, two further shelling attacks hit
Pokkanai. The Putumattalan hospital received 296 wounded and 46 dead bodies on 8 April 2009,
and 300 wounded and 62 dead bodies on 9 April 2009.
On 27 April 2009, the Presidential Secretariat released a statement declaring that “Our security
forces have been instructed to end the use of heavy caliber guns, combat aircraft and aerial
weapons which could cause civilian casualties.” On the same day, however, gun fire and shells
endangered civilians Mullivaikkal and Puthukkudirruppu in the No Fire Zone from 3:30 a.m. to
9:00 a.m. Around 12:.40 p.m. and again at 1:10 p.m. the Sri Lankan air force carried out two
strikes in the Mullivaikkal South area. Artillery shells were fired into the Mullivaikkal North
area at around 5:40 p.m. At 6:50 p.m. heavy shelling of the Mullivaikkal area started. On that
day, 27 April 2009, 139 injured civilians were admitted to Mullivaikkal hospital, 19 of whom
died after admission. While I do not wish to prejudge the accuracy of these reports, I would like
to refer Your Excellency’s Government to the fundamental legal rules applicable to all armed
conflicts under international humanitarian law and human rights law. Specifically, your
55
Government is under an obligation to distinguish between combatants and civilians and to direct
attacks only against combatants (Rules 1, 6 and 7 of the Customary Rules of International
Humanitarian Law identified in the study of the International Committee of the Red Cross
(“Customary Rules”)). Indiscriminate attacks are prohibited (Rule 11 of the Customary Rules).
Further, launching an attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life,
injury to civilians, or damage to civilian objects, which would be excessive in relation to the
concrete and direct military advantage anticipated, is prohibited (Rule 14 of the Customary
Rules). All feasible precautions must be taken to avoid and minimize incidental loss of civilian
life (Rule 15 of the Customary Rules).
There are credible reports that the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) have been holding
civilians as human shields in the No Fire Zone, and that LTTE cadres have shot at civilians
trying to leave the area. This conduct by the LTTE would constitute a most serious violation of
its obligations under customary humanitarian law. I would, however, draw your Government’s
attention to the principle whereby a violation of the obligation to take precautionary measures
vis-à-vis the civilian population or their use as human shields by one side to a conflict does not
change the obligations incumbent on the other party to the conflict to evaluate what constitutes
an excessive attack in relation to concrete and direct military advantage (see A/HRC/10/22, para.
17).
I urge your Excellency’s Government to immediately take all necessary steps to ensure full
respect for the 27 April 2009 announcement by the Presidential Secretariat that “the use of heavy
caliber guns, combat aircraft and aerial weapons which could cause civilian casualties” would be
ended. In view of the urgency of the matter, I would appreciate a response on the initial steps
taken by your Excellency’s Government to safeguard the rights of the civilians in the so-called
No Fire Zone in compliance with your Government’s international legal obligations.
It is my responsibility under the mandate provided to me by the Human Rights Council to seek to
clarify all cases brought to my attention. Since I am expected to report on the killings of civilians
resulting from the military operations your Excellency’s Government is conducting against the
so-called No Fire Zone since February 2009, I would be grateful for your cooperation and
observations on the following four matters:
1. Are the facts alleged in the above summary accurate? Please refer to the results of any police
or military investigation, or judicial or other inquiries carried out in relation to the killings of
civilians resulting from the military operations against the so-called No Fire Zone since 20
January 2009.
2. What assessment was made to ensure that the attacks against the so-called No Fire Zone since
20 January 2009 complied with the rules of international humanitarian law and human rights
law? Specifically, what safeguards, if any, were employed to verify that only legitimate military
targets were attacked? What methods were adopted to distinguish between military and civilian
objects? What precautions were taken to minimize loss of civilian life? What means and
methods of warfare were adopted to avoid incidental loss of civilian life, and to ensure that
incidental loss of life was not excessive in relation to the anticipated military advantage?
3. Please provide the details of any disciplinary measures imposed on, or criminal prosecutions
against, members of the armed forces responsible for the alleged the killings of civilians in the
so-called No Fire Zone since 20 January 2009.
56
4. Please state whether any compensation was, or is intended to be, provided to the families of
the victims.
Sri Lanka: Summary executions by the Sri Lankan army

Violation alleged: Violations of the right to life during armed conflicts, especially of the
civilian population and other non-combatants, contrary to international
humanitarian law
Subject(s) of appeal: Group of persons, including 2 unknown men
Character of reply: Cooperative but incomplete response
Observations of the
Special Rapporteur: The Special Rapporteur appreciates the willingness of the
Government of Sri Lanka to engage in detailed dialogue on the issue of
alleged summary executions of a significant number of men by the Sri
Lankan Army, as depicted in a video tape aired in August 2009. The
Special Rapporteur looks forward to an independent and impartial
investigation of the underlying events.
Allegation letter dated 28 August 2009

In this connection, I would like to draw the attention of your Excellency’s Government to
reports I have received concerning the alleged summary execution of a significant number of
men by the Sri Lankan army. While the exact circumstances of the killings remain unclear it is
alleged that they took place during military operations in or around Kilinochchi in January 2009.
Video footage allegedly documenting the incident shows two naked men, bound and blindfolded
being shot at point-blank range by men wearing Sri Lankan army uniforms, as well as the bodies
of eight other men all but one naked.
Following the release of this video footage in the media, your Excellency’s Government publicly
responded by strongly and unequivocally denying the allegations contained in the video footage.
In a statement reproduced by several media outlets, the Sri Lankan High Commission in the
United Kingdom declared that it categorically denied, “that the Sri Lankan armed forces engaged
in atrocities against Sri Lankan Tamil community. They were only engaged in a military
offensive against the LTTE.”
While I do not wish to prejudge the accuracy of these reports, I would like to refer your
Excellency’s Government to the relevant principles of international humanitarian law and
international human rights law applicable in situations of non-international armed conflicts. In
particular, I would like to refer to Common Article 3 to the 1949 Geneva Conventions which
prohibits “violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds” of persons taking no
active part in the hostilities or who have been placed hors de combat, including by detention. I
would also like to refer to the obligations arising under human rights law. The International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (“ICCPR”), to which Sri Lanka is a party, provides that
every individual has the right to life and security of the person, that this right shall be protected
by law, and that no person shall be arbitrarily deprived of his or her life (Article 6).
While I take note of Your Excellency’s Government’s denial of these allegations, I wish to recall
that international law provides that states have the obligation to conduct a thorough investigation
of all alleged violations of the right to life. (E/CN.4/2006/53, paras. 33-43, 60.) When such
57
violations occur in a the context of an armed conflict, States must investigate war crimes
allegedly committed by their nationals or armed forces or on their territory and if appropriate
prosecute the suspects. I note with interest that Your Excellency’s Government denies that its
armed forces were engaged in atrocities against the Sri Lankan Tamil community. I am not,
however, aware of any more specific statement indicating that the events depicted in the video
either did not take place, were fabricated, or did not involve the Sri Lankan army. In any event it
is incumbent upon the Government to respect the obligation to conduct an independent and
impartial investigation into alleged war crimes committed on its territory or by its nationals.
Under the circumstances, and in order to ensure that any investigation that might clear Your
Excellency’s Government of any responsibility is considered to be credible, and thus affirms the
position expressed by the Government, it would seem indispensable for an independent
investigation to be undertaken.
I would also wish to reiterate my previously expressed request to undertake an official visit to Sri
Lanka in order to undertake further inquiries into the issues raised in this and previous
communications. I would be most grateful if you could indicate dates on which such a visit
might be convenient.
It is my responsibility under the mandate provided to me by the Human Rights Council, to seek
to clarify all cases brought to my attention. Since I am expected to report on this case to the
Human Rights Council, I would be grateful for your cooperation and your observations on the
following matters:
1. Are the allegations in the above summary of the events accurate? If so please provide details
on the incident.
2. When violations of international humanitarian law or of human rights law are alleged to have
been committed by members of the Sri Lankan armed forces, what are the established
investigation procedures that are followed? Please explain how these have been followed with
regards to the above incident.
3. Please provide details on the rules of engagement provided to the members of the Sri Lankan
armed forces before the operations in the Kilinochchi area, in particular instructions concerning
the treatment of civilians not taking part in the hostilities and of LTTE cadres who had been
detained or otherwise placed hors de combat.
4. Please provide details of any investigation or inquiry that has been launched into the above
incident.
Response of the Government of Sri Lanka dated 31 August 2009.
Thank you for your letter of 28 August faxed to our Mission in Geneva at 14:45. This is well
after our offices close in Sri Lanka, so I was able to read the letter only the next morning, a
Saturday, on which I went to the office specifically for the purpose. I remember you complaining
once, in explaining why you could not answer letters promptly, that your position was unpaid.
Please note that we are not paid extra for working outside hours. While answering your letters
can be undertaken as a labour of love, it would be kind if you tried, if you needed to write to us,
to do so well before late on Friday afternoons. This seems the more desirable in that we have
also been sent a press release which you had dispatched to our Mission in Geneva at 15:37 on
58
that same Friday afternoon, a release which seems to make your letter redundant. I recall that, on
the last time you and your colleagues launched such a press release, it was claimed that this
followed on letters to which we had not responded. Those letters had been sent a week earlier,
and a week which included holidays scarcely seemed an undue delay, given also the continuing
failure of the UN system to respond promptly to letters from us.
It was also claimed that the release had been sent to us in time for a response, and it was because
we had not responded that the release was issued as it stood. When I pointed out that the letter
accompanying the release did not indicate that discussion would serve any purpose, you asserted
when we met that you did take responses into account and that you had indeed once altered a
press release on the strength of a response you had received.
I should note that you must have been well aware that your release would be made prompt use
of by terrorist elements. It was highlighted within a few hours by TamilNet. The article was
entitled ‘Horrendous video images indicate violation of international law - UN expert’, available
at http://www.tamilnet.com/art.html?catid=13&artid=30104, also makes reference to a previous
effusion on your part.
In addition to the suspicious timing of your two pronouncements on the 28th, there are several
points about the letter specifically addressed to our Mission which are not clear. I would be
grateful for immediate clarification to enable us to respond. Please note that I am writing this on
a Sunday and, though I normally do such work as a matter of course, I hope that you too will,
despite not receiving any remuneration, respond swiftly.
Firstly, your letter begins with the words “in this connection” was this strange locution simply a
mistake, arising from haste, or were we intended to trace the connection ourselves? I could only
surmise that we were supposed to read this in conjunction with previous demands from the
Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to have what is termed an independent
investigation into events in Sri Lanka. You are probably aware that one of your peers declared
that ‘All is Disaster’ when attempts to place Sri Lanka in the dock at a special session of the
United Nations Human Rights Council failed. Do you share this view?
Your letter refers to reports you have received ‘concerning the alleged summary execution of a
significant number of men by the Sri Lankan army’. Have you received reports of such an
alleged incident, or are they simply reports of video footage allegedly documenting this alleged
incident? Any independent report should be conveyed to us at once but, if your report is only of
the video footage, it would be best if you first sought further details about this, to help establish
whether an investigation of the alleged incident would serve any purpose.
You note that the exact circumstances of these alleged killings remain unclear, but say that it is
alleged that they took place in January 2009. Since the video footage gives no clue about the
time or place, presumably this attribution of a particular period was by sources you are unwilling
to share with us. That is of no great consequence, but you need to tell us whether these sources
have communicated with you only what the television presented said, or whether they have been
able to ascertain the reasons for the attribution of this period.
You do not mention what reports referring to the footage claimed, that the video had been made
by a soldier on a mobile phone. Have you checked on this claim, and also found out why this
59
footage only emerged in the public domain seven months later? Have you also found out from
experts whether the footage, which seemed of high resolution, is consistent with this story? Are
your sources still in contact with the alleged soldier, or can they confirm that the television
channel authorities or those from whom they received the material are in possession of further
information or in a position to provide it at a later stage?
Reports also claimed that the footage had been provided by an organization calling itself
Journalists for Democracy in Sri Lanka. This organization seems to have been set up very
recently, and its provenance and purpose remain unclear. Have you checked on the credentials of
this organization and its members, or ascertained whether the television channel authorities have
done so?
Though the first paragraph of your letter, beginning ‘in this connection’ deals with the video
footage, the second and subsequent one lay stress on what you claim is a statement issued by our
High Commission in the United Kingdom that was reproduced by several media outlets. In your
press statement you assert that, on the basis of the awareness ‘that the Sri Lankan Government
has categorically denied the veracity of the allegations’, there is no justification for not moving
forward with an investigation.
I am aware that you are a professor of law, and therefore you must realize that ‘moving ahead
with an investigation’ requires positive justification in the form of credible basic evidence. You
are not appointed to an exalted position, albeit without remuneration (as you have so often told
me, though I trust your expenses are met in accordance with generous UN guidelines), to score
debating points and make public pronouncements to harass member states, but rather to look
carefully through evidence to draw attention to situations that require the attention of member
states.
Did you check further on the provenance of the footage before rushing in where the angels we
believe the UN system should nurture might have been cautious about treading? Did you note the
previous history ‘in this connection’ (ie coverage of Sri Lanka) of the television channel
concerned? Is it your business to base a case on the reproduction in media outlets of a statement
of our High Commission, while ignoring the response of the Secretary to the Foreign Ministry
who pointed out that evidence presented to us would be investigated?
With regard to your specific questions

• (a) Your letter mentions an allegation but no summary of events. It is true that there was an
allegation, and that video footage was telecast, but there is no incident about which details can be
provided. It is up to you to seek further details about the allegation, and if possible summarize an
incident which you may then legitimately ask us to investigate if you are of the view that there
was indeed an incident as opposed to an allegation alone.
• (b) Your second request in this para is in fact a leading question, inasmuch as there is no
incident with regard to which it is possible to explain how standard procedures were followed. If
you require a general answer to the actual question here, I can ask the Ministry of Defense to
supply it, but in view of your subsequent press release that suggests you have prejudged the
issue, I need your assurance, before I worry others, that you are seeking in good faith, in terms of
your mandate to assist member states, and not in pursuit of a different sort of agenda.
60
• (c) The forces that went into battle were equipped with training and information leaflets about
international law. Again, I can send you copies of material if you are indeed serious, and once
again I shall be happy to accept a personal assurance, even though I was deceived with regard to
your assurances as to how you issue press releases.
• (d) Please provide details of the incident which you want to be investigated or inquired into.
I would be grateful for an acknowledgement of this letter and would advise withdrawing your
press release until you can establish that there was an incident to investigate and that the
Government of Sri Lanka failed to investigate any such incident. I hope the sixty days you have
suggested for our response will suffice for your response, and you may deduct from these the
days that have passed since I was able to see your letter.
I would also be happy to meet with you when I am in Geneva next month, in the hope that we
can work together to improve both our situations and yours. I am aware that you were warned
not to respond to me, and I can only assume that this was done by the only official in the Office
of the High Commissioner for Human Rights who knew us both at the time we spoke, back in
December 2007. I would of course welcome your assurance that it was not Rory Mungoven who
advised you not to respond to me, since my suspicions of his bona fides date from that time, and
it is possible that I have been doing the man an injustice and we should seek to work together
more productively.
I would also welcome, as I have often written, working with you in terms of your mandate, and
indeed I thought after our last meeting, and your assurances, that this would be possible. I was
sorry therefore that once again you failed to respond to my previous letter, and you have returned
to the subject of Sri Lanka only in order to issue yet another tendentious press release.
Yours sincerely
Prof. Rajiva Wijesinha
Secretary
Ministry of Disaster Management and Human Rights.
Response of the Special Rapporteur dated 4 September 2009
Dear Professor Wijesinha,

I am replying to your letter dated 31 August 2009 in response to my statement about the need to
investigate the authenticity of what has become known as the Channel 4 video tape. Permit me
first of all to apologize for the inadvertent omission by the Secretariat when conveying the
allegation letter which I had drafted. I understand that its apologies were conveyed to the
Permanent Mission as soon as the error was recognized.
Your letter raises a significant number of questions in relation to both the authenticity of the
video, and the circumstances surrounding its making and release. I fully agree with you that
answers are needed to these questions, which is why I have attached major importance to the
need for an independent investigation to get to the bottom of the matter.
61
As I read it, the essence of your response is that the video itself and the information alleged to
me by the various sources that brought it to my attention in my capacity as Special Rapporteur,
do not warrant any attention on the part of the Sri Lankan Government until and unless definitive
evidence is able to be provided. As you put it in your newspaper article earlier this week:
[I]t is really too much to expect that an investigation be set in motion on the strength of a video
clip shown on a television channel that had previously engaged in bizarre inaccuracies. (Source:
Prof. Rajiva Wijesinha, ‘Arbitrary Execution by Prof Philip Alston’, Daily News, Sept 2, 2009,
available at http://www.dailynews.lk/2009/09/02/fea03.asp)
This is the same article in which you claimed that my statement on the issue of the videotape
sets me ‘at the heart of a terrorist media campaign against the Sri Lankan Government.’ In my
view, however, the standard that your response implies is clearly too demanding if the Human
Rights Council and its special procedures are to be able to respond effectively to alleged human
rights violations. The onus placed upon a Special Rapporteur in a situation such as this is to
form the view, in light of all of the information available to him as well as his own professional
expertise and judgment, that the allegations made are sufficiently credible as to warrant
investigation by the Government. Only the Government, or others acting with the support or
permission of the Government, would be in a position to undertake the type of investigation
required. It is an inappropriate standard to expect that those making allegations in relation to
complex human rights situations should bear such a strong burden of proof before the
Government itself should take any action. It strikes me as equivalent to a police officer telling an
alleged victim that no investigation will take place until the victim can definitively prove to the
officer’s satisfaction that the alleged crime took place. The standard that you suggest would
result in very few allegations ever being considered sufficiently credible as to warrant
investigation by the Government in accordance with its responsibilities under international law.
The applicable standard is reflected in paragraph 9 of the United Nations, Principles on the
Effective Prevention and Investigation of Extra-legal, Arbitrary and Summary Executions,
adopted on 24 May 1989, which requires that ‘[t]here shall be thorough, prompt and impartial
investigation of all suspected cases of extra-legal, arbitrary and summary executions, including
cases where complaints by relatives or other reliable reports suggest unnatural death in the above
circumstances.’ There will always be legitimate room for debate as to what constitutes a
‘reliable’ report in a given situation. While it is clear that a video tape can be fabricated, so too
can almost all other sources of alleged evidence. In this instance, taking account of various
characteristics of the video, it does not seem to me that the video on its face is patently fake or
staged. In my view it constitutes a sufficiently prima facie reliable source as to warrant
investigation. If it can be convincingly shown to be a fake, so that the scenes of killing depicted
in the video were staged or contrived, as your Government apparently believes, I will be
immensely relieved and the allegations submitted to me by various sources will be shown to
have been unreliable. I do not accept, however, that a video of this nature can be dismissed as
self-evidently unreliable in the absence of any detailed investigation or analysis undertaken
either by the Government or by independent experts.
Given the extremely serious nature of the killings depicted in the video, and your Government’s
stated commitment to respecting human rights and promoting reconciliation within the country,
it is my hope that serious consideration will be given to establishing an independent investigation
into the alleged incident.
62
Since it is my responsibility, under the mandates provided to me by the Human Rights Council,
to seek to clarify all cases brought to my attention, I look forward to receiving a response which
addresses the facts alleged in the letter sent to your Government. As you know, my responsibility
is to report on all such cases to the Human Rights Council and I undertake to ensure that our
correspondence on these matters will be duly reflected in my report to the Council.
Response of the Government of Sri Lanka dated 7 September 2009
Dear Prof Alston

Thank you for your letter dated September 4th. I am honoured to have received a reply from you
at last, and pleased that it came so promptly. I hope that this will be the beginning of a proper
dialogue on record, that will help us in our joint aim of promoting human rights.
I am happy too to accept you apology with regard to the omission, by the Secretariat in the letter
that you signed and sent to us, of part of your original draft. Careful attention to the work of the
Secretariat may be useful in future. In this context I note that you have not responded to the
query at the end of my last letter.
May I take it then that the warning you receive about responding to me in writing indeed came
from Mr. Mungoven? You will recall that the beginning of the problems in your relationship
with Sri Lanka came from the leak of your original, to my mind generally very helpful, report on
Sri Lanka. As noted previously I fully accept your assurance that you were not responsible for
the leak, but I still believe it would be helpful if you tried to find out how exactly it took place
from the Secretariat.
With regard to the actual substance of your letter, I am sorry that you have confined yourself to a
single issue, and not responded to the detailed questions I asked. I am also sorry that, in the
interim, you have spoken loosely to the press, though I presume I should deal with these
infelicities separately, since your letter indicates that you will find the time to look at any
releases I might issue, for which I am again grateful.
The most important question you have avoided is that of whether you received any reports of an
incident taking place in Sri Lanka on the lines of that shown in the video or whether it was
simply a report of the video itself that prompted your letter, The whole of your letter suggests
that you are indeed relying simply on a report or reports of the video, save for one line, in which
you refer to ‘allegations submitted to me by various sources’.
If you are referring to allegations with regard to any other incident, it is incumbent on you to tell
us what those allegations are. You may recall that we have been inundated with assertions by UN
experts and others demanding international investigations on the strength of generalizations. The
government has committed itself to investigating specific allegations, but all we have thus far is
‘a series of allegations’ (as you are alleged to have mentioned in a Radio Australia report) which
range from the London Times claim of 20,000 civilians killed to the Guardian assertion of 11
crop haired women with slit throats. I have dissected the former claim, and will send you the
relevant article if you have not already seen it. With regard to the latter, I checked with all
agencies involved in Protection issues in terms of the mandate of this Ministry, and received
universal denials that there were any grounds for suspecting that anything of the sort had taken
place.
63
Please therefore let me know if there are any specific allegations that you feel require
investigation. If however the phrase in your letter that I cite refers simply to the incident shown
in the video, I can only repeat that you must give us more details of what specifically we should
investigate, by indicating date or place or both, in line with the details you usually supply in
queries you send to us.
Your analogy in this instance, that the request I am making is ‘equivalent to a police officer
telling an alleged victim that no investigation will take place until the victim can definitely prove
to the officer’s satisfaction that the alleged crime took place’ is nonsensical, and a Professor at
least should be able to see this straight away, with or without a moment’s reflection. A victim
who reports a crime can be asked as to when and where it took place, or at least when and where
it was discovered that a crime seemed to have happened. In this instance we are told by you that
you have reports of a video in which an alleged incident took place, with no indication of when
and where it happened.
Surely you must realize that, if for instance a lawyer were to bring an incident to the attention of
the authorities, that lawyer would be expected to provide details of the incident. A victim or even
a witness who went to a lawyer and said that an incident had taken place but they could give no
details of the time or place could not expect the lawyer to take the case further, though of course
one would expect a good lawyer to ask questions in an effort to find at least some details that
could be investigated.
The situation is compounded in this instance by the previous allegations by Channel 4, which has
a history of trying to denigrate the Sri Lankan government. We are also worried by the claim in
the presentation of the allegation by Channel 4 that the video was supplied by a group called
Journalists for Democracy in Sri Lanka. This is a new grouping, and may include individuals
who you may have known previously as involved in the hounding out from the Centre for Policy
of Alternatives of Kethesh Loganathan. As you may recall, he was later murdered when he was
proving a doughty opponent of the LTTE whilst functioning as Deputy Secretary General of the
Peace Secretariat in Colombo.
I would be happy to discuss this with you further when I am in Geneva for the 12th session of the
Human Rights Council, if you could spare the time to see me. Meanwhile if you are able to
provide us with any further information, or even a copy of the original video supplied to Channel
4, we can try to pursue the matter further. It would however be counter productive for us to seek
such information from Channel 4 since, apart from the bias that we have seen previously, it
would lay us open to even more outrageous charges if there were further allegations and we did
not continue to seek such information from those who obviously have no qualms about making
things up.
Meanwhile my Minister has headed a press conference at which our reasons for doubting the
authenticity of the video were explained. I hope this is reported in a manner that will enable you
take the issues up with your informants.
I look forward to hearing from you, and also to meeting you as soon as possible.
Yours sincerely
64
Secretary
Response from the Government of Sri Lanka dated 8 September 2009 5
The permanent mission of Sri Lanka to the UN office and other International Organisations in
Geneva presents its compliments to Prof. Philip Alston, Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial,
summary or arbitrary executions and with reference to the latter’s communication and press
release dated 28 September 2009, has the honour to forward herewith a copy of the press media
release dated 3 September 2009 issued by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Sri Lanka on the
issue of an unauthenticated video footage telecast on channel 4 television in the UK on 25
August 2009 to the attention of the Special Rapporteur.
Media Release
The Government of Sri Lanka is concerned over an increasing number of comments from some
sections of the international community, on an unauthenticated video footage telecast on Channel
4 Television in the UK on 25th August 2009, which contains alleged atrocities being committed
against Tamils by the Sri Lankan Forces.
The Government of Sri Lanka reiterates its strong and unequivocal rejection of the contents of
the video footage telecast on Channel 4 on the grounds that there is absolutely no truth in it’s
concocted story. It is also a deliberate and sinister attempt to cause embarrassment and bring
disrepute to the Government of Sri Lanka. It is indeed deeply regretted that despite the
Government of Sri Lanka refuting these allegations, some sections of the international
community are repeating these allegations which appear to be an orchestrated campaign against
Sri Lanka.
This diabolical video footage is reported to have been filmed in January in an unidentified
location. In Sri Lanka during that time, there was a substantial presence of the international
community, especially in the areas of conflict. At that time, the LTTE was also an active,
fighting force. If such atrocities had taken place as claimed, then it is highly unlikely that the
international community would have remained silent and continued to remain so, for over eight
months. Considering the fact that the LTTE was finally eliminated only during the latter part of
May, it is surprising that no attempt was made by the LTTE or its front organisations to bring
these alleged atrocities or this video to light at the time they remained active.
The authenticity of the Channel 4 news report being in question is evident, as the presenter
himself has stated that the footage “claimed to show Sri Lankan Forces executing Tamils” and
that it “appears to show number of men being shot in the head by forces speaking Sinhala”.
The presenter further stated that the “video footage has emerged apparently showing
5
Press releases relevant to the Special Rapporteur’s mandate that are issued either by States or by the Special
Rapporteur are not ordinarily included in the Communications Addendum. An exception is being made here given
the public nature of the communications arising out of the Special Rapporteur’s original allegation letter to Sri
Lanka.
65
Government troops summarily executing Tamils”. The news reporter categorically pointed out
that it was not possible to “verify the authenticity of the pictures”.
This commentary in the Channel 4 telecast in itself clearly demonstrates the fact that the footage
is of a dubious nature.
In this context, attention is drawn to a subsequent BBC World News report telecast on 26th
August 2009 at 1730 hrs. BST where Thirumalai Manivannan from the BBC Tamil Service
responding to a question on the assessment of the genuineness of the pictures stated that “the
video footage does not give the dates when it was shot though the people who have distributed it
to the media say the footage was taken in January this year. The pictures themselves don’t tell
you anything nor do the pictures tell you anything about the location where it was shot”.
Doctoring of videos in this day and age of modern technology is a common occurrence. The
credentials of the group, ‘Journalists for Democracy in Sri Lanka’ which supplied the video
footage are also in question, by the fact that Manivannan in the same BBC World News Report
stated that he “spoke to one of their organizers in Germany, and he would not go on record
though he gave some background in full which cannot be used”. Manivannan had also made the
point that until recently, there was no awareness of the existence of this group that had supplied
the footage except that it had been established in July.
Despite the telecast of this video by Channel 4 and various other media thereafter, those who
produced this video have also so far failed to answer many of the queries which have emerged on
the genuineness of this video from various quarters.
The Government of Sri Lanka in carrying out its military offensive against the terrorists adhered
to a policy of zero casualties among civilians. The fact that thousands of civilians sought refuge
in the safety of the Sri Lankan Security Forces is a testimony of the confidence the civilians had
on the Security Forces.
In manifestations of its genuine intentions, the Sri Lanka Army, on its own accord, has sought
the assistance of an expert in order to verify the authenticity of this video. In spite of Channel 4
on its own accord being unable to confirm the authenticity of the footage, it is a matter of grave
concern that it continues to repeat these allegations and that some sections of the international
community seem to be giving undue credence to this doctored video thereby attempting to bring
discredit to Sri Lanka.
The international community should not be misled by these fabricated stories which could
culminate in erroneous judgments thereby sullying relations. Instead, they must recognize the
efforts taken by the Government of Sri Lanka to ensure durable peace for its people in all parts of
the country.
What Sri Lanka requires at this juncture in its post conflict phase, is the understanding and
support of the international community.
Ministry of Foreign Affairs

Colombo
3rd September 2009
66
Response from the Government of Sri Lanka dated 11 September 2009
The permanent mission of Sri Lanka to the UN office and other International Organisations in
Geneva presents its compliments to Prof. Philip Alston, Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial,
summary or arbitrary executions and with reference to the latter’s communication and press
release dated 28 September 2009, (sic) has the honour to forward herewith a copy of the
consolidated response of the Government of Sri Lanka to the telecast by the Channel 4 news of
the UK on 25 August 2009 of video of supposed extra-judicial executions in Sri Lanka, to the
attention of the Special Rapporteur. In light of the comprehensive investigation conducted and
expert findings on the alleged video footage, the government of Sri Lanka requests the Special
Rapporteur to issue a media release welcoming the investigation and its expert finding.
[. . . ]
Consolidated Response of the Government of Sri Lanka to the Telecast by Channel 4 News of
the United Kingdom on 25 August 2009 of a Video of Supposed Extra-Judicial Executions in Sri
Lanka – As communicated to the local and international media on 07 September and to the
Diplomatic Community and Multilateral Agency Heads on 08 September 2009
Background and Introduction

The Channel 4 video purports to show the execution of two persons by supposed armed forces
personnel. This incident was said to have taken place in the north of Sri Lanka in January 2009.
Channel 4’s website on 25 August also carried an article by Jonathan Miller entitled “Execution
video: is this evidence of ‘war crimes’ in Sri Lanka?”; (see
http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/world/asia_pacific/execution%20video%20is%20this%2
0evidence%20of%20war%20crimes%20in%20sri%20lanka/3321087). This states “Channel 4
News shows footage claimed to show Sri Lankan forces executing Tamils earlier this year.”
Although the broadcast story states that the video was not verified for authenticity, the web
article, significantly, does not note this except for one statement in passing towards the end of the
piece viz., “If the killing field footage is authenticated, it will do little to reassure Tamil
civilians.”
Reporting on the video on 26 August, the UK Timesonline website stated: “Channel 4, which
broadcast the video, says that it was recorded by a Sri Lankan soldier on his mobile phone in
January, when government forces overwhelmed the stronghold of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil
Eelam (LTTE) at Kilinochchi.” (see
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article6809968.ece). Many other international
media outlets carried the story and rebroadcast the video in the ensuing days.
Thereafter, several international personalities expressed their concern regarding the contents of
the video. These included Norway’s international development and environment Minister Erik
Solheim on 27 August 2009 (see http://www.aftenposten.no/nyheter/uriks/article3237855.ece),
the UN Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary, or Arbitrary Executions, Professor Philip
Alston on 2September (see http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/09/02/sri.lanka.united.
nations/), US Ambassador to the United Nations, Susan Rice on 02 September 2009, (see
http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSTRE5816IP20090902) and the Secretary
General of the United Nations, Ban Ki-moon when he met Minister of Disaster Management and
Human Rights, Mahinda Samarasinghe, in Geneva on Thursday 03 September 2009 (see
67
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090903/wl_nm/us_srilanka_un). Minister Samarasinghe assured
UN Secretary-General Ban that the Government would ensure that a thorough investigation into
the video was conducted and that the findings of that investigation would be shared with the
Secretary-General and others. This communication would include an explanation of what steps
the Government had taken to clarify the position in relation to the video. The Minister also
intimated to the Secretary-General that it was remarkable that such a video, if it was indeed
recorded in January, should only now come to light several months later.
The Source
Channel 4 states that the source of the video is “Journalists for Democracy in Sri Lanka (JSD),
which obtained the material and said it was filmed in January [2009].” A web based search for
this organization reveals that JSD does not seem to have issued any statements prior to 22 July
2009 and it may be reasonably inferred that it did not exist prior to that date. Journalists for
Democracy in Sri Lanka established its web presence by launching a blog:
jdsrilanka.blogspot.com on or around 01 August 2009. They have no material older than 01
August except for the 22 July 2009 statement which was posted on 01 August. There are other
stories carried on the blog which mostly relate to media and freedom of expression-related issues
and all are dated post-01 August 2009.
Surprisingly the video carried on the JDS blog – that of the organization that is supposed to have
distributed the original – is sourced from CNN. To give JDS credibility as a source, the
Timesonline states that the video is from: “a group called Journalists for Democracy in Sri
Lanka, which has previously issued statements through the Asian Human Rights Commission.”
However a search of that organization’s website www.ahrchk.net reveals only one such
statement on 10 August. It is also extremely difficult to verify if the address given by the
organization in Berlin is genuine. When the video of the so-called “execution” was released on
or about 26 August 2009 it was given wide coverage by many, obviously without any inquiry as
to the standing of the source. Given that the organization JDS probably did not exist prior to 22
July, the GoSL finds it worrying that Channel 4 and the international media gave the video so
much credence and carried it as truth without further verification. The GoSL is of the view that
there are legitimate questions as to the provenance of the video coming as it did through a
mushroom organization when there are other institutions with credible track records that could
have been used to distribute it.
Investigation and Analysis

As Minister Samarasinghe explained to the media and the representatives of the international
community on 07 and 08 September respectively, the GoSL condemns and dismisses in its
entirety the video and its contents as being false and fabricated. This conclusion is based on the
consolidated findings of four separate investigations initiated by the Government.
Minister Samarasinghe recalled that such attempts at publishing fabricated video evidence of so-
called “atrocities” were common during the final phases of the humanitarian operation which
was successfully concluded in May 2009. A video was played at the briefing which showed Al
Jazeera television carrying a story about the aftermath of Sri Lankan armed forces supposedly
bombing a makeshift hospital in the conflict area. As supporting evidence, a recorded telephone
call from a Doctor working in the area was played. However, the Sri Lankan army had conducted
an analysis of the footage and pointed out numerous discrepancies which Al Jazeera was
professional enough to carry in a subsequent news bulletin. After active operations were
68
concluded, the doctor who was rescued admitted publicly that he was coached and threatened by
the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) to utter the false statements that he made to the
media.
Three other doctors used by various international media outlets to support allegations of
atrocities and supposed shortages of medical supplies during the final stages of the humanitarian
operation, also publicly stated that they had been similarly coached or threatened by the LTTE.
The Minister explained that as a matter of course the Sri Lanka Army had conducted an initial
internal inquiry into the alleged incident and had found that the video had no factual basis.
Four separate investigations had been initiated by GoSL into the Channel 4 video and four
presentations were made to the media and to the international representatives. They were a report
by expert on video technology Mr. Siri Hewawitharana of Australia (Mr. Hewawitharana’s
extensive experience, qualifications and credentials are carried on
http://www.linkedin.com/pub/siri-hewa/5/494/5a8). Mr. Hewawitharana’s report was read out by
the Minister. Dr Chathura De Silva, Senior Lecturer in Computer Science and Engineering and
Director, Centre for Instructional Technology, University of Moratuwa, Brigadier Prasad
Samarasinghe, Chief of the Sri Lanka Army’s Signals Corps and Major A.P. Bandara of the
Media Centre for National Security were the others who reported.
The Minister pointed out that, while all four reports were fully consistent with one another, three
main points of convergence was apparent on matters of great significance. These are to the effect
that:
• the images were not captured by a mobile telephone but by a digital camcorder or similar
equipment because the video is of high quality unattainable on a mobile phone (Channel 4 and
several other outlets who carried the story such as Timesonline and www.Tamilnet.com, were
categorical that the video was shot by a soldier using a mobile phone);
• there has been editing of the video and that the audio track has been dubbed and there is
evidence that the format of the original video has been converted to make it appear that it was
captured on a mobile telephone;
• if the video is an accurate depiction of an actual event, the gap in time evident on the video
between the shot being fired and the sound thereof being recorded means that there would have
to be a distance of over 100 metres between the discharged weapon and the recording device for
the first shot and 38 metres for the second (at which distance a mobile telephone with a camera
could not have recorded the images shown in the video).
Conclusions Drawn
The GoSL finds it remarkable that the obvious distortions in the video were not noticed by
Channel 4 and that they did not seek further authentication of the video given the consequences
of its telecast. Coupled with the fact that Channel 4 was unable or unwilling to substantiate the
bona fides of JDS, and given that the story was one that was potentially damaging to Sri Lanka
and inimical to its reputation, the organization’s conduct was unprofessional and unseemly.
The Minister concluded that crude attempts such as that represented by the telecast of the video
was a malicious attempt to play out a political agenda aimed at besmirching the name of Sri
69
Lanka and denigrating the armed forces. It was also an attempt to impair the concluding of a
thirty-year armed conflict under President Mahinda Rajapakse’s leadership, which has created
conditions for an era of political stability and economic development. He urged any Sri Lankan
elements involved in this effort to put country before self and to refrain from seeking to gain
political mileage by such activity.
Technical/Expert Analysis
Maj. A.P. Bandara of the Media Centre for National Security then made a short presentation
wherein he noted that when the video was slowed by 50%, several remarkable discrepancies and
distortions became evident. For instance the leg of a dead person lying prone on the ground rises
in the air when the first “victim” is shot. Thereafter the leg slowly drops to its former position.
The second “victim”, though shot in the head, continues to have stiff leg muscles and reclines on
his arms bound behind his back. Then he gradually leans back until he lies flat on the ground.
One of the other victims who lies dead in muddy ground wears a remarkably clean white shirt.
The “soldier” who supposedly kills the first “victim” is wearing a white T-shirt (vest) when the
standard issue for Sri Lankan Army is of a different colour altogether. The second “soldier” has a
very unmilitary growth of hair. Even though the bodies are lying in waterlogged or muddy
ground, not all the “bloodstains” from the fatal injuries have spread in a manner consistent with
one another. These were just some of the distortions and discrepancies that were noted to
indicate that the video was staged.
Dr. De Silva, who presented next, made the following observations:

• The granularity of motion vectors and other inter-frame features indicate that the footage had
been originally captured using a high-end camera (at least a digital camcorder) and not by an
average mobile phone.
• An analysis of the colour levels and saturation shows that the bloodstains in the film are
unusually strong in colour and have texture mismatches - this is usually the result of post-
recording modifications and the use of digital effects.
• There is no recoil or movement of the weapon discharged.
• Texture analysis of image and possible over-lays shows evidence of tampering/digital effects in
relation to enhanced bloodstains and one blindfold
• Evidence of audio dubbing
• Lack of audio synchronization - audio is delayed for more than 1.5 seconds -this is not due to
video compression or processing.
• Audio indicates presence of strong wind-noise. However, this is not evident in the video
footage.
• Transcript of the Sinhala dialogue has no relation to the images in the footage. There is no
audio of victims screaming or any other related noise.
• There was no indication that a zoomed view was used.
Minister Samarasinghe then read out Mr. Siri Hewawitharana’s analysis which could be
summarised as follows:
• The total length of the video clip is 1:02.781 (min)
• The edited video stopped at 01:02.312 (min).
• The audio editing stopped at 01:02.125.
• This indicates that the original video is edited since original layer stopped at 1:02.781 and
video editing stopped at 01:02.312 and audio dub stopped at 1:02.152.
70
• If it is the original audio, it should have played all the way to 1:02.781 and should not have 2
video layers indicating an original and an edited version. The audio is added later in a clumsy
fashion.
• It is said that the video came from a mobile phone video source. There are only two formats in
mobile video formats. One is the old 3GPP format and the new one is the Mpeg4, H-264 part 10
which is a MP4 format that is highly processor intensive encoding. Because of this, mobile
phones in today’s market do not have high quality video capability since the processors in high
end mobile phones like iPhones or smartphones are not powerful enough to capture good quality
video. The Channel 4 video is much higher in quality than an existing smartphone can create
today.
• Within H-264 coding there is also an extra component called Motion Vectors (VMC) which are
used to predict motion on the temporal and spatial domain. Channel 4’s video has quite high
quality VMC and it appears that this VMC came from a video camera and not from a mobile
phone source. Moreover, video from a mobile source also tends to be blocky in nature when it
comes to motion.
• Since the original video was originally in AVI and QuickTime format, the whole video
indicates that the original video is of high quality that originated from a video camera source
since mobile formats does not use AVI or QuickTime which are high quality video formats. If a
change of mobile format to AVI or QT format is attempted, then the resulting video is likely to
be of very bad quality. However, in this case the video is of very high quality.
• The foregoing indicates that someone transferred the camcorder video to a computer for editing
and sound was dubbed later. One can see that the gun shot was not in synchronization with the
video. Normally audio is always ahead of the video since video processing takes more time and
in this case audio is very late indicating very amateurish video and audio editing.
Brigadier Prasad Samarasinghe of the Army’s Signals Corps who conducted both a technical
study and field tests agreed with the preceding presentations and made the following
observations:
• The video has been edited to include additional details that have been added or some details
deleted.
• A wide angle camera was used to capture the “incident”.
• 30 frames at the end of the video stream only contained a letter “A” against a blank
background. This is not consistent with an original video from a mobile telephone source.
• The video and audio streams were analyzed concurrently for consistency and several
discrepancies were noticed which leads to the conclusion that the distance of the mobile
telephone’s microphone from the weapon was 102 metres in respect of the first shot and 38
metres from the second.
• A field simulation test using several mobile telephone brands revealed that, in order to maintain
the size of image in the Channel 4 video, the mobile telephone camera should have been at a
distance of approximately 3 to 5 metres from the discharged weapon.
Concluding Remarks
Minister Samarasinghe in conclusion said that, on the basis of this investigation, the GoSL
demands a retraction of the story and the video by Channel 4. He stated that he would also
inform the UN Secretary- General, Norwegian Minister Solheim and others who had made
statements in this regard of the true nature of this video. He said that Channel 4 and others will
be challenged to prove that the technical and scientific analysis initiated by the Government was
flawed and the scientifically arrived at conclusions are inaccurate. He concluded by stating that
71
the Attorney-General of Sri Lanka would study all aspects of this matter with a view to taking
appropriate measures, if deemed necessary, in the future. [ends]
Ministry of Disaster Management and Human Rights 9 September 2009

Thank you for your reply dated 7 September 2009 to my earlier response. In your letter you take
issue with the analogy that I offered and suggest that it is nonsensical. Permit me to go a little
further with the analogy and suggest that if an individual was beaten up or raped and reported the
matter to the police, but because of the trauma suffered, was unable to identify either when or
where the alleged assault took place, it would not be justified for the police to throw up their
hands and say “well, if you can’t give us the details, there is nothing we can do in terms of
investigating the incident”. There is still an obligation of due diligence upon the authorities to do
whatever they can to locate the alleged incident and to pursue those responsible. My contention
is, simply, that this is the nature of the obligation incumbent upon the Government of Sri Lanka
in relation to this case.
In your response you have asked if there are any specific allegations that require investigation.
This request has subsequently been elaborated upon in the various public statements that have
been made on behalf of the Government and in the comments relayed to me at your request by
the officials of the OHCHR subsequent to their meeting with the Government delegation. In
particular, I have been requested to issue a public statement in response to the various briefings
and statements made by the Minister for Disaster Management and Human Rights. These are
contained in the “Consolidated Response” issued by the Government to the local and
international media on 7 September 2009 and to the diplomatic community the following day.
The Government’s response was summarized in the Minister’s statement on 15 September 2009
to the Human Rights Council in which he stated that “four separate investigations have now
scientifically established beyond any doubt that this video is a fake.” I welcome the fact that the
Government is now devoting considerable attention to this issue.
The legal obligation incumbent upon a Government in a situation such as this, as I recalled in
greater detail in my previous letter to you, is to undertake a “thorough, prompt and impartial
investigation.” My role as Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial executions is to evaluate whether
the investigations undertaken have met the relevant criteria established under international law,
and to advise the Human Rights Council accordingly.
I can attest to the fact that the investigation has been “prompt” since it was completed within two
weeks of the information becoming available. I am not, however, in a position to conclude that it
was “thorough.” I have not seen the original version of three of the four expert investigations.
The fourth of the investigations seems to have originated as an Opinion piece in The Island
newspaper, and was subsequently elaborated upon. It is not clear whether or not this was at the
Government’s request. The statement provided by the Minister summarizes “observations” made
by the remaining three experts in presentations made at a meeting convened by the Government
for this purpose. I would welcome the publication of the full text of the analyses undertaken and
reports presented by each of the four experts.
The third and most important question is whether the “four separate investigations” meet the
criteria of impartiality. I would note that two of the experts are members of the Sri Lankan
Army, the body whose actions have been called into question. A third report is by Dr. Chathura
72
De Silva, BSc Eng Hons (Moratuwa), MEng (NTU), PhD (NUS), Senior Lecturer, Dept of
Computer Science and Engineering, University of Moratuwa, who has apparently advised the
Government in relation to a number of other similar issues in the past. And the fourth is by Siri
Hewawitharana, a broadcast media specialist who is said to be the former head of Cisco’s global
broadcast and digital video practice. No other information has been provided by the government
on Mr. Hewawitharana, but it would appear that he is based in Australia, and is a member of a
network of Sri Lankan Professionals. I would welcome more information on how he was
identified and selected by the government as an independent expert.
Based on the limited information available to me, it is impossible to conclude that these four
individuals, given their relationship to the Government, meet the criteria for impartiality in this
context. When the actions of a Government are called into question in a matter of this gravity,
what is required is to undertake an investigation by demonstrated experts who can be shown to
be fully independent of the Government concerned. Two of these individuals are full-time
Government employees, one has previously acted on behalf of the Government, and the basis on
which the fourth was identified and selected as an expert remains unclear. I must conclude
therefore, on the basis of the information made available by the Government, that the
investigations undertaken cannot be characterized as “impartial”.
The final question that remains is whether the information provided by the Government raises
significant doubts as to the authenticity of the video. On this question, my conclusion is that the
views expressed do indeed raise several issues which warrant further investigation before it
could reasonably be concluded that the video is authentic. The only way to do this is for an
independent and impartial investigation to take place. This is all that I have called for. Such an
investigation might well conclude that the position adopted by the Government is fully
warranted. I would welcome that outcome very warmly, and I hope that the Government would
do likewise.
Press release by the Special Rapporteur dated 17 September 2009

Sri Lanka should permit an impartial investigation into the ‘Channel 4 videotape’, says UN
expert
GENEVA -- Professor Philip Alston, the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial executions,

appointed by the United Nations Human Rights Council today issued the following statement:
I have been requested by the Government of Sri Lanka to issue a public statement in response to
the latest information provided by the Government in relation to the Channel 4 video which
purports to show extrajudicial executions being carried out by the Sri Lankan Army. I have
carefully reviewed the various briefings and statements made by the Minister for Disaster
Management and Human Rights, which are essentially based upon a detailed “Consolidated
Response” issued by the Government to the local and international media on 7 September 2009
and to the diplomatic community the following day. The Government’s response was
summarized in the Minister’s statement on 15 September 2009 to the Human Rights Council in
which he stated that “four separate investigations have now scientifically established beyond any
doubt that this video is a fake.”
I welcome the fact that the Government is now devoting considerable attention to this issue. The
legal obligation incumbent upon a Government in a situation such as this is to undertake a
73
“thorough, prompt and impartial investigation.”* My role as Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial
executions is to evaluate whether the investigations undertaken have met the relevant criteria
established under international law, and to advise the Human Rights Council accordingly. I can
attest to the fact that the investigation has been “prompt” since it was completed within two
weeks of the information becoming available. I am not, however, in a position to conclude that it
was “thorough.” I have not seen the original version of three of the four expert investigations.
The fourth of the investigations seems to have originated as an Opinion piece in The Island
newspaper, and was subsequently elaborated upon. It is not clear whether or not this was at the
Government’s request. The statement provided by the Minister summarizes “observations” made
by the remaining three experts in presentations made at a meeting convened by the Government
for this purpose. I would welcome the publication of the full text of the analyses undertaken and
reports presented by each of the four experts.
The third and most important question is whether the “four separate investigations” meet the
criteria of impartiality. I would note that two of the experts are members of the Sri Lankan
Army, the body whose actions have been called into question. A third report is by Dr. Chathura
De Silva, BSc Eng Hons (Moratuwa), MEng (NTU), PhD (NUS), Senior Lecturer, Dept of
Computer Science and Engineering, University of Moratuwa, who has advised the Government
in relation to a number of other similar issues in the past. And the fourth is by Siri
Hewawitharana, a broadcast media specialist based in Australia, who is said to be the former
head of Cisco’s global broadcast and digital video practice. No other information has been
provided by the government on Mr. Hewawitharana, but it would appear that he is a member of a
network of Sri Lankan Professionals. I would welcome more information on how he was
identified and selected by the government as an independent expert.
Based on the limited information available to me, it is impossible to conclude that these four
individuals, given their relationship to the Government, meet the criteria for impartiality in this
context. When the actions of a Government are called into question in a matter of this gravity,
what is required is to undertake an investigation by demonstrated experts who can be shown to
be fully independent of the Government concerned. Two of these individuals are full-time
Government employees, one has previously acted on behalf of the Government, and the basis on
which the fourth was identified and selected as an expert remains unclear. I must conclude
therefore, on the basis of the information made available by the Government, that the
investigations undertaken cannot be characterized as “impartial”.
The final question that remains is whether the information provided by the Government raises
significant doubts as to the authenticity of the video. On this question, my conclusion is that the
views expressed do indeed raise several issues which warrant further investigation before it
could reasonably be concluded that the video is authentic. The only way to do this is for an
independent and impartial investigation to take place. This is all that I have called for. Such an
investigation might well conclude that the position adopted by the Government is fully
warranted. I would welcome that outcome very warmly, and I hope that the Government would
do likewise.
(*) United Nations Principles on the Effective Prevention and Investigation of Extralegal,
Arbitrary and Summary Executions, adopted on 24 May 1989, para. 9.
Communication from the Government of Sri Lanka dated 17 September 2009
74
Press Release by the Government of Sri Lanka dated 17 September 2009 Government of Sri
Lanka Responds to Prof Philip Alston on Channel 4 Video
The Government of Sri Lanka welcomes the media statement issued today (17) by Prof. Philip
Alston, Special Rapporteur on extra-judicial, summary or arbitrary executions, in which he now
acknowledges that the report which was shared with him by the Government leads him to the
conclusion that “the views expressed do indeed raise several issues which warrant further
investigation before it could reasonably be concluded that the video is authentic”.
The Government of Sri Lanka also welcomes Prof. Alston acknowledgement that the
government’s investigation has been prompt. The government regrets however, that Prof. Alston
has characterized the professional investigation as not independent merely because the experts
concerned were Sri Lankan.Prof. Alston does not appear to have carefully perused the
Government’s Consolidated Response of 09 September in which a URL to Mr. Siri
Hewawitharana’s experience and qualifications was included on page 4. Contrary to Prof Alton’s
assertion, the Minister of Disaster Management and Human Rights, Mahinda Samarasinghe,
contacted Mr. Hewawitharana on 05 September, several days after the short op-ed opinion piece
in The Island newspaper appeared and requested him to provide the Minister with a more
detailed analysis of the video in the form of a short report. The said report was received on 06
September.
With regard to Dr De Silva, the sole reason for Prof. Alston’s characterization of his analysis as
partial is that he appears to have been consulted by the Government of Sri Lanka on previous
occasions. The Government is of the view that it is quite legitimate to consult acknowledged
experts from autonomous academic institutions and this in no way makes the expert part of the
Government nor does it render the view tainted by bias. Moreover, the fact that Prof. Alston now
acknowledges that the video needs further investigation to prove its authenticity is sufficient to
establish that the work of the experts consulted by the government of Sri Lanka is credible. This
also confirms the governments concern that Prof. Alston was unduly hasty in issuing his original
press statement concerning the contents of the video in the absence of any credible material.
It would be pertinent to note that the High Commissioner for Human Rights welcomed the Sri
Lankan delegation’s communication that a prompt investigation had been carried out into this
matter. She also mentioned that, being a lawyer herself, she had thought it fit not to make a
pronouncement on this issue until the authenticity of the contents of the video in question was
established. The Government is of the view that any further comment on this issue by Prof.
Alston should only be consequent to the receipt of fresh and cogent evidence that will enable him
to conclude that the video in question is genuine.
[Ends]
Ministry of Disaster Management and Human Rights 17 September 2009
Response of the Government of Sri Lanka dated 18 September 2009
75
Thank you for your letter dated 17th September sent in reply to mine of 7th September. I note that
it contains much the same material as was used in your press release of 17th September, issued
as you suggest after a request by the Sri Lankan Government, which had sent you on September
11th, its response to the Channel 4 telecast. I am glad that the meeting of the Hon Minister with
your staff on the 16th precipitated these belated responses.
I find very strange your argument as to why you did not see fit yourself to look further into the
Channel 4 video. You now go further with your analogy and claim that “if an individual was
beaten up or raped and reported the matter to the police, but because of the trauma suffered was
unable to identify when or where the alleged assault took place, it would not be justified for the
police to throw their hands and say “well, if you can’t give us the details, then there is nothing
we can do in terms of investigating the incident.” I am duly entertained by your moving on now
from your initial claim that our requests for details of the incident were ‘equivalent to a police
officer telling an alleged victim that no investigation will take place until the victim can
definitely prove to the officer’s satisfaction that the alleged crime took place‘. It is surely sleight
of hand now to introduce trauma, but can you seriously claim that Channel 4 or those who
supplied it with the video are in a state of trauma and cannot supply you with further details?
Channel 4 informed me that you had made no attempt when you spoke to them to seek
information about the video, which suggests a lack of seriousness on your part about the incident
you wish investigated. Thus your second paragraph skillfully dodges my question about ‘the
allegations submitted to me by various sources and dwells again on the video, suggesting that all
your allegations are in fact the video and nothing but the video. If you do have any other
allegations, please mention them.
With regard to the video itself, the authenticity of which now seems your sole concern, you now
challenge the Government investigation. Earlier you had written that you had formed the view
‘that the allegations made are sufficiently credible as to warrant investigation by the
Government. Only the Government, or others acting with the support or permission of the
Government, would be in a position to undertake the type of investigation required. . . If it can
convincingly be shown to be a fake, so that scenes of killing depicted in the video were staged or
contrived, as your Government apparently believes, I will be immensely relieved and the
allegations submitted to me by various sources will be shown to have been unreliable. We still
believe that, since you seem to be relying on the video alone, you should at least have tried to
check on its authenticity yourself. However while you continued to do nothing, the Government
did investigate. Happily the Commissioner for Human Rights, who had also been sent the
government response, welcomed it and also mentioned that, as a lawyer she had not thought it fit
to pronounce simply on the strength of the video, the Special Representative on Children and
Armed Conflict agreed that, if a similar video had been brought to her notice, she would have
checked on it first before making any public pronouncements. We are immensely sorry that you
seem to have a different code of conduct.
It is however a development to be welcomed that, unlike your initial pronouncements, you have
publicly acknowledged that the video needs investigation, not any alleged incident about which
you have failed to seek details from those who first raised the allegation. Meanwhile you
challenge the Government investigation on the grounds that it was conducted by Sri Lankans.
You are categorical in your distaste for army experts, though obviously, given your prejudices,
you will not be able to understand that experts in computer technology who have produced clear
arguments should be challenged in terms of those arguments rather than through personal
76
denigration. Sri Lanka is however used now to shooting of messengers without any concern for
the content of the message. You go further, in denigrating a Sri Lankan University don, simply
because ‘he has advised the Government in relation to a number of other similar issues in the
past‘. You may not understand, given the circles in which you move, that established experts are
not so many in Sri Lanka – though your general approach makes clear that even someone who
had not advised previously would have been suspected if he were Sri Lankan.
Finally you also engage in denigration of a Sri Lankan now resident in Australia who had not
previously advised the Sri Lankan government. With your customary circumspection where Sri
Lankans are concerned, a circumspection you do not extend to Channel 4, you say that while he
‘is said to be the former head of Cisco’s global broadcast and digital video practice‘. Obviously
you have not bothered to check this yourself, even though a link to his credentials was given in
the report, and you could, if you had doubts since he is a Sri Lankan, have checked with Cisco
direct. But that too would probably not have made a difference to your approach since Mr.
Hewavithatana‘s main crime is that ‘it would appear that he is a member of a network of Sri
Lankan Professionals’. You seem to live in an Orwellian world in which Sri Lankans seem
generally bad and untrustworthy, but anyone who attacks the Sri Lankan Government, Channel
4, Journalists for Democracy in Sri Lanka, is good and trustworthy. This is sad since, as I have
told you in the past, your initial report on Sri Lanka was helpful. You then explained to me why
you had decided to adopt an aggressive approach to Sri Lanka, but I pointed out that our lady
ambassador‘s initial response to you was because your report had been leaked. I accepted your
assurance that you had not leaked the material yourself, but I still believe that you should at least
have checked on how the leak occurred, and reported to us as to how this type of incident could
be prevented in future. I am the more concerned about this now because other representatives in
Geneva have informed us of what seems further bad faith with what should be strictly
professional dealings.
Leaving asides the larger question of your general approach to Sri Lankans, I must question what
seems to be a strange inconsistency in this particular instance. Why ask the government to
conduct an investigation and then say that it must be by foreigners? If you are determined to
denigrate anything we do, you surely should, as we told you initially, conduct your own
investigation, and you could have made a start by at least asking a few questions of Channel 4,
instead of dancing to their tune.Your performance however is slightly redeemed in that, at the
end of your release, you say that, following our report ‘my conclusion is that the views expressed
do indeed raise several issues which warrant further investigation before it could reasonably be
concluded that the video is authentic‘. We can only hope then that now, instead of introducing
hypothetical traumatized victims to justify your initial less restricted critique, and contradicting
yourself continuously, you actually check on the points made in the analysis, carefully analyzing
the video yourself, and then point out what precisely you find inaccurate in our presentation. Any
explanation you can offer for the moving leg of a purportedly dead person would be particularly
welcome, and would I am sure provide immense relief.
Yours sincerely
Rajiva Wijesinha
Secretary
77
I am responding to your letter dated 18 September 2009, which was received by the OHCHR on
22 September 2009, and by me on 23 September 2009. I shall keep my reply brief since I would
prefer to focus on the facts which are under dispute rather than to engage in a heated rhetorical
exchange.
You suggest that my position is that it is only "the video that needs investigation, not any alleged
incident." This is not correct. I still believe that the Government of Sri Lanka has an international
legal obligation to do all it can to ensure that, to the best of its knowledge and based on credible
investigations, the killings depicted on the video did not take place.
In terms of the expert opinions adduced by the Government, I note that you do not respond to my
request that the text of those opinions be made available, rather than a summary presented by the
Government itself.
You go on to accuse me of impugning the Government investigation "on the grounds that it was
conducted by Sri Lankans", and of having denigrated the individual experts. You conclude by
suggesting that I "live in an Orwellian world in which Sri Lankans are generally bad and
untrustworthy". Such statements are unbecoming and unjustified by the facts. A careful reading
of my statement indicates clearly that my concern was not that of nationality, but of
independence and impartiality. The importance of ensuring that experts or judges are not only
independent, but are objectively seen to be so, has long been recognized in all legal systems, and
is appropriately reflected in international law standards. Two of the Government's experts were
members of the military which stands accused. Another wrote a strong opinion piece in a Sri
Lankan newspaper calling the authenticity of the video into question, and seems to have
subsequently been called upon by the Government to act as an independent expert on the basis of
these views already expressed. The fourth expert had been consulted on several previous
occasions by the government, which at least raises a question about his independence.
I would conclude by repeating that I would welcome an independent and impartial review of the
videotape and very much hope that one shall be undertaken.
Yours sincerely,
Philip Alston
Press release by the Special Rapporteur dated 31 September 2009
An Independent Investigation into Sri Lankan Executions is Urgent, says UN Expert

GENEVA - The UN Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions called
for the urgent establishment of an independent investigation into the authenticity of a video
alleged to show the extrajudicial execution of two naked and helpless men by the Sri Lankan
army and the presumed prior execution of a number of others. “These images are horrendous
and, if authentic, would indicate a serious violation of international law”, said Professor Philip
Alston. “I am aware that the Sri Lankan Government has categorically denied the veracity of the
allegations. This makes it all the more important for an independent investigation to be set up.
For the independent expert, “if the Government’s position is validated as a result of an inquiry,
the international community can rest easy and the Government will have been vindicated. There
78
is no justification for not moving ahead with such an investigation in view of the Government’s
confidence that such atrocities were never perpetrated by its armed forces”.
Professor Alston stated that no Government today can simply dismiss such allegations without
undertaking a thorough investigation that meets international standards. He also recalled that he
has, on a number of occasions over recent years, requested to undertake a visit to Sri Lanka in
order to review the situation. He regretted that, to date, he has not yet received an invitation to do
so from the Government of Sri Lanka, but indicated that he was hopeful that such an invitation
might be forthcoming in light of the most recent allegations.
Response of the Government of Sri Lanka dated 2 October 2009
Dear Prof Alston

Thank you for your letter of 30 September, sent in response to mine of the 18th. It is always a
pleasure to hear from you, and I am only sorry your reply is so brief, and does not address some
of the points I made. Apart from enjoying your prose style, I find that the more you write the
more there is that makes clear your mindset. I am pleased however that you have now decided to
ignore the warning from the Office of the High Commissioner that you should not respond to my
letters in case I were to use those replies. I can assure you that you need not worry, and I also
have no intention of engaging in heated rhetorical exchanges, or in any way risking your bulldog
mode. It is sad however that in your previous letter you did engage in a rhetorical flourish, in
denigrating Mr. Siri Hewa by claiming that ‘It would appear that he is a member of a network of
Sri Lankan Professionals’. If as you now declare your concern was ‘not that of nationality, but of
independence and impartiality’, the previous claim seems a cheap debating point.
I should add that none of your colleagues has expressed doubts about the provenance of the
investigation conducted by the Government, so the lack of objectivity seems to me to be more
yours than that of the experts who were consulted. Indeed, though very properly none expressed
criticism of your haste, the general view amongst your colleagues seemed to be that rushing into
action on the basis of such a video was not something they would have engaged in.
Finally, you continue to ignore the facts raised in the report. I am surprised that you did not
yourself seek out the fuller report through accessing the website of the Ministry of Defence
(www.defence.lk) but if here too your distaste for the messenger precludes attention to the
message, you may ask for this from our representatives at the Mission which sent you the
summary. I believe that you have not as yet replied to their letter, except through your second
press release, which was then cut and pasted into your previous response to me. It would be
proper I believe to respond to them, and with a little more cutting and pasting you could ask for
any more material that you needed to continue to justify your original letter and immediate press
release.
Yours sincerely,
Prof Rajiva Wijesinha
Secretary
Ministry of Disaster Management and Human Rights
Response of the Special Rapporteur dated 9 November 2009
79
I am following up on our previous correspondence in relation to the so-called Channel 4
videotape to request access to the original reports by the four experts commissioned by the Sri
Lankan Government to provide advice as to the apparent authenticity or otherwise of the
videotape. I have, of course, read carefully the excerpts from the various reports posted on the
relevant official websites, but I would very much appreciate being able to read the complete
report submitted by each of the experts.
Response from the Government of Sri Lanka dated 13 November 2009
Dear Prof Alston
Thank you for your letter of 9th November. I was awaiting a response to my previous letter of
October 2nd, which may not have reached you since your present letter reiterates a request to
which I responded then, in suggesting that you ‘ask for this from the representatives at the
Mission which sent you the summary‘. In fact I noted that it seemed ‘you have not as yet replied
to their letter’ except through a press release, which did not strike me as entirely proper.
I will however forward your letter to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Colombo, though I
should add that the current request would have been made more appropriately to those who
initially wrote to you in this regard, in place of the peremptory press release which has done little
to convince us of your objectivity. I will however be happy to engine with you further on the
issues of principle I have raised, since I continue perhaps unusually to believe, on the strength of
your original report which was so unfortunately leaked, that you are not irredeemably prejudiced.
I still think you should inquire into the circumstances of that leak, which has contributed so
much to you current bulldog approach, to use your own term, to interactions with Sri Lanka,
even our ambassador who was so hurt by what seemed double-dealing retired many years ago.
Yours sincerely
Secretary
Response of the Special Rapporteur dated 5 January 2010
By way of follow-up to the several communications that I have exchanged with your
Excellency’s Government in relation to the so-called “Channel 4 Videotape” (including my
communications of 28 August and 17 September 2009 and your Excellency’s Government’s
communications of 7 and 17 September 2009), and by way of responding to the various requests
made that further examination of the video be undertaken, I attach a Technical Note which
describes the outcome of the further inquiries that I have made in this regard. An Appendix to the
Technical Note contains the full text of the original opinions provided by each of three
independent experts I have retained to carry out analysis of the video tape.
80
In view of the very public nature of the comments already exchanged on this matter, I plan to
make this Technical Note available by means of a public statement in New York on 7 January
2010.
Technical Note prepared by the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or

arbitrary executions, Mr. Philip Alston, in relation to the authenticity of the “Channel 4
videotape”
Overview
1. On 25 August 2009, a United Kingdom television station released video footage which
appears to show the summary execution of Tamils by Sri Lankan soldiers. A group named
Journalists for Democracy in Sri Lanka claimed that the killings had been filmed in January 2009
by a Sri Lankan soldier with a mobile phone. This was at a time when the international media did
not have access to the conflict zone.
2. Since the video’s release, the Government of Sri Lanka has claimed that the video is a fake.
Over the past four months, I have been engaged in a series of communications with the
Government about this video, in which I requested it to conduct an independent investigation.
While the Government initially refused to do so, on 7 September 2009, it issued a response
stating that it had commissioned four separate investigations, and that they “have now
scientifically established beyond any doubt that this video is a fake”. At the time, I expressed
concern about the objectivity of the investigations, in part because two of the “independent
experts” worked for the Sri Lankan armed forces. Some of the reports seemed more
impressionistic than scientific, and I have never been provided the full version of the reports.
3. I decided that it was incumbent upon me to commission independent and impartial evaluations
of the videotape. I retained three experts: in forensic pathology (Dr Spitz), forensic video
analysis (Mr. Spivack), and firearm evidence (Mr. Diaczuk). Together, the reports by these
experts strongly suggest that the video is authentic.
4. Mr. Diaczuk concluded that the recoil, movement of the weapon and the shooter, and the gases
expelled from the muzzle in both apparent shootings were consistent with firing live
ammunition, and not with shooting blank cartridges.
5. Dr Spitz found that the footage appeared authentic, especially with respect to the two
individuals who are shown being shot in the head at close range. He found that the body reaction,
movement, and blood evidence was entirely consistent with what would be expected in such
shootings.
6. Mr. Spivack’s forensic video analysis found no evidence of breaks in continuity in the video,
no additional video layers, and no evidence of image manipulation.
7. There are a small number of characteristics of the video which the experts were not able to
explain. This included the movement of certain victims in the video, 17 frames at the end of the
video, and the date of 17 July 2009 encoded in the video. Each of these characteristics can,
however, be explained in a manner which is entirely consistent with the conclusion that the
videotape appears to be authentic.
81
8. Moreover, the independent experts’ analyses also systematically rebutted most of the
arguments relied upon by Sri Lanka’s experts in support of their contention that the video was
faked. For example:
(a) A Sri Lankan expert stated that there was no recoil or movement of the weapon discharged.
However, Mr. Spivack and Mr. Diaczuk described the recoil visible on the video, and the way in
which the movement was consistent with firing live ammunition.
(b) A Sri Lankan expert stated that the lack of audio synchronization with the video indicated
manipulation. However, Mr. Spivack stated that the video/audio synchronization in the video
was well within acceptable limits, and that audio can be ahead or behind video, subject to various
variables.
(c) A Sri Lankan expert stated that the movement of the second victim after being shot was not
consistent with the normal expected reaction. However, Mr. Spitz stated that the movement was
entirely consistent with the manner in which the individual was apparently shot.
(d) A Sri Lankan expert stated that while wind could be heard on the audio, it was not evident in
the video. Mr. Spivack however described multiple places in the video where there is clear
evidence of wind.
(e) Sri Lanka’s experts argued that the footage was likely recorded on a digital camcorder, and
not a mobile phone. Mr. Spivack concluded that the metadata he retrieved from the video was
entirely consistent with multimedia files produced by mobile phones with video recording
capability, and that it would have been very difficult to alter the metadata.
9. In sum, while there are some unexplained elements in the video, there are strong indications of
its authenticity. In addition, most of the arguments relied upon by the Government of Sri Lanka
to impugn the video have been shown to be flawed.
10. In light of these conclusions, and of the persistent flow of other allegations concerning
alleged extrajudicial executions committed by both sides during the closing phases of the war
against the LTTE, I call for an independent inquiry to be established to carry out an impartial
investigation into war crimes and other grave violations of international humanitarian and human
rights law allegedly committed in Sri Lanka.
11. The detailed report below provides a summary of the background to this issue, as well as a
detailed summary of: (i) evaluations undertaken in September 2009 at the request of the Sri
Lankan Government; (ii) evaluations undertaken by two other sources unrelated to either the
Government or the Special Rapporteur; and (iii) evaluations prepared by the three independent
experts commissioned by the Special Rapporteur. In addition, the full text of the latter three
reports are reproduced as a separate Appendix to this Technical Note.
1. Introduction
12. On 25 August 2009, a United Kingdom television station, Channel 4, released video footage
which appears to show the summary execution of Tamils by Sri Lankan soldiers. There is no
indication in the video itself of the ethnicity of the dead men, but the group which obtained the
pictures, Journalists for Democracy in Sri Lanka, claimed the victims are Tamils. The group
82
claimed that the killings had been filmed in January by a Sri Lankan soldier with a mobile phone.
This was at a time when the international media did not have access to the conflict zone.
13. The footage first shows a young man who is naked, bound and blindfolded. A man
approaches him wearing what appears to be a Sri Lankan army uniform and appears to shoot him
at point-blank range.6 The video, taken in daylight, then pans out to show what appears to be
eight bound corpses, all who appear to have been shot and killed. All but one are naked. Towards
the end of the footage, a ninth bound victim is shown apparently being shot.
14. The day after the broadcast the Government of Sri Lanka issued a statement saying that it
“strongly and unequivocally denies the allegations contained in the video footage telecast on
Channel 4. This footage is diabolical and there is absolutely no truth in its concocted story . . .”.7
On 28 August 2009, in a letter sent to the Government of Sri Lanka and in a press statement, I
called for the urgent establishment of an independent investigation into the authenticity of the
video, adding that, if authentic, the images would indicate a serious violation of international
law. I observed that no Government today can simply dismiss such allegations without
undertaking a thorough investigation that meets international standards, and expressed hope that
an invitation to conduct an official visit, which I had previously requested on a number of
occasions, might be forthcoming in the light of these most recent allegations. In addition, I noted
that my call did not prejudge any question as to the authenticity or otherwise of the video.8
15. The matter of the videotape was also raised by the United Nations Secretary-General, Ban
Ki-moon, in talks in Geneva on 2 September 2009, with Mahinda Samarasinghe, Sri Lanka's
Minister for Disaster Management and Human Rights.
16. The Government of Sri Lanka responded to the Special Rapporteur by means of a letter
signed by Professor Rajiva Wijesinha, Secretary of the Ministry of Disaster Management and
Human Rights. The letter rejected the video as inauthentic and indicated that the allegations
made did not warrant Government attention until and unless definitive evidence was able to be
provided. In subsequent commentary, it was suggested that the fact that the video had first been
aired on Channel 4, which had previously had disagreements with the Sri Lankan Government,
made an investigation even less appropriate. “[I]t is really too much to expect that an
investigation be set in motion on the strength of a video clip shown on a television channel that
had previously engaged in bizarre inaccuracies”. Professor Wijesinha also indicated that my
earlier statement about the videotape had set me “at the heart of a terrorist media campaign
against the Sri Lankan Government”.9
17. In my response to the Government I indicated that, in my view, international law established
a clear standard which should be followed in such cases:
6
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/video-that-reveals-truth-of-sri-lankan-war-crimes-1777746.html
7
http://www.slmfa.gov.lk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2100&Itemid=75
8
See United Nations Press Release “An Independent Investigation into Sri Lankan Executions is Urgent, says UN
Expert”, 31 August 2009, at
http://www.unhchr.ch/huricane/huricane.nsf/view01/56BD66A1DDB017AEC1257623002A48A7?opendocument
9
Prof. Rajiva Wijesinha, ‘Arbitrary Execution by Prof Philip Alston’, Daily News, Sept 2, 2009, available at
http://www.dailynews.lk/2009/09/02/fea03.asp )
83
• “[t]here shall be thorough, prompt and impartial investigation of all suspected cases of extra-
legal, arbitrary and summary executions, including cases where complaints by relatives or other
reliable reports suggest unnatural death in the above circumstances.”10
I acknowledged that there would always be legitimate room for debate as to what constitutes a
‘reliable’ report in any such situation, and that a videotape, like most other sources of alleged
evidence, can be fabricated. I concluded, however, that in this instance it did “not seem to me
that the video [was] patently fake or staged” and that it constituted “a sufficiently reliable source
as to warrant investigation”.
I added that:
• “If it can be convincingly shown to be a fake, as your Government apparently believes, I will
be immensely relieved and the allegations submitted to me by various sources will be shown to
have been unreliable. I do not accept, however, that a video of this nature can be dismissed as
self-evidently unreliable in the absence of any detailed investigation or analysis undertaken
either by the Government or by independent experts.
• Given the extremely serious nature of the killings depicted in the video, and your
Government’s stated commitment to respecting human rights and promoting reconciliation
within the country, it is my hope that serious consideration will be given to establishing an
independent investigation into the alleged incident.”
2. Evaluations commissioned by the Government

18. The Government of Sri Lanka subsequently decided to commission several expert opinions
in relation to the videotape. On 7 September 2009 it publicly issued a “Consolidated Response of
the Government of Sri Lanka to the Telecast by Channel 4 News of the United Kingdom on 25
August 2009 of a Video of Supposed Extra-Judicial Executions in Sri Lanka”. This document
strenuously denied the video’s authenticity and set out the findings of four separate
investigations that had been commissioned.
19. Sri Lanka also disputed the reliability of the source of the video – Journalists for Democracy
in Sri Lanka – noting that they did not have any web presence until early August 2009, implying
that they had been set up as a Tamil front group. Minister Samarasinghe also stated that attempts
at publishing fabricated video evidence of atrocities had been common during the final phases of
the war, citing in particular a video and telephone call which purported to document the bombing
of a makeshift hospital by Sri Lankan armed forces (aired on Al Jazeera) which, according to the
Sri Lankan army analysis which followed, was fabricated.
20. The Consolidated Response summarizes “observations” made by three experts in

presentations made at a meeting convened by the Government for this purpose. The analysis of a
fourth expert was read by Minister Samarasinghe and is also summarized in the Response. The
full text of the analyses undertaken and reports presented by each of the four experts has not
been made public. On 9 November 2009 I wrote to the Government noting that while I had “read
carefully the excerpts from the various reports posted on the relevant official websites, … I
would very much appreciate being able to read the complete report submitted by each of the
experts.” No substantive response to this request has yet been received.
10
Principles on the Effective Prevention and Investigation of Extra-legal, Arbitrary and Summary Executions,
adopted by Economic and Social Council resolution 1989/65, of 24 May 1989, Annex, para. 9
84
21. Expert statement one: The report first documents the presentation of Dr. De Silva, Senior
Lecturer in Computer Science and Engineering and director of the Centre for Instructional
Technology at the University of Moratuwa (Sri Lanka). According to the report, he made the
following observations:
(a) “The granularity of motion vectors and other inter-frame features indicate that the footage
had been originally captured using a high-end camera (at least a digital camcorder) and not by an
average mobile phone.
(b) An analysis of the colour levels and saturation shows that the bloodstains in the film are
unusually strong in colour and have texture mismatches – this is usually the result of post-
recording modifications and the use of digital effects.
(c) There is no recoil or movement of the weapon discharged.
(d) Texture analysis of image and possible over-lays shows evidence of tampering / digital
effects in relation to enhanced bloodstains and one blindfold.
(e) Evidence of audio dubbing
(f) Lack of audio synchronization – audio is delayed for more than 1.5 seconds – this is not due
to video compression or processing.
(g) Audio indicates presence of strong wind-noise. However, this is not evident in the video
footage.
(h) Transcript of the Sinhala dialogue has no relation to the images in the footage. There is no
audio of victims screaming or any other related noise.
(i) There was no indication that a zoomed view was used.”
22. Expert statement two: Minister Samarasinghe read the views of Mr. Siri Hewawitharana
who, according to the Sri Lankan Government, was an expert on video technology. This
assessment also focused on a technical analysis of the authenticity of the video. His findings
were summarized as follows:
• “There are indications that the original video is edited since original layer stopped at 1:02.781,
video editing stopped at 01:02.312 and audio dub stopped at 1:02.152. If it is the original audio,
it should have played all the way to 1:02.781 and should not have 2 video layers indicating an
original and an edited version.
• It is said that the video came from a mobile phone video source, but there are only two formats
in mobile video formats (the old 3GPP format and the new MP4 format). However, the Channel
4 video is much higher in quality than either format can create today.
• Within H-264 coding (used for MP4 format) there is also an extra component called Motion
Vectors (VMC) which are used to predict motion on the temporal and spatial 10
http://www.slembassyusa.org/archives/main_index_pages/2009/min_dmhr_pr_09sep09.pdf
85
domain. Channel 4’s video has quite high quality VMC and it appears that this VMC came from
a video camera and not from a mobile phone source.
• Since the original video was originally in AVI and QuickTime format, this indicates that the
original video is of high quality that originated from a video camera source, as mobile formats
does not use AVI or QuickTime. If a change of mobile format to AVI or QT format is attempted,
then the resulting video is likely to be of very bad quality. However, in this case the video is of
very high quality.
• The gun shot was not in synchronization with the video. Normally audio is always ahead of the
video since video processing takes more time. In this case, the audio is very late indicating video
and audio editing.”11
23. Expert statement three: Major A.P Bandara of the Media Centre for National Security, which
comes within the purview of the Ministry of Defence and is based in Colombo, presented his
findings to the Government, summarised in the Report. He noted a number of discrepancies in
the video:
• “The leg of a dead person lying prone on the ground rises in the air when the first victim is
shot. Thereafter the leg slowly drops to its former position.
• The second victim, though shot in the head, continues to have stiff leg muscles and reclines on
his arms bound behind his back. Then he gradually leans back until he lies flat on the ground.
• One of the other victims who appears to lie dead in muddy ground wears a clean white shirt.
• The soldier who is shown killing the first victim is wearing a white T-shirt but the standard
issue for Sri Lankan Army is of a different colour altogether. The second soldier has a very
unmilitary growth of hair.
• Even though the bodies are lying in waterlogged or muddy ground, not all the bloodstains from
the fatal injuries have spread in a manner consistent with one another.”12
24. Expert statement four: Brigadier Prasad Samarasinghe of the Army’s Signals Corps gave the
final presentation. It was reported that he had conducted both a technical study and field tests
which confirmed the conclusions of the preceding presentations. His further observations were
summarized in the report as follows:
• “30 frames at the end of the video stream only contained a letter “A” against a blank
background. This is not consistent with an original video from a mobile telephone source.
• The video and audio streams were analyzed concurrently for consistency and several
discrepancies were noticed which leads to the conclusion that the distance of the mobile
telephone’s microphone from the weapon was 102 metres in respect of the first shot and 38
metres from the second.
11
12
86
• A field simulation test using several mobile telephone brands revealed that, in order to maintain
the size of image in the Channel 4 video, the mobile telephone camera should have been at a
distance of approximately 3 to 5 metres from the discharged weapon.”13
25. On the basis of the presentations, the report detailed the conclusions of Minister
Samarasinghe, who stated that the telecast of the video represented a “malicious attempt to play
out a political agenda aimed at besmirching the name of Sri Lanka and denigrating the armed
forces”14. He demanded a retraction of the video and story by Channel 4.14
26. On 15 September 2009, the Sri Lankan Government made a statement to the UN Human
Rights Council that “four separate investigations have now scientifically established beyond any
doubt that this video is a fake”. On 16 September 2009, Secretary Wijesinha told BBC Radio that
one reason for restricting the access of journalists to camps for internally displaced persons was
that parts of the media had acted irresponsibly. In particular, he cited the “video shown on
Channel 4 which showed what was meant to be an execution, it turned out that they had not even
bothered to check it. It showed purportedly a dead person with a leg that gradually went down.
I'm afraid when people tell lies, all of you get tarred with the same brush”.15 On 18 September
2009, Sri Lanka’s Daily News newspaper reported that the Sri Lankan High Commission in
London had lodged a complaint against Channel 4 with the Press Complaints Commission.
Attorney General Mohan Pieris was also reported to have consulted with a London-based legal
firm with a view to filing a lawsuit against Channel 4.16
3. The Special Rapporteur’s response to the reports

27. In acknowledging the Sri Lankan investigations and report, I concluded that “the views
expressed do indeed raise several issues which warrant further investigation before it could
reasonably be concluded that the video is authentic” and I noted that “the only way to do this is
for an independent and impartial investigations to take place”. While recognizing the promptness
of the investigation, I observed that two of the four Government experts were full-time
Government employees, that the third had previously acted on behalf of the Government, and
that “the basis on which the fourth was identified and selected as an expert remains unclear”.
Accordingly, the studies could not objectively be characterized as meeting the requirement laid
out in international law that such studies must be impartial. Nor was it possible for me to
conclude that the investigations had been “thorough”, since I had not seen the original version of
three of the four expert investigations, and the fourth of the investigations appeared to have
originated as an Opinion piece in The Island newspaper,17 which had then been elaborated upon
at the Government’s request.18
28. On 17 September 2009, the Sri Lankan Government responded by refuting my

characterisation of the investigation as lacking in impartiality. This led to press reports such as
that of 19 September 2009 in the Daily News which suggested that “Prof. Alston has now eaten
13
14
http://www.lankanewspapers.com/news/2009/9/47762.html
15
http://www.dmhr.gov.lk/english/more_news.php?dmhrnind=304
16
http://www.nation.lk/2009/09/20/politics.htm
17
Siri Hewawitharana, “Channel 4 Video: The Technical Truth”, The Island, 31 August 2009,
http://www.island.lk/2009/08/31/opinion1.html
18
http://www.reliefweb.int/rw/rwb.nsf/db900sid/EGUA-7VYKR8?OpenDocument
87
most of his harsh, ill-thought out and damaging comments about Sri Lanka”.19 The following
day, the Ministry of Defence published a statement by one of the Government’s experts, Mr. Siri
Hewawitharana, who “challenged the UN to disprove his analysis into the fake video clip of
Channel 4”. He was quoted as saying: “I can tell the good Professor that if he is to put his experts
against my conclusion I am happy to see any 14 http://www.dailynews.lk/2009/09/12/sec02.asp
of them do any rebuttal of my analysis. … [If Channel 4 had asked experts to look at the video,
they] would have seen the forgery of the editing parts within a few seconds. ‘So why are we
wasting time here’, Hewawitharana said adding that Prof. Alston insults not only the Sri Lankan
nation with lies and innuendoes, but is also questioning science and engineering”.20
29. The Government stated that the High Commissioner for Human Rights, Navi Pillay, had
welcomed their report,21 although I am not aware of any public statement on the matter by the
High Commissioner. She did, however, subsequently call for a full investigation into violations
of human rights and international law that occurred during the civil war in Sri Lanka. In
elaborating upon her comments, the Spokesperson for the UN Office of the High Commissioner
for Human Rights, Rupert Colville, told reporters that “something like the Gaza fact-finding
mission is certainly warranted given the widespread concerns about the conduct of the war in Sri
Lanka”.22 The Sri Lankan Ministry for Disaster Management and Human Rights responded on
27 October 2009 to that suggestion, describing the High Commissioner’s approach as
“unwarranted and uncalled for” and noted that although the statement followed the issuance of a
US State Department report into abuses in Sri Lanka, it did not appear to take account of the fact
that the US report did not purport to reach legal conclusions.23 The Ministry reiterated that “the
President has appointed a Committee of persons of proven integrity and independence to look
into the incidents mentioned in the report” and that the President will “make known its position
once this Committee has fulfilled its mandate and reported its conclusions.”24
4. Further forensic study commissioned by a Tamil group

30. Subsequently, in response to the Sri Lankan Government’s investigations into the video, a
US-based pressure group – Tamils Against Genocide – commissioned a technical study of the
video. Preliminary findings were released on 18 October 2009. The report was said to have been
made by a US-based forensic company that took nearly three weeks to analyse the recording.
They said: “[t]he video and audio of the events depicted in the Video, were continuous without
any evidence of start/stops, insertions, deletions, over recordings, editing or tampering of any
king.”25 Although the group stated that it would release the final report on the video in early
November, this has not yet happened. The key preliminary findings cited were as follows:
• “No evidence of tampering or editing was discovered with either the video or audio portions of
Video.
• The blood pooled around the previous victim with the white shirt and with the victim of the
second shooting appears to be consistent with blood from the brain, which would contain high
19
Lucien Rajakarunanayake, “Alston sings on lying channel”, Daily News, 19 Sept 2009
http://www.dailynews.lk/2009/09/19/fea03.asp
20
Sri Lanka Ministry of Defence, Public Security, Law and Order, 20 September 2009, at
http://www.defence.lk/new.asp?fname=20090920_03
21
http://www.lankamission.org/content/view/2587/1/
22
http://www.unmultimedia.org/radio/english/detail/84414.html
23
http://www.dmhr.gov.lk/english/more_news.php?dmhrnind=336
24
Ibid.
25
http://www.tamilnet.com/art.html?catid=13&artid=30466
88
amounts of oxygen giving the blood its bright color. The fact that it is still bright in color appears
to be consistent with it being very recent.
• The audio delay with respect to both gun shots’ audio compared with each corresponding rifle
recoil is consistent for some, if not most, camera cell phones that are capable of video recording.
• Preliminary field test with a typical camera cell phone of similar audio qualities was able to
record a MAK-90 (AK variant w/16” barrel) gun shot w/7.62x39mm ammo, with the camera cell
phone being positioned in a similar camera field of view of the second gun shot, or 12 feet away
from the muzzle, without any distortion of the audio.
• The leg of an apparent previous shooting victim lying prone on the ground, down range and at
the feet of the first victim, rises in the air when the first victim is shot, and then slowly drops to
its former position. This reaction appears to be from the bullet that passed through the first
victim and then striking the down range victim and would be consistent with a victim that was
very recently shot that has not died yet.”26
5. Investigation commissioned by The Times (London)

31. On 15 December 2009, The Times of London published the results of an evaluation of the
videotape undertaken by Grant Fredericks, an independent forensic video specialist who was said
to be an instructor at the FBI [Federal Bureau of Investigation] National Academy, and to have
previously been head of the Vancouver Police forensic video unit. While I endeavoured to obtain
a copy of the full report prepared by Mr. Fredericks, my efforts were unsuccessful. I have thus
seen only the press coverage of the analysis, the principal reported elements of which are as
follows:
• “He found no evidence of digital manipulation, editing or any other special effects. However,
subtle details consistent with a real shooting, such as a discharge of gas from the barrel of the
weapon used, were visible.
• ‘This level of subtle detail cannot be virtually reproduced. This is clearly an original recording’
....
• There was also strong evidence to rule out the use of actors. ‘Even if the weapons fired blanks,
the barrel is so close to the head of the “actors” that the gas discharge alone leaves the weapon
with such force it would likely cause serious injury or death’ . . . .
• The reactions of those executed was consistent with reality . . . . ‘The victims do not lunge
forward . . . [they] fall backward in a very realistic reaction, unlike what is normally depicted in
the movies.’
• . . . ‘[T]he injury to the head of the second victim and the oozing liquid from that injury cannot
be reproduced realistically without editing cuts, camera angle changes and special effects. No
[errors] exist anywhere in any of the images that support a technical fabrication of the events
depicted’ . . . .
• . . . ‘[C]ode embedded in the footage appeared to match with software used in Nokia mobile
phones.’ . . . ‘The recording is completely consistent with a cell phone video recording and there
are no signs of editing or alterations.’”27
6. Analyses by experts commissioned by the Special Rapporteur

32. Once it became apparent that neither the Government of Sri Lanka, nor the Office of the
High Commissioner for Human Rights would be commissioning independent and impartial
26
Ibid.
27
Rhys Blakely, “Sri Lankan war crimes video is authentic, Times investigation finds”, December 15, 2009, at
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article6956569.ece
89
evaluations of the videotape, I decided that it was incumbent upon me to do so in my capacity as
Special Rapporteur. Indeed, the Government of Sri Lanka had suggested such a course of action
on several occasions.
33. On the basis of advice received from independent experts working in the relevant fields, I
approached three experts to provide me with their expert opinions on the authenticity or
otherwise of the videotape. Each of these experts agreed to undertake the work on a pro bono
basis, and each declared his full independence and impartiality in relation to this matter. The full
text of the report provided by each expert is appended to this Note.
Expert 1: Jeff S. Spivack

34. Mr. Spivack was formerly a Forensic Multimedia Analyst with the Las Vegas Metropolitan
Police Department, and a calibration laboratory specialist for the US Air Force. He is a member
of the American College of Forensic Examiners Institute, is a Certified Forensic Consultant, and
has been qualified as an expert witness on forensic video analysis in courts throughout the US.
He is now in private practice.
35. Mr. Spivack’s main findings were as follows:

• “The video and audio formats, codecs, bit rates, and video width, height, aspect ratio, and
format profile (motion vector) properties are entirely consistent with multimedia files produced
by a wide variety of mobile phones with video recording capability.” Mr. Spivack noted that
while it is “theoretically possible to alter or delete metadata in a multimedia file, he was “unable
to locate any commercially available software capable of deleting or altering meaningful file
attributes.” He stated that “altering the class of metadata recovered in this analysis … requires a
high degree of technical proficiency.”
• “Content analysis revealed no breaks in continuity, no additional video layers, and no evidence
of image manipulation.”
36. Mr. Spivack reviewed each of the Sri Lanka expert arguments and found most of them to be
inaccurate or faulty. For example:
• Sri Lanka expert Dr De Silva stated that the colours of the bloodstains in the video suggested
that the video was faked. Mr. Spivack stated, “color reproduction accuracy is inherently
unreliable for any photographic or video recording, regardless of domain or medium. Color
levels, saturation, and related properties do not provide conclusive evidence of image
manipulation.”
• Sri Lanka experts Dr De Silva and Mr. Hewawitharana stated that the lack of audio
synchronization with the video indicated manipulation. However, Mr. Spivack stated,
“video/audio synchronization for both events ranges from an audio delay of 0.068 to 0.122
seconds, well within acceptable limits. Again, as previously noted, audio and video quantization
processes occur independently and the two tracks are synchronized and multiplexed in a separate
process. Audio may be “ahead” of the video or it may be delayed, subject to a number of
variables.”
• Sri Lanka expert Dr De Silva stated that there was no evidence of wind in the video footage,
but it was present on the audio. Mr. Spivack stated that there “is compelling visible evidence of
wind activity corresponding to wind noise in the audio track, particularly at frame 333 as the
individual operating the camera changed the position of the camera radically as a gust of wind
was audible. Further, a cloud of what appears to be aerosolized biological material is visible
drifting back toward the second shooter as wind gusts are also audible.”
90
• Sri Lanka expert Major Bandara stated that the bloodstains did not spread in a consistent
manner. Mr. Spivack stated, “Both the surface topography and level of water saturation appear to
be highly variable in the area where bodies are present. It is quite true that the bloodstains would
have individual characteristics. This is to be expected; in fact, it would be far more suspect if all
the bloodstains appeared to be identical. Such a condition would be suggestive of effects inserted
in a “copy and paste” manner.”
37. Mr. Spivack noted two elements that he could not explain on the basis of the video he
reviewed:
• He noted that the metadata retrieved from the video indicated that the encoded date was set at
17 July 2009. This date is not determinative, however, as the Philips mobile phone devices sold
in Sri Lanka permit the user to set the date and time on the phone.
• At the end of the recording, there are 17 frames consisting of a red background with a white
uppercase “A”. Mr. Spivack stated that, “Without access to the specific device that generated this
recording, it is not possible to determine if this text or title feature is consistent with the normal
operation of the device using default settings, user defined settings, as a consequence of device
malfunction, or as a characteristic of proprietary transfer and/or conversion software.”
Expert 2: Daniel Spitz
38. Dr Spitz, MD, is a specialist in forensic pathology and toxicology. He is the Chief Medical
Examiner for Macomb County and St Claire County in Michigan, and Clinical Assistant
Professor of Pathology, Wayne State University School of Medicine. He is also an Adjunct
Instructor at Macomb Community College, a Clinical Educator at Michigan State University
School of Medicine, and a Staff Physician at Port Huron Hospital. He is Board-certified in
Anatomic, Clinical and Forensic Pathology by the American Board of Pathology, is on the Board
of Editors of the American Journal of Forensic Medicine and Pathology, and has authored
several book chapters, numerous original articles and abstracts. He is the co-author of
Medicolegal Investigation of Death (4th edition, 2006), and Differential Diagnosis in Surgical
Pathology (2nd edition, 2009).
39. Dr Spitz summarizes his findings as follows:

• “[T]he footage shown in this video appears authentic, especially with respect to the two
individuals who are shown being shot in the head at close range by assailants using high powered
assault rifles. The body reaction, movement and blood evidence of both victims are entirely
consistent with what you would expect with execution type shootings. Furthermore, it appears
that the other 8 apparently deceased individuals are also victims of homicidal violence . . . ”.
40. While the testimony of Sri Lanka’s expert, Major A.P. Bandara stated that the physical
response of the second gunshot victim was an indication that the video was fake, Dr Spitz stated
that:
• “As the victim is shot, he immediately collapses backwards, but appears to tense his body with
contraction of his torso and lower extremity musculature. A large gush of blood pours from the
back of his head and onto the ground behind his body. Over the next several seconds, his
muscles relax and his back and head then come in complete contact with the ground. Blood
continues to saturate the area under and around his head. This reaction is quite typical is an
individual who sustains a gunshot wound to the head. The initial response to such trauma is often
intense contraction of the skeletal muscles followed by relaxation over the next several seconds.”
91
41. In addition, Dr Spitz notes two questions which his inquiries were not able to resolve. These
relate to body movements by two of the other apparently deceased victims, which he could not
explain on the basis of the information shown on the video.
Expert 3: Peter Diaczuk
42. Mr. Diaczuk is an expert in the scientific examination of firearm evidence and crime scene
reconstruction. He is the Director of Forensic Science Training at the Center for Modern
Forensic Practice at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, City University of New York. He is
qualified as an expert witness on firearms, trace evidence, and crime scene reconstruction for
courts in New York, New Jersey and Connecticut. He is a Certified Firearms Instructor, and is
the current President of the New York Microscopical Society, on the Board of Directors of the
Northeastern Association of Forensic Scientists, and a member of the American Society of
Testing and Materials and the American Academy of Forensic Sciences.
43. Mr. Diaczuk concluded that, “from the videos that I took of an AK-47 class rifle being fired
from both hip and shoulder, I am convinced that the minimal recoil seen in the video submitted
was accurate for an adult male holding and firing a Kalashnikov class firearm.”
44. Mr. Diaczuk’s findings with respect to the first apparent shooting in the video were:
• “At the moment of discharge of the firearm, at frame #41, it moves rearward, as do the
shooter’s arms, as seen clearly by both of the elbows suddenly jerking rearward and then forward
again in the next frame, #42. When the firearm moves rearward as a result of the recoil from
discharge, it appears to move in-line with how it was held, and then forward again in the same
linear fashion. This is consistent with how a shooter anticipates recoil and recovers after firing
the shot. Accompanying the discharge is the plume of high-pressure gases that is expelled from
the muzzle, visible to the left and lower left of frame # 41.”
• The recoil and the high-pressure gases (muzzle blast) “are indicative of firing live
ammunition.”
• In frame # 41, the apparent victim’s head “lurches forward (away from the muzzle)” at the
moment of discharge. “This lurching forward is so sudden that the excess cloth used to tie the
blindfold is seen to move from what was merely gravity positioned, to an airborne position.”
• “Coinciding with the firearm discharge and forward head movement of the person seated in the
foreground is the sudden body movement by the person lying directly in front of him.” This
movement could be due to the bullet passing through the body of the first person and hitting the
second, as “the energy and ability of the bullet from the Kalashnikov class of firearms to pass
through considerable obstacles is well known… I can state from experience that bullets fired
from an AK-47 firearm, using 7.62 x 39 mm full metal jacket ammunition, have gone through 6
inches of wood consistently.”
45. With respect to the second apparent shooting, Mr. Diaczuk found that: • “At the moment of
discharge of the firearm, both excess cloth “tails” of the blindfold on the victim move suddenly
to the side… The sudden movement of the blindfold is consistent with the turbulence generated
from high-pressure gases that are expelled from the muzzle at discharge. The firearm (and the
sling attached to its fore end) clearly moves rearward and slightly upward in the same frame that
shows the blindfold movement (i.e. when the shot was fired). In this shooting, the shooter is
apparently holding the firearm to his shoulder, which provides the pivot point causing the muzzle
92
to rise slightly in addition to its rearward movement. This is fully consistent with the discharge
of a live cartridge and not a blank cartridge.”
• “There is a visible defect that develops in the victim’s head on the left side above his ear. This
occurs in the same frame as the firearm is discharged, and appears to worsen in the following
frame.”
[The three expert reports included as an Appendix the Technical Note are available at:
http://www2.ohchr.org/english/issues/executions/docs/TechnicalNoteAppendix.pdf]
Response of the Government of Sri Lanka dated 6 January 2010
I write with reference to your letter dated 05th January 2010 addressed to H.E. Mrs. Kshenuka
Senewiratne, the Ambassador and Permanent Representative of Sri Lanka to the UN at Geneva,
conveying your intent to make the “Technical Note” on the examination of the so-called
“Channel 4 Video tape” by “three independent experts” available by means of a public statement
in New York on 07th January 2010. Let me add that your letter though dated 05th January
appears to have been transmitted only after the end of working hours on that day to our Mission,
so that the document reached Colombo in turn only late this evening.
The justification cited by you for your proposed statement, is the public nature of the comments
exchanged on this matter. I wish to observe in this regard that the very nature of the material
required the Government of Sri Lanka should also make known its stance through the public
domain. Had the so called “Channel 4 Video tape” been transmitted to the Sri Lankan
Government through privileged and non public channels, my authorities would have surely have
opted to share their findings on the authenticity of the material in the same manner. However, as
it so happened, Channel 4 telecast the material, leaving the Government no choice other than that
of also going before the public with its refutation. It is therefore submitted that the “public nature
of the comments already exchanged” cannot be a justification for a public statement. Rather, fair
practice and the unbiased assessment of allegations would require that whatever determinations
have been reached by the “three independent experts”, should first be shared with the
Government of Sri Lanka.
Thereafter, the Government needs to be afforded adequate time to review any fresh material that
may have come up, with a view to then responding in respect of the same. The space between the
receipt of the “Technical Note” at 1800 hrs in Colombo on 06th January and the scheduling of
the public statement in New York on 07th January, hardly constitutes any yardstick, a reasonable
amount of time for a response with a considered position from our side.
In view of the above, I request that you kindly defer whatever public statement you propose to
make, so that the Government is enabled to communicate its views on the “Technical Note”. It
would be proper we believe for you to take these views into account, prior to deciding on any
further course of action. While I do look forward to your positive response to this letter, I must
also mention my concern in the event of what is a palpably fair and reasonable request being
turned down, such a course of action would be perceived as yet another example of biased
prejudgement. Please accept Mr. Special Rapporteur, the assurance of my high consideration.
C.R. Jayasinghe
Secretary/Foreign Affairs
93
Press Release by the Special Rapporteur dated 7 January 2010
UN expert concludes that Sri Lankan video is authentic, calls for an independent war
crimes investigation
GENEVA -- Reports by three independent experts strongly point to the authenticity of a

videotape released by Channel 4 in Britain which appears to show the summary execution of
bound, blindfolded, and naked Tamils by Sri Lankan soldiers. This was announced today by the
UN Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, Philip Alston, on the
basis of detailed analyses conducted by recognized experts in forensic pathology, forensic video
analysis, and firearm evidence.
Alston commissioned the three reports following the publication of four opinions by Sri Lankan
experts, all of which concluded that the video was a fake. The Government of Sri Lanka
informed the UN Human Rights Council that it would therefore not be undertaking any
investigation of the allegations made. “Senior Government officials called upon me to apologize
and to withdraw the allegations,” said Alston. “They also criticized me for not having undertaken
my own technical analysis. In response to that criticism and to what seemed to me the patent
inadequacies of the reports commissioned by the Government (two of which were prepared by
officials of the Sri Lankan army), I requested highly qualified and totally independent experts to
undertake evaluations.” Alston released the full text of the expert opinions in a “Technical Note”
made public in New York today. “Together, the reports by these experts strongly suggest that the
video is authentic,” Alston stated.
• “Given these conclusions, and in light of the persistent flow of other allegations of extrajudicial
executions by both sides during the closing phases of the war against the LTTE, I call for the
establishment of an independent inquiry to carry out an impartial investigation into war crimes
and other grave violations of international humanitarian and human rights law allegedly
committed in Sri Lanka.” Alston summarized the key findings of the experts:
Mr. Peter Diaczuk, an expert in firearms evidence, concluded that the recoil, movement of the
weapon and the shooter, and the gases expelled from the muzzle in both apparent shootings were
consistent with firing live ammunition, and not with shooting blank cartridges.
Dr Daniel Spitz, a prominent forensic pathologist, found that the footage appeared authentic,
especially with respect to the two individuals who are shown being shot in the head at close
range. He found that the body reaction, movement, and blood evidence was entirely consistent
with what would be expected in such shootings.
Mr. Jeff Spivack, an expert in forensic video analysis, found no evidence of breaks in continuity
in the video, no additional video layers, and no evidence of image manipulation. Alston added
that the independent experts’ analyses also systematically rebutted most of the arguments relied
upon by Sri Lanka’s experts in support of their contention that the video was faked. He gave the
following examples:
• (a) A Sri Lankan expert stated that there was no recoil or movement of the weapon discharged.
However, Mr. Spivack and Mr. Diaczuk described the recoil visible on the video, and the way in
which the movement was consistent with firing live ammunition.
• (b) A Sri Lankan expert stated that the lack of audio synchronization with the video indicated
manipulation. However, Mr. Spivack stated that the video/audio synchronization in the video
94
was well within acceptable limits, and that audio can be ahead or behind video, subject to various
variables.
• (c) A Sri Lankan expert stated that the movement of the second victim after being shot was not
consistent with the normal expected reaction. However, Mr. Spitz stated that the movement was
entirely consistent with the manner in which the individual was apparently shot.
• (d) A Sri Lankan expert stated that while wind could be heard on the audio, it was not evident
in the video. Mr. Spivack however described multiple places in the video where there is clear
evidence of wind.
• (e) Sri Lanka’s experts argued that the footage was likely to have been recorded on a digital
camcorder, and not a mobile phone. Mr. Spivack concluded that the metadata he retrieved from
the video was entirely consistent with multimedia files produced by mobile phones with video
recording capability, and that it would have been very difficult to alter the metadata. There are a
small number of characteristics of the video which the experts were unable to explain. These
included the movement of certain victims in the video, 17 frames at the end of the video, and the
date of 17 July 2009 encoded in the video. Each of these characteristics can, however, be
explained in a manner entirely consistent with the conclusion that the videotape appears to be
authentic. In sum, while there are some unexplained elements in the video, there are strong
indications of its authenticity. In addition, most of the arguments relied upon by the Government
of Sri Lanka to impugn the video have been shown to be flawed.
Sri Lanka: Death threats against journalists Frederica Jansz and Munza Mushataq
Violation alleged: Death threats and fear of imminent extrajudicial executions by State
officials, paramilitary groups, or groups cooperating with or tolerated by
the Government, as well as unidentified persons who may be linked to the
categories mentioned above and when the Government is failing to take
appropriate protection measures
Subject(s) of appeal: 2 females
Observations of the
Allegation letter dated 6 November 2009, sent with the Special Rapporteur on the promotion
and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression and the Special Rapporteur on
the situation of human rights defenders. In this connection, we would like to draw the attention
of your Excellency’s Government to information we have received regarding the situation of Ms.
Frederica Jansz, and Ms. Munza Mushataq and staff members of the Sunday Leader weekly
newspaper, an investigative newspaper which often reports on cases of alleged corruption and
abuse of authority in Sri Lanka. Ms. Jansz and Ms. Mushataq are respectively Editor in- chief
and News Editor of the Sunday Leader.
The Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, Special Rapporteur on

the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression and Special
Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders sent on 9 January 2009, a letter of
allegation on the killing of Mr. Lasantha Wickrematunga, founder and former Editor-in-Chief of
the Sunday Leader. We acknowledge receipt of the responses of your Excellency’s Government
dated 11 February 2009 and 9 July 2009.
95
On 22 October 2009, Ms. Jansz and Ms. Mushataq reportedly received death threat letters. The
letters, handwritten in red ink, stated the following: "if you write anymore, we will kill you, slice
you into pieces". Mr. Lasantha Wickrematunga was killed in January 2009 after having received
a similar red ink handwritten death threat letter. These new threats occurred following the
publication on 18 October 2009, of an article by the Sunday Leader in relation to a video
allegedly showing Sri Lankan soldiers executing Tamil prisoners and denounced as a fake by
your Excellency’s Government. Ms. Jansz and Ms. Mushataq reported the threats to the
Inspector General of Police and to the police in Colombo.
It is further reported that staff members of the Sunday Leader have been threatened on many
occasions and the premises of the newspaper burnt down and bombed several times. Grave
concern is expressed that these new threats may be directly related to the legitimate work of Ms.
Jansz and Ms. Mushataq and the staff members of the Sunday Leader in defense of human rights.
Given the content of the letters and the killing of Mr. Wickrematunga, further concern is
expressed for the physical and psychological integrity of Ms. Jansz and Ms. Mushataq and all
staff of the Sunday Leader. Moreover, we would like to reiterate our concern regarding the
number of abductions, physical attacks, death threats, killings and acts of intimidation against
journalists, and the ensuing lack of prosecutions of alleged perpetrators, which has previously
been conveyed to your Excellency’s Government, including the most recent urgent appeal sent
on 15 October 2009 by the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to
freedom of opinion and expression and the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights
defenders.
While we do not wish to prejudge the accuracy of these allegations, we would like to refer your
Excellency’s Government to the relevant principles of international law. Article 6 of the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) provides that every individual has
the right to life and security of the person, that this right shall be protected by law, and that no
person shall be arbitrarily deprived of his or her life. With respect to the death threats received by
Ms. Jansz and Ms. Mushataq, we would like to recall that your Excellency’s Government has an
obligation under Art 2(1) of the ICCPR to “ensure to all individuals within its territory” the right
to life. As explained by the Human Rights Committee, General Comment 31, Nature of the
General Legal Obligation on States Parties to the Covenant, U.N. Doc.CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.13
(2004), this positive obligation to ensure the right to life:
• “will only be fully discharged if individuals are protected by the State, not just against
violations of Covenant rights by its agents, but also against acts committed by private persons ...
There may be circumstances in which a failure to ensure Covenant rights as required by article 2
would give rise to violations by States Parties of those rights, as a result of States Parties'
permitting or failing to take appropriate measures or to exercise due diligence to prevent, punish,
investigate or redress the harm caused by such acts by private persons or entities.” These due
diligence obligations to take all appropriate measures to deter and prevent extrajudicial
executions may be breached where, for example, state authorities do not react promptly to
reliable reports, the relevant legal remedies are ineffective or non-existent, authorities do not act
to clarify a situation in the face of reliable evidence, or it takes no action to establish individual
responsibility (See Velásquez Rodriguez v. Honduras, Annual Report of the Inter-American
Court of Human Rights, OAS/Ser. l./V./III.19, doc. 13 (1988), 28 ILM (1989) 291; Report of the
96
Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, E/CN.4/2005/7, paras 71-
73).
In this connection, we would like to refer your Excellency's Government to the fundamental
principles set forth in the Declaration on the Right and Responsibility of Individuals, Groups and
Organs of Society to Promote and Protect Universally Recognized Human Rights and
Fundamental Freedoms, and in particular articles 1 and 2 which state that "everyone has the right
individually or in association with others, to promote and to strive for the protection and
realization of human rights and fundamental freedoms at the national and international levels”
and that “each State has a prime responsibility and duty to protect, promote and implement all
human rights and fundamental freedoms, inter alia, by adopting such steps as may be necessary
to create all conditions necessary in the social, economic, political and other fields, as well as the
legal guarantees required to ensure that all persons under its jurisdiction, individually and in
association with others, are able to enjoy all those rights and freedoms in practice”.
Furthermore, we would like to bring to the attention of your Excellency’s Government the
following provisions of the Declaration:
• article 6, point a) which provides that everyone has the right, individually and in association
with others to know, seek, obtain, receive and hold information about all human rights and
fundamental freedoms, including having access to information as to how those rights and
freedoms are given effect in domestic legislative, judicial or administrative systems.
• article 6, points b) and c) which provide that everyone has the right, individually and in
association with others as provided for in human rights and other applicable international
instruments, freely to publish, impart or disseminate to others views, information and knowledge
on all human rights and fundamental freedoms; and to study, discuss, form and hold opinions on
the observance, both in law and in practice, of all human rights and fundamental freedoms and,
through these and other appropriate means, to draw public attention to those matters.
• article 12, paras 2 and 3 of the Declaration which provide that the State shall take all necessary
measures to ensure the protection by the competent authorities of everyone, individually and in
association with others, against any violence, threats, retaliation, de facto or de jure adverse
discrimination, pressure or any other arbitrary action as a consequence of his or her legitimate
exercise of the rights referred to in the Declaration. In this connection, everyone is entitled,
individually and in association with others, to be protected effectively under national law in
reacting against or opposing, through peaceful means, activities and acts, including those by
omission, attributable to States that result in violations of human rights and fundamental
freedoms, as well as acts of violence perpetrated by groups or individuals that affect the
enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms. We should also like to appeal to your
Excellency’s Government to take all necessary steps to secure the right to freedom of opinion
and expression of the above mentioned persons, in accordance with fundamental principles as set
forth in article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and reiterated in article 19 of
the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which provides that “Everyone shall
have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and
impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in
print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice”.
We also deem it appropriate to make reference to paragraph 3 of Human Rights Resolution

12/16, which states that the Council is deeply concerned that:
97
• (a) violations of the right to freedom of opinion and expression continue to occur, often with
impunity, including extrajudicial killings, intimidation, persecution and harassment, threats and
acts of violence against persons who exercise, seek to promote or defend these rights, including
journalists, writers, and human rights defenders;
• (c) threats and acts of violence, including killings and attacks, particularly directed against
journalists, have increased and are not adequately punished, in particular in those circumstances
where public authorities are involved in committing those acts. In the event that your
investigations support or suggest the above allegations to be correct, we urge your Excellency’s
Government to take all necessary measures to guarantee that the rights and freedoms of the
aforementioned persons are respected and accountability of any person guilty of the alleged
violations is ensured. We also request that your Excellency’s Government adopt effective
measures to prevent the recurrence of these acts.
In view of the urgency of the matter, we would appreciate a response on the initial steps taken by
your Excellency’s Government to safeguard the rights of the abovementioned persons in
compliance with the above international instruments. Moreover, it is our responsibility under the
mandates provided to us by the Human Rights Council, to seek to clarify all cases brought to our
attention. Since we are expected to report on these cases to the Human Rights Council, we would
be grateful for your cooperation and your observations on the following matters, when relevant
to the case under consideration:
1. Are the facts alleged in the above summary of the case accurate?
2. Please provide the details, and where available the results, of any investigation and judicial or
other inquiries carried out in relation to these cases. If no inquiries have taken place, or if they
have been inconclusive, please explain why.
3. Please provide the full details of any prosecutions which have been or will be undertaken.
Have penal, disciplinary or administrative sanctions been or will be imposed on the alleged
perpetrators?
Sri Lanka: Death in custody of Wanni Athapaththu Mudiyanselage Nilantha Saman

Kumara
Violation alleged: Deaths in custody owing to torture, neglect, or the use of force, or fear of
death in custody due to life-threatening conditions of detention
Subject(s) of appeal: 1 male
Observations of the
Allegation letter dated 31 December 2009, sent with the Special Rapporteur on the
independence of judges and lawyers and the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel,
inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. In this connection, we would like to bring to
your Excellency’s Government’s attention information we have received concerning Mr. Wanni
Athapaththu Mudiyanselage Nilantha Saman Kumara, aged 31.
98
On 26 October 2009, Mr. Kumara joined several villagers outside a shop by the Nahettigkulama
jam tree in Galgamuwa to search the jungle for some goods which had been stolen. A few hours
later, he was stopped by the police and asked to accompany them to the Galgamuwa Police
Station. Upon arrival at the station, he was detained without a warrant or formal charges against
him. Two hours later, he was taken to a room in what appeared to be the private wing of the
police residential barracks behind the Crimes Division. Mr. Kumara was interrogated by
Inspector Ataputtu, Police Constable Wijeratne and other officers, all dressed in civilian clothes.
The police indicated that he had been detained on suspicion of theft at the shop and of a water
pump, charges which Mr. Kumara denied. Subsequently, Mr. Kumara was subjected to the
“Palestinian hanging”, whereby his shirt was removed, his lower arms were wrapped in cloth, his
hands were forced behind his back and tied with a rope which was attached to a nylon rope that
hung from a bean in the ceiling. The other end of the nylon rope was secured to a steel bed. Mr.
Kumara was then told to stand on a box; the rope was pulled tight and the box was then kicked
from under his feet, leaving him hanging. Inspector Ataputtu gave orders to the other officers to
leave Mr. Kumara hanging until he confessed to the crimes. He was taken down approximately
two hours later, but the procedure was repeated that evening. The second time, he was released
after approximately 30 minutes, but was then beaten and kicked for three hours. Although by this
time the police had allegedly received information indicating that Mr. Kumara had not been
involved in the theft at the shop, he was still accused of stealing a water pump.
The following day, Mr. Kumara was once again hung for approximately two hours. Although he
needed medical attention, none was provided. That evening, Inspector Atapattu told Mr. Kumara
that he could be released the following day if he confessed; otherwise, he would be presented
before the court. When Mr. Kumara denied his involvement, he was grabbed by the hair and
dragged to the same room where he was beaten and stripped, and his hands were tied. He was
then subjected to the “Dharma Chakra” or wheel of enlightenment, by which he was forced to
squat and wrap his hands over his knees, while a metal pipe was inserted through the space
between his knees and elbows, and was balanced on two tables. While in this position, a bottle of
petrol was poured in his anus. Water was also poured on him to relax the muscles.
On 28 October, Mr. Kumara’s cellmate was ordered to bathe and dress him, since he could not
move his arms. They were both taken to the Criminal Division, but a statement was only taken
from Mr. Kumara’s cellmate. They were then taken to the Out-Patient Department of
Galgamuwa Hospital, where a physician, Dr. Roja, completed a Medico-Legal Examination
Form without examining Mr. Kumara. Afterwards, Mr. Kumara and his cellmate were taken to
the Magistrate’s Court in Galgamuwa. They were not allowed to inform their families or contact
a lawyer. Mr. Kumara was not questioned or addressed by the magistrate, but was remanded. He
was then transferred to Wariyapola Prison, where he informed the guards about his torture and
signed a statement indicating his experience.
The following day, Mr. Kumara was taken to Wariyapola Hospital. The accompanying officer
informed the doctor of the torture, but the doctor reportedly accused Mr. Kumara of lying and
refused to examine him. On 6 November, Mr. Kumara was presented before the Galgamuwa
Magistrate’s Court. He was released on bail. Three days after, Mr. Kumara went to the
Galgamuwa Hospital, but Dr. Roja once again refused to examine him and indicated that he
should go to the Anuradhapura Teaching Hospital. Mr. Kumara went there the following day,
where he received adequate treatment and was examined by a Judicial Medical Officer.
99
On 17 November, one of the alleged perpetrators visited Mr. Kumara at his home to inquire into
the possible action he was intending to take. On 19 November, Mr. Kumara submitted a
complaint to the Inspector General of Police, the National Police Commission, the Attorney
General and the National Human Rights Commission.
Without in any way implying any conclusion as to the facts of the case, we should like to appeal
to your Excellency’s Government to seek clarification of the circumstances of the arrest,
detention at the police station and remand to detention in prison of Mr. Kumara. We would like
to stress that each Government has the obligation to protect the right to physical and mental
integrity of all persons. This right is set forth inter alia in the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Convention against
Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. In this context, we
would like to draw your Excellency's Government’s attention to paragraph 1 of Human Rights
Council Resolution 8/8 which “Condemns all forms of torture and other cruel, inhuman or
degrading treatment or punishment, which are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any
place whatsoever and can thus never be justified, and calls upon all Governments to implement
fully the prohibition of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”
We would further like to draw your Excellency's Government’s attention to Article 13 of the
Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment
(Convention against Torture), which requires that “Each State Party shall ensure that any
individual who alleges he has been subjected to torture in any territory under its jurisdiction has
the right to complain to, and to have his case promptly and impartially examined by, its
competent authorities. Steps shall be taken to ensure that the complainant and witnesses are
protected against all ill-treatment or intimidation as a consequence of his complaint or any
evidence given.” In this context, we would also like to draw your Excellency's Government’s
attention to paragraph 6 b and e of Human Rights Council Resolution 8/8 adopted in June 2008
which urges States “to take persistent, determined and effective measures to have all allegations
of torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment promptly and impartially
examined by the competent national authority, to hold persons, who encourage, order, tolerate or
perpetrate acts of torture responsible, to have them brought to justice and severely punished,
including the officials in charge of the place of detention where the prohibited act is found to
have been committed […] and “to ensure that victims of torture or other cruel, inhuman or
degrading treatment or punishment obtain redress and are awarded fair and adequate
compensation and receive appropriate socio-medical rehabilitation […].
With regard to the alleged denial of adequate medical treatment and proper diagnosis of the
injuries suffered by Mr. Kumara, we would like to draw the attention of your Excellency’s
Government to the Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners. Rule 22(2) provides
that, “Sick prisoners who require specialist treatment shall be transferred to specialized
institutions or to civil hospitals. …”. Furthermore, Rule 25(1) provides that, “The medical officer
shall have the care of the physical and mental health of the prisoners and should daily see all sick
prisoners, all who complain of illness, and any prisoner to whom his attention is specially
directed.” (Approved by the Economic and Social Council by resolutions 663 C (XXIV) of 31
July 1957 and 2076 (LXII) of 13 May 1977.)
With regard to the alleged denial of assistance by legal counsel during the hearing before the
Magistrate’s Court in Galgamuwa, we would like to refer your Excellency's Government to the
100
Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers, adopted by the Eighth United Nations Congress on the
Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders, Havana, Cuba, 27 August to 7 September
1990, in particular:
• principle 5. Governments shall ensure that all persons are immediately informed by the
competent authority of their right to be assisted by a lawyer of their own choice upon arrest or
detention or when charged with a criminal offence.
• principle 7. Governments shall further ensure that all persons arrested or detained, with or
without criminal charge, shall have prompt access to a lawyer, and in any case not later than
forty-eight hours from the time of arrest or detention. We urge your Excellency’s Government to
take all necessary measures to guarantee that the rights and freedoms of the aforementioned
person are respected and that
accountability of those guilty of the alleged torture and denial of medical treatment is ensured.
We also request that your Government adopt effective measures to protect Mr. Kumara against
intimidation by those involved in his torture.
Moreover, it is our responsibility under the mandates provided to us by the Human Rights
Council, to seek to clarify all cases brought to our attention. Since we are expected to report on
these cases to the Human Rights Council, we would be grateful for your cooperation and your
observations on the following matters:
1. Are the facts alleged in the above summary of the case accurate?
2. Please provide the details, and where available the results, of any investigation, medical
examinations, and judicial or other inquiries which may have been carried out in relation to this
case. If no inquiries have taken place, or if they have been inconclusive, please explain why.
3. In the event that the alleged perpetrators are identified, please provide the full details of any
prosecutions which have been undertaken; Have penal, disciplinary or administrative sanctions
been imposed on the alleged perpetrators?
4. Please provide the details of the measures adopted by your Excellency’s Government to
protect Mr. Kumara against intimidation by those involved in his torture.
5. Please indicate whether compensation has been provided to Mr. Kumara.
Sri Lanka: Death of three senior representatives of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam
Violation alleged: Deaths due to the use of force by law enforcement officials or persons
acting in direct or indirect compliance with the State, when the use of
force is inconsistent with the criteria of absolute necessity and
proportionality
Subject(s) of appeal: 3 males
Character of reply: Receipt acknowledged
Observations of the
Special Rapporteur: The Special Rapporteur appreciates the Government of Sri Lanka’s
acknowledgement of his communication and looks forward to a full
response to the questions raised in that communication.
Allegation letter dated 18 December 2009

I write to your Excellency’s Government with regard to the circumstances of the death of three
senior representatives of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), Mr. Balasingham
Nadeshan, Mr. Seevaratnam Pulidevan and Mr. Ramesh, as well as of members of their
families, in the night of 17 to 18 May 2009.
101
According to information I have received:
On 17 May 2009, the day before your Excellency’s Government announced that its forces had
completely defeated the LTTE, Messrs. Nadeshan, Pulidevan and Ramesh were trapped with
other senior cadres of the LTTE in a small area north of Vellamullivaikkal. Through
intermediaries they sought to establish contact with your Excellency’s Government to inquire
how they could surrender to the Sri Lanka Army (SLA). The reply, coming from the Secretary of
Defense in your Excellency’s Government and from a Member of Parliament who is at the same
time a senior adviser to the President, and conveyed through the intermediaries, was that they
should walk towards the positions of the SLA in a way that made their intentions clear and
holding a white cloth. The Commander of the SLA 58th Brigade, the unit on the front line with
the last LTTE position, however, received a telephone call from the Secretary of Defense
instructing him to order his forces to shoot those surrendering. When Messrs. Nadeshan,
Pulidevan and Ramesh walked towards the SLA positions carrying white cloths in the first hours
of 18 May 2009, soldiers opened fire on them and killed them. An unspecified number of family
members of the three men were killed as well. These allegations were made by the Commander
of the Sri Lanka Army at the time of the events and subsequent Chief of Defence Staff, (now
retired) General Gardihewa Sarath Chandralal Fonseka, in an interview to the newspaper The
Sunday Leader. The accounts of journalists embedded with the SLA 58th Brigade confirm some
of the alleged circumstances of the death of Messrs. Nadeshan, Pulidevan and Ramesh and their
families.
While I do not wish to prejudge the accuracy of these reports, I would like to refer your
Excellency’s Government to fundamental legal rules applicable to all armed conflicts under
international humanitarian law and human rights law. Common Article 3 (applicable to armed
conflict not of an international character) of the Geneva Conventions of 1949, to which your
Excellency’s Government is a party, dictates that “[p]ersons taking no active part in the
hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed
hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be
treated humanely […].
To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place
whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons: (a) violence to life and person, in
particular murder of all kinds”. Similarly, an authoritative study of customary international
humanitarian law finds that attacking and killing persons who are recognized as hors de combat
is prohibited. Persons hors de combat include anyone who clearly expresses an intention to
surrender, provided he or she abstains from any hostile act and does not attempt to escape (Rule
47 of the Customary Rules of International Humanitarian Law identified in the study of the
International Committee of the Red Cross). It is my responsibility under the mandate provided to
me by the Human Rights Council to seek to clarify all cases brought to my attention. Since I am
expected to report on the death of Messrs. Nadeshan, Pulidevan and Ramesh, as well as of the
members of their families, I would be grateful for the cooperation and observations of your
Excellency’s Government, in particular in relation to the following questions:
1. Are the allegations summarized above accurate? If not so, please share the information and
documents proving their inaccuracy.
2. What information does your Excellency’s Government have on the family members of
Messrs. Nadeshan, Pulidevan and Ramesh allegedly killed on 18 May 2009?
102
3. Please refer to the results of any military, police, judicial or other inquiry or investigation
carried out in relation to the allegations summarized above.

Arbitrary Executions –Addendum 6: Study on targeted killings
Add6.pdf
Addendum: Study on targeted killings
• Killings in 2005 – 2008 by both Sri Lankan government forces and the opposition
LTTE group of individuals identified by each side as collaborating with the other.28

Arbitrary Executions –Addendum 8: Study on Police oversight
mechanisms
Website link: http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/14session/A.HRC.14.24.
Add6.pdf
Addendum: Study on police oversight mechanisms

II. The persuasive problem of police killings and their causes
7. Extrajudicial executions and other grave human rights abuses by members of a state’s police
force have been an issue of concern in nearly all of the countries visited by the Special
Rapporteur, including Sri Lanka.29
In Sri Lanka, investigations are also delegated back to the police;30 such delegation significantly
diminishes the ability of external oversight agencies to act as a check on police internal
investigations, and can negatively impact upon public perceptions of the agency, especially
where the oversight agency is also unable to supervise police internal investigations.
In Sri Lanka, police hostility translated into open threats and physical intimidation of the staff of
the Human Rights Commission during a visit to a police station.31
28
A/HRC/8/3/Add.3, para. 12.
29
E/CN.4/2006/53/Add.1.
30
Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative, Police Reform: An Exchange of Experiences from South Asia, Roundtable Report,
(April 2007), p. 7.
31
Asia Human Rights Commission, Human Rights Commission officers obstructed from carrying out
their duties by the police, Urgent Appeals-General (July 2004).
103
50. Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of
the Right to Freedom of Opinion and Expression –Addendum 1:
Summary of cases transmitted to Governments and replies received
Add.1_AV.pdf
Addendum: Summary of cases transmitted to Governments and replies received
Letter of allegations
2160. On 9 January 2009, the Special Rapporteur, together with the Special Rapporteur on
extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions and the Special Rapporteur on the situation of
human rights defenders, sent a letter of allegations to the Government concerning the killing of
Mr. Lasantha Wickrematunga, chief editor of the English language weekly newspaper the
Sunday Leader, an investigative newspaper which often reports on cases of alleged corruption
and abuse of authority in Sri Lanka, and an attack on the premises of the independent television
station, Sirasa TV (formerly known as Pannipitiya MTV/MBC) in Colombo.
2161. According to information received, on 8 January 2009, Mr. Wickrematunga was driving
to work in Colombo. Two unidentified gunmen, who were travelling by motorcycle, smashed
the window of Mr. Wickrematunga’s car with a steel bar before shooting him at close range in
the head, chest and stomach. The attack occurred in rush-hour traffic about 100 metres from an
air force checkpoint. Mr. Wickrematunga was rushed to Colombo National Hospital where he
died a few hours later from his injuries. A police investigation has been opened into the case.
2162. Prior to his death, Mr. Wickrematunga had been the target of numerous intimidation
attempts and libel suits for his outspoken criticism of your Excellency’s Government. The most
recent libel case had been brought against him by the Defence Secretary, Mr. Gotabaya
Rajapaksa, over stories published in the Sunday Leader alleging corruption in defence
procurement. Following the Court proceedings a ban was placed on the newspaper mentioning
the Defence Secretary for several weeks. Previously, in November 2007, the printing press of the
Sunday Leader media group (Leader Publications), located in a high security area near Colombo,
was destroyed in an arson attack by a group of unidentified gunmen. No arrests were made in
relation to the attack and reports claim that a full investigation was not carried out. It is further
reported that in October 2008 the President of Sri Lanka referred to Mr. Wickrematunga as a
“terrorist journalist” during an interview with the non governmental organization Reporters
Without Borders.
2163. Furthermore, in the early hours of the morning of 6 January 2009, approximately 20
unidentified individuals wielding assault rifles, pistols and armed bars raided the premises of
Sirasa TV in Pannipitiya, Colombo. The assailants, who reportedly arrived at the premises in a
white unmarked van, overpowered security personnel at the entrance before entering the main
studio complex where they proceeded to assault staff who were working at the time. A few staff
members, who were held at gunpoint, were forced to guide their attackers to the main control
104
room. The assailants then destroyed the room with explosives, causing considerable damage to
broadcasting equipment. An unexploded grenade was later recovered from the premises.
Response from the Government
2164. In letters dated 11 February 2009 and 9 July 2009, the Government responded to the
communication sent on 9 January 2009 as follows.
2165. On 8 January 2009, at about 10:05 hrs, Mr. Wickramatunga left in his car to go to his
office in Attidiya in Templers Road, Mt. Lavinia. At 10:20 hrs. when he was passing Attidiya on
his way to Templers Road opposite Attidiya Girls School, four motorcyclists who came after the
car blocked the road and Mr. Wickramatunga’s car came to a halt seeing the motorcyclists who
were blocking the road. The four motorcyclists had been wearing helmets covering their faces,
black jackets and all of them came on black coloured motorcycles. The cyclists surrounded the
car and left on their bike after a few minutes.
2166. After the motorcycles had left, the onlookers had approached the car and found Mr.
Wickramatunga lying on the seat with bleeding injuries on his head and the windscreen
damaged. Both side-glasses of the car had also been damaged. One Dinesh Kumara, who was in
the printing press opposite the place of the incident, rushed Mr. Wickramatunga to Kalubowila
Hospital in a passing vehicle. The onlookers also informed the Police regarding the incident.
2167. Upon receipt of this information, Officer-in-Charge/Crimes, Mt. Lavinia, Inspector of

Police (IP) Sugathapala, along with a team of officers visited the scene and conducted inquiries.
Thereafter, on the instructions of the Inspector-General of the Police, Senior Superintendent of
Police (SSP) for Mt. Lavinia directed inquiries along with the Assistant Superintendent of Police
(ASP) for Mt. Lavinia, (I) Mr. C. Gunawardena in this connection.
2168. Mr. Wickramatunga succumbed to injuries in the hospital and a postmortem inquiry was
conducted. The Judicial Medical Officer carrying out the inquiry reported that the death was due
to shock and hemorrhage following gun shot injuries in the head.
2169. Mr. Harsha Sethunga, Magistrate for Mt. Lavinia, who held the inquest in connection with
the death, returned a verdict of murder.
2170. The Government Analyst was summoned to examine the scene as well as the victim’s car
and his report is being awaited. No empty cartridges or used slugs have been traced from the
scene or the dead body.
2171. Statements have been recorded from four eye-witnesses, but none of them are in a
position to identify the suspects or to disclose the registration number of the motorcycles. One of
them also had heard report of a gun from the scene of the incident.
2172. The deceased had died of gun shot injuries on his head. The assailants had committed this
murder at a lonely stretch of Attidya Road when the victim was on his way to office. Further
investigations continue.
105
2173. None of the four witnesses, who have come forward to make statements, have made
references to any of the assailants wielding firearms. There is no specific mention of a steel bar.
The witness speaks of Mr. Wickramatunga being attacked with an object covered with a
newspaper which, in all probability, had been a hard object.
2174. The attack had taken place sometime after 10 am in the morning at a time the early
morning vehicular traffic had eased. It is incorrect to state that there had been a check point
manned by the air force personnel a hundred meters away from the place where Mr.
Wickramatunga was attacked. The nearest check point had been no less than half a kilometer
away. It must also be noted that the victim was rushed to the closest hospital that had all the
facilities to attend to a victim who had suffered serious injuries of this nature, that is, the
Colombo South Hospital. Every attempt had been made by a team of leading doctors that
included two neurosurgeons, to save Mr. Wickramatunga’s life. In the autopsy performed
thereafter the Judicial Medical Officer had concluded that the cause of death was due to cranio
cerebral injury due to the discharge of a firearm. It is incorrect to state that in addition to the gun
shot injury on the head, the victim had been shot in the chest and stomach as his cadaver bore no
such injuries. This is confirmed by the autopsy report.
2175. In addition, the assailants left neither the empty casing of the spent bullet nor the slug
leaving very little evidence for the investigators to work with in relation to establishing the
identity of the weapon used. The doctors who operated on Mr. Wickramatunga had cleaned the
area and also removed certain parts of the skull bone around the entry wound. This has
nevertheless caused some difficulty to the investigators in ascertaining the distance from which
the purported shot was fired. No witness had heard a gunshot or shots being fired during the
attack. The investigators had been further handicapped by the fact that no witness at the scene
noted the registration plates of the motorcycles used by the assailants. The investigations are
continuing with the singular aim of identifying the perpetrators, arresting and bringing them to
justice without delay. The facts have been reported to Court and further investigations are being
carried out under judicial supervision.
2176. Regarding the attack on the Sirasa TV station, the Government reported that the material
facts contained in the communication were confirmed to a great extent by the police
investigations. However, according to eye-witness account there is no mention of the use of
pistols by the assailants. It is to be further noted that the number of assailants have been
approximately 15 and not 20. Two of the employees who were working that night at the TV
station complain of being assaulted whereas the others do not allege any assault. It is correct to
state that an unexploded hand grenade was recovered from the premises.
2177. The investigators further report that 8 spent casings were found at the scene of the crime
and in addition, police have also obtained the fingerprint of the employees of the TV station and
are in the process of ascertaining the finger prints of the assailants, if any, by a process of
elimination. A blood stain found on a floor tile had been retrieved by the investigators and sent
for analysis with the aim of carrying out a DNA profiling in the course of further investigations.
The other items so recovered too have been forwarded to the Government Analyst Department
for analysis.
2178. Statements have been recorded from all employees. However, none of the employees who
were present during the night of the attack are in a position to identify or provide any useful
106
description that would enable the investigators to establish the identity of the assailants. This is
primarily due to the fact that all intruders had their faces covered to avoid identification and
recognition.
2179. The police are also in the process of carrying out a mobile phone call analysis to ascertain
whether any of the assailants used mobile phones from the location at the material time, which
was well past midnight. Police have thus sought the assistance of the relevant mobile phone
companies to ascertain whether any phone calls were transmitted via any of the telephone towers
in the vicinity,
2180. The police had also in the course of their investigations followed a few leads provided by
anonymous callers. These had not yielded any positive results. The police have reported the
matter to the Magistrate Court. The investigations are continuing under judicial supervision with
periodic progress reports being file in Court.
Urgent appeal
2181. On 27 January 2009, the Special Rapporteur, together with the Special Rapporteur on the
situation of human rights defenders, have sent an urgent appeal to the Government regarding Mr.
Upali Tennakoon, chief editor of the Rivira weekly newspaper, and the ongoing attacks on media
professionals in Sri Lanka.
2182. On 9 January 2008, the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary

executions, the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of
opinion and expression and the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders
issued an urgent appeal letter in relation to the killing of Mr. Lasantha Wickrematunga, chief
editor of the English language weekly newspaper the Sunday Leader, and an attack on the
premises of the independent television station, Sirasa TV in Colombo. A reply was received from
the Government on 12 January 2009.
2183. According to information received, on 23 January 2009, Mr. Upali Tennakoon was
driving with his wife in Imbulgoda, on the outskirts of Colombo, when two unidentified
individuals on a motorbike intercepted his car and ordered him to get out of the vehicle. When
Mr. Tennakoon failed to comply with their demands the assailants then smashed the car window
and began to attack him and his wife with wooden clubs and a knife. The attackers then
immediately fled on their motorbike and Mr. Tennakoon and his wife were taken to hospital,
where they are in a stable condition. An investigation has reportedly been opened into the case.
2184. Concern was expressed that the aforementioned events may represent a direct attempt to
prevent independent reporting in Sri Lanka, thus stifling freedom of expression in the country.
Further concern was expressed for the physical and psychological integrity of Mr. Upali
Tennakoon and his family, as well as media professionals in general in Sri Lanka, particularly in
light of reports that following recent events, including the killing of Mr. Wickrematunga and the
attack on staff a Sirasa TV, at least five journalists have gone into hiding as they fear for their
safety and the news website Lankadissent has reportedly ceased operations due to threats.
107
2185. In a letter dated 14 May 2009, the Government responded to the communication sent on
27 January 2009 as follows. A complaint has been made by Kudugala Thennakoon Mudalige
Upali Thennakoon, editor of Rivira Newspaper, at the Police Station Wellweriya regarding the
above mentioned incident.
2186. On 23 January 2009, Upali Thennakoon and his wife left to go to the office and came to a
narrow road and when entering into the main road an unknown four persons using clubs halted
the vehicle and also Mr. Upali Tennakoon was assaulted. Vehicle had been damaged and Mr.
Upali Tennakoon had suffered injuries. While trying to rescue Upali, his wife too has suffered
injuries. Thereafter as the victims started to shout four unknown people had moved away in two
motorbikes. Injured persons were sent to the National Hospital Colombo with the Police
Security. The OIC of the police station of Wellweriya has started investigations. However, none
of the suspects have been taken into custody up to date.
2187. Statements have been recorded after inquiring alleged victims and of another 50 people
regarding the above incident. Upali Thennakoon and his wife have been directed to JMO. The
car which was damaged and a club two and a half ft. long had been produced to the Government
Analyst who had examined them. The car had been handed over to the owner by the order of the
Magistrate. And finger marks had been taken at the place. Further investigation to the two
motorbikes are being carried out and cases have been filed at the Magistrate’s Court of Gampaha
bearing No. B 294/09. Security and service of the officers of State Intelligence Services have
been provided to the residence of Mr. Upali Thennakoon by the OIC of the Wellweriya Police
Station. The OIC of the Kadavath Police Station has been directed to provide for the security of
Mr. Upali Thennakoon.
Urgent appeal
2188. On 26 May 2009, the Special Rapporteur, together with the Chairperson-Rapporteur of
the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, the Chairman-Rapporteur of the Working Group on
Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances, the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges
and lawyers, the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders, the Special
Rapporteur on the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of
physical and mental health, and the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or
degrading treatment or punishment, sent an urgent appeal to the Government regarding Dr.
Thangamutha Sathiyamoorthy, the regional director of health services in Kilinochchi, Dr.
Thurairaja Varatharajah, the regional director of health services in Mullaitivu, and Dr. V.
Shanmugarajah, medical superintendent at Mullivaaykkaal field hospital.
2189. According to the information received, Dr. Sathiyamoorthy, Dr. Varatharajah and Dr.
Shanmugarajah are Government employed and had been treating the sick and wounded in the
conflict zone in North-eastern Sri Lanka until they left the “No Fire Zone” with approximately
5,000 other civilians on 15 May 2009. The Sri Lankan Army (SLA) detained the three doctors
on 16 May 2009, under the broad arrest and detention powers of security forces pursuant to the
Prevention of Terrorism Act. The physicians were last seen on the morning of 15 May 2009 at a
holding area at Omanthai check point. An official of the Ministry of Health stated on 18 May
Government forces handed over the physicians to the police.
108
2190. Dr. Shanmugarajah and Dr. Sathiyamoorthy are apparently currently held at a detention
centre of the Terrorist Investigation Division (T.I.D) in Colombo. However, their relatives are
not aware of their exact whereabouts and neither has had access to a lawyer. Dr. Varatharajah
was seriously injured and is reported to have been airlifted by the Sri Lankan Air Forces (SLAF)
from the Omanthai check point to an unknown destination.
2191. While working in the conflict zone, the doctors provided detailed eyewitness reports to
the media and the international community from hospitals and makeshift medical centres. Their
reports detailed the suffering of ordinary civilians, many of whom died from war-related injuries.
Their reports also highlighted continuous shelling of areas with large concentrations of non-
combatants.
2192. Concerns were expressed that the three doctors may be held in reprisal for providing
information about the situation of civilians in the conflict zone. In view of their reported
incommunicado detention at unknown places of detention, which could put them at risk of
enforced disappearance, and in view of the reported serious injuries of Dr. Varatharajah, grave
concerns were expressed as regards their physical and mental integrity.
2193. In letters dated 28 May 2009, 15 July 2009 and 3 August 2009, the Government
responded to the communication sent on 26 May 2009, which are summarized as follows. Dr.
Thangamuththu Sathiyamoorthy, Dr. Veerakethipillai Shanmugarajah and Dr. Thurairajah
Varatharajah surrendered to the Army when they have arrived at Omanthai check point on 15
May 2009. Dr. Thurairajah Varatharajah who was injured at the time of surrender was admitted
to the General Hospital Colombo on the same day. Later he was discharged (6 June 2009).
2194. All the doctors were detained under section 19 (1) of the Emergency Regulation on
charges of their alleged links with the proscribed LTTE organization, disseminating false
information to the international media and supplying medicine including medical equipment to
the LTTE from Government hospitals. All the doctors are presently in the protective custody of
the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) headquarter Colombo, pending completion of
investigation.
2195. Dr. Thurairajah Varatharajah had been visited by ICRC representatives on 28 May 2009
and on 6 June 2009. The spouse and sister of Dr. Thurairajah Varatharajah visited him on 30
May 2009, 13 June 2009, 20 June 2009, 27 June 2009 and 4 July 2009. Dr. Thurairajah
Varatharajah was taken to ward No. 32 of the General Hospital Colombo on 24 June 2009 for a
medical check-up and brought back to the CID on 26 June 2009.
2196. Dr. Thangamuththu Sathiyamoorthy had been visited by ICRC representatives on 21 May
2009 and on 6 June 2009. The father, mother and brother of Dr. Sathiyamoorthy visited him on
23 May 2009, 30 May 2009, 6 June 2009, 30 June 2009 and 4 July 2009. His spouse and
children visited him on 20 June 2009.
2197. Dr. Veerakethipillai Shanmugarajah had been visited by ICRC representatives on 21 May
2009 and 6 June 2009. Family members visited him on 4 July 2009 at the CID.
109
2198. All three doctors were given healthcare facilities. At a media briefing held on 8 July 2009
at the Media Center for National Security all three doctors have stated that they were forced by
the LTTE to speak to foreign media and provided exaggerated information on civilian casualties.
They have also said that they were not under duress to attend the media briefing arranged by the
MCNS.
Urgent appeal
2199. On 24 August 2009, the Special Rapporteur, together with the Special Rapporteur on the
situation of human rights defenders, sent an urgent appeal to the Government regarding Dr.
Paikiasothy Saravanamuttu. Dr. Saravanamuttu is the Executive Director of the Centre for Policy
Alternatives (CPA) in Colombo.
2200. According to the information received, on the morning of 20 August 2009, Dr

Saravanamuttu received an anonymous death threat letter posted to his private address The letter,
written in English and posted on CPA’s website, states that Dr Saravanamuttu will be killed if
Sri Lanka is denied the European Union GSP Plus (Generalised System of Preferences) in
October 2009. The author of the letter alleges that Dr. Saravanamuttu had transmitted to Ms.
Benita Ferrero-Waldner, the EU’s Commissioner for External Relations, information which
could affect the renewal of GPS Plus to Sri Lanka.
2201. The letter reads as follows: “this serves to warn you that come October and Sri Lanka is
denied GSP plus you WILL be killed, we swear on all that we hold sacred you WILL be killed,
for we now know that you have been the principal person who has been feeding the European
woman Ferraro with information to deny this country of this and put us out of our livelihoods”.
2202. Dr. Saravanamuttu and the CPA have reported they will be lodging complaints with the
relevant authorities to investigate and take all necessary measures to remedy this matter.
2203. Concern was expressed that the death threat against Dr. Saravanamuttu may be linked to
his legitimate work in defence of human rights. In view of the content of the letter, further
concern was expressed for the physical and psychological integrity of Dr. Saravanamuttu and
other members of CPA.
2204. In a letter dated 25 August 2009, the Government responded to the communication sent
on 24 August 2009 as follows. The Secretary of the Ministry of Disaster Management and
Human Rights, Professor Rajiva Wijesinha, was personally informed of the death threats at a
reception by the victim on 24 August 2009. The Ministry was contacted by the issue on 21
August 2009 by a junior member of the British High Commission, who was told that the
Ministry was awaiting a formal communication. Such a formal communication has not been
received, but the Secretary instructed the DIG in charge to furnish a full report. The Ministry is
not aware of the reasons for the delay in lodging a formal complaint by the alleged victim. The
Secretary contended that due to the fact that the matter has been well publicized, an inquiry may
be more difficult. The Secretary had nonetheless the DIG to treat this case as a matter of
urgency.
110
Urgent appeal
2205. On 8 October 2009, the Special Rapporteur, together with the Special Rapporteur on
torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, sent an urgent appeal
regarding Mr. Mahanuwara Rajawasala Ratnayaka Mahanilamelage Isiwara Senaka Ekanayake.
2206. According to the information received, Mr. Mahanuwara Rajawasala Ratnayaka

Mahanilamelage Isiwara Senaka Ekanayake, a journalist, was arrested in 2008 while trying to
investigate a case implicating a senior police officer. He was severely beaten, tortured and
robbed by the Kalpitiya police. Since his release on bail, Mr. Senaka Ekanayake had been
constantly harassed by the police. In late 2008, he was once again arrested on alleged false
charges by the Galkiriyagama Police. He was kept in remand in Anurandhapura Prison and
released in September 2009.
2207. As a result of his torture in custody, which left him with numerous injuries, Mr. Senaka
Ekanayake had been seeking redress from the authorities. He submitted complaints to the
National Human Rights Commission (complaint HRD341/08, and a second letter 18/09/09), the
National Police Commission (24/01/08 and 29/05/09) and the President of Sri Lanka (29/04/09).
Since lodging such complaints, he had been receiving death threats on the phone. Men in a white
van have allegedly gone to his house a number of times, late at night, to ask for him. He had thus
gone into hiding.
2208. Concern was expressed that the threats against Mr. Senaka Ekanayake are related to his
work as a journalist and constitute a direct attempt to stifle his right to freedom of opinion and
expression.
Letter of allegations
2209. On 9 October 2009, the Special Rapporteur, together with the Special Rapporteur on the
situation of human rights defenders, the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and
lawyers, the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and
fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism, sent a letter of allegations to the Government
concerning Mr. J.S. Tissainayagam, editor in chief of the North Eastern Monthly magazine.
Information regarding Mr. Tissainayagam was previously sent to your Excellency’s Government
on 14 March 2008 following his arrest and detention by the Terrorist Investigation Division
(TID) along with five other journalists. The joint urgent appeal was sent by the Chairperson-
Rapporteur of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, the Special Rapporteur on the
independence of judges and lawyers, the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of
the right to freedom of opinion and expression, and the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and
protection of human rights while countering terrorism. A response from your Excellency’s
Government was received on 16 July 2009, indicating that the courts found Mr. Tissainayagam’s
confession to the police to be voluntary and that his detention at the TID was not illegal. The
Working Group on Arbitrary Detention also adopted an opinion on the case of Mr.
Tissanayagam on 12 September 2008, which declared his detention to be arbitrary (opinion
no.30/2008).
111
2210. According to new information received, on 25 August 2009, Mr. Tissainayagam was
charged with three counts under the Prevention and Terrorism Act (PTA) and the Emergency
Regulations of 2006 in relation to his criticism of the Sri Lankan Army’s treatment of civilians
in two articles published in the North Eastern Monthly magazine in June 2006.
2211. On 31 August 2009, Mr. Tissainayagam was found guilty by Colombo High Court judge
Ms. Deepali Wijesundera and sentenced to 20 years of “rigorous imprisonment” under the PTA.
Mr. Tissainayagam was found guilty on two counts of intending to “cause communal
disharmony” (PTA, section 2), with mandatory minimum sentence of five years each, and one
count of receipt of monies “in the furtherance of any act of terrorism” (Emergency Regulations,
regulation 6), with mandatory minimum sentence of 10 years.
2212. Judge Wijesundara is allegedly the sister of the officer who signed the indictment against
Mr. Tissainayagam. One of the main pieces of evidence used against Mr. Tissainayagam was a
handwritten confession, which had been submitted to court by the prosecution. The defence
counsel challenged the veracity of Tissainayagam’s confession on the basis of three accounts:
first, Mr. Tissainayagam was threatened and mentally tortured for the police to obtain that
statement; second, the confession was not given to an Assistant Superintendant of Police as
required by law, and third, the statement reportedly mirrored word for word a statement written
on 7 March 2009 by the officer who had been present at the time of Mr. Tissainayagam’s
detention and who has allegedly been involved in the torture of and threats against Mr.
Tissainayagam. Judge Wijesundara denied Mr. Tissainayagam’s right to appeal against the
admissibility of this forced confession into evidence.
2213. Concern was expressed that the sentencing of Mr. Tissainayagam might be directly related
to his work in defense of human rights and is an attempt to silence peaceful and legitimate
criticisms of the government, thus stifling the right to freedom of opinion and expression in Sri
Lanka. Concern was also expressed regarding the broad scope of the PTA and the Emergency
Regulations, which do not appear to fall under the ambit of permissible restrictions to the right to
freedom of opinion and expression under international human rights law. Further concern was
expressed regarding fair trial standards in this case.
Urgent appeal
2214. On 15 October 2009, the Special Rapporteur, together with the Special Rapporteur on the
situation of human rights defenders, sent an urgent appeal to the Government regarding threats
against Ms. Dileesha Abeysundera, journalist for the Sinhalese-language weekly Irudina, Deputy
Secretary of the Free Media Movement, and Secretary of the National Forum for Journalists in
Sri Lanka.
2215. According to information received, on 28 September 2009, Ms. Abeysundera organised

and attended a meeting calling for the abolition of what she has publicly stated as the “draconian
provisions” in the Press Council Act of 1973. On the same day at around 11:45 p.m., several men
who were unidentified and were travelling in white vans attempted to forcibly enter Ms.
Abeysundera’s compound in the Borella district of Colombo. It has been reported that the men
repeatedly called out her name while hitting her gate. After she informed them that they had the
wrong house, they remained in the area and subsequently left due to poor weather.
112
2216. White vans have allegedly been used in many cases of abductions and enforced
disappearances in Sri Lanka since 2006, when State agents and paramilitary groups that are
allied to the Government allegedly increased attacks against those critical of the Government.
2217. Concern was expressed that Ms. Abeysundera has been threatened because of her work in
support of a free media in Sri Lanka and her work as a journalist with Irudina, which is allegedly
known for its critical coverage of the Government. Further concern was expressed regarding Ms.
Abeysundera’s physical and psychological integrity, particularly given the number of abductions,
physical attacks, death threats, killings and acts of intimidation against journalists, and the
ensuing lack of prosecutions of alleged perpetrators. Moreover, concern was expressed regarding
restrictions on independent reporting in Sri Lanka, including the Press Council Act of 1973,
which allows journalists to be prosecuted for contempt and sentenced to extended periods in
prison, and prohibits the publication of materials related to Government documents, the armed
services, national security and economic policy.
Urgent appeal
2218. On 6 November 2009, the Special Rapporteur, together with the Special Rapporteur on
extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, and the Special Rapporteur on the situation of
human rights defenders, sent an urgent appeal to the Government regarding the situation of Ms.
Frederica Jansz, and Ms. Munza Mushataq and staff members of the Sunday Leader weekly
newspaper, an investigative newspaper which often reports on cases of alleged corruption and
abuse of authority in Sri Lanka. Ms. Jansz and Ms. Mushataq are respectively Editor-in-chief and
News Editor of the Sunday Leader.
2219. The Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, Special

Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
and Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders sent on 9 January 2009, a
letter of allegation on the killing of Mr. Lasantha Wickrematunga, founder and former Editor-in-
Chief of the Sunday Leader. We acknowledge receipt of the responses of your Excellency’s
Government dated 11 February 2009 and 9 July 2009.
2220. According to the information received, on 22 October 2009, Ms. Jansz and Ms. Mushataq
reportedly received death threat letters. The letters, handwritten in red ink, stated the following:
"if you write anymore, we will kill you, slice you into pieces". Mr. Lasantha Wickrematunga was
killed in January 2009 after having received a similar red ink handwritten death threat letter.
2221. These new threats occurred following the publication on 18 October 2009, of an article by
the Sunday Leader in relation to a video allegedly showing Sri Lankan soldiers executing Tamil
prisoners and denounced as a fake by your Excellency’s Government.
2222. Ms. Jansz and Ms. Mushataq reported the threats to the Inspector General of Police and to
the police in Colombo.
2223. It is further reported that staff members of the Sunday Leader have been threatened on
many occasions and the premises of the newspaper burnt down and bombed several times.
113
2224. Grave concern was expressed that these new threats may be directly related to the
legitimate work of Ms. Jansz and Ms. Mushataq and the staff members of the Sunday Leader in
defense of human rights. Given the content of the letters and the killing of Mr. Wickrematunga,
further concern was expressed for the physical and psychological integrity of Ms. Jansz and Ms.
Mushataq and all staff of the Sunday Leader.
Urgent appeal
2225. On 9 February 2010, the Special Rapporteur, together with the Chair-Rapporteur of the
Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, sent an urgent appeal regarding acts of harassment and
intimidation against journalists and media outlets prior to and following the Presidential election
on 26 January 2010.
2226. According to additional information received, on 25 January 2010, in addition to

LankaeNews website (www.lankanewsweb.com), the following independent news websites were
reportedly blocked by the main Internet Service Provider, Sri Lanka Telecom: Sri Lanka
Guardian (www.srilankaguardian.org), InfoLanka (www.infolanka.com), and Nidahasa
(www.nidahasa.com).
2227. On 28 January 2010, Mr. Ravi Abeywickrama, an employee at the Government-owned

television broadcaster Sri Lanka Rupavahini Corporation, was allegedly attacked by one of the
station’s officials for signing a joint statement, along with 60 other State media employees,
which condemned the misuse of State media to promote President Rajapaksa's election
campaign. At least seven other employees who also signed the letter have allegedly been
suspended or dismissed.
2228. On 29 January 2010, Mr. Sandaruwan Senadeera, editor of LankaeNews, a news website
that supported the opposition candidate, allegedly received 40 threatening phone calls within a
period of 45 minutes.
2229. On 29 January 2010, the office of Irida Lanka newspaper, which played a crucial role in
supporting the opposition candidate in the run-up to the Presidential election, was allegedly
sealed off by the Criminal Investigations Department (CID) of the Sri Lanka police. On the same
day, the editor of Irida Lanka, Mr. Chandana Sirimalwatha, was allegedly arrested by the CID.
No reason was given for his arrest and he remains in detention to date. He has reportedly been
summoned to the CID at least three times during the past six months.
2230. Concern was expressed that the acts mentioned above might constitute an attempt to
suppress critical and independent reporting in Sri Lanka. Further concern was expressed
regarding the physical and psychological integrity of journalists and media personnel who
supported the opposition candidate in the lead up to the Presidential elections.
Urgent appeal
2231. On 17 March 2010, the Special Rapporteur, together with the Special Rapporteur on the
situation of human rights defenders, sent an urgent appeal regarding information received that,
when considered together, appears to suggest the existence of a worrying and increasing trend
aimed at delegitimizing the activities of human rights organizations, individual human rights
114
defenders and journalists working in Sri Lanka. Such information includes reports regarding
physical attacks, threats, intimidation and public smear campaigns.
2232. Such attacks and threats, while experienced since 2006, have tangibly intensified
following the Special Session of the Human Rights Council on Sri Lanka, which was held on 26-
27 May 2009. It is reported that the Human Rights Minister, Mr. Mahinda Samarasinghe
commented in The Hindu newspaper that “ The people who go and sit in the cafeterias in the UN
and lobby people in a very subjective manner putting forward those kind of sentiments (against
Sri Lanka) would be inviting a very stern response from the government of Sri Lanka”.
2233. In another article published in the online edition of the newspaper Divayina on 25 May
2009, it was alleged that “an NGO team goes to Geneva to defend the LTTE leadership. A team
of people from NGOs in this country, including a representative of the Free Media Movement,
has reached Geneva airport (…) with the aim of going before the Human Rights Council with
inaccurate and false statements against the government of Sri Lanka and the security forces”. It is
further reported that the Inspector General of the Police claimed in an interview on ITN TV
station on 28 May 2009, that several journalists were on LTTE payroll. The Inspector General of
the Police further alleged that these journalists have committed treason and distorted and
misreported against Sri Lanka.
2234. On 3 March 2010, the Sri Lankan news website Lanka News Web published an article
and a list containing the name of 31 human rights defenders and journalists allegedly compiled
by the Sri Lankan State Intelligence Services. The list includes human rights defenders and
journalists categorized according to their work, and a brief description of the activities of each
individual. The list contains the names of individuals who have been engaged in “international
outreach” on human rights related issues and grades them according to their perceived
importance to the intelligence services. Several human rights defenders and journalists are
referred to as “providing information on human rights issues and IDPs to several local and
international outlets”, as “international platform speaker on media/human rights” and as a person
who “speaks on human rights and media freedom and involved in advocacy overseas”. While the
purpose of the list remains unclear, it gives rise to a serious concern about the physical and
psychological integrity of the individuals contained therein.
2235. The head of Transparency International’s Sri Lanka office, Mr. J. C. Weliamuna is at the
top of the list. It was reported on 8 March 2010 that the Government of Sri Lanka is planning to
arrest Mr. Weliamuna in connection with the alleged misuse of funds. This information comes
amidst a media campaign targeted against the Sri Lankan branch of Transparency International.
It is feared that the allegations may be related to reports that Transparency International issued in
December 2009 and January 2010, which included allegations about violation of election laws
and misuse of public resources by the ruling party, and would be aimed at discrediting
organizations engaged in monitoring elections. Mr. Weliamuna was the subject of a
communication sent on 6 October 2008 by the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges
and lawyers, the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders and the Chairman
of the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances. We have not yet received a
response to this communication from your Excellency’s Government. The communication
related to a grenade attack on the house of Mr. Weliamuna, causing damages to his property. It is
reported that no credible inquiry has been carried out into this attack.
115
2236. Mr. Paikiasothy Saravanamuttu, Executive Director of the Centre for Policy Alternatives,
has been listed number three in the list. Mr. Saravanamuttu has been receiving death threats
mainly in connection with the extension of GPS Plus (Generalized System of Preferences) status
by the European Union to Sri Lanka in case it should have been rejected. Mr. Saravanamuttu was
the subject of an urgent appeal sent on 24 August 2009 by the Special Rapporteur on the
promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression and the Special
Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders. A response from your Excellency’s
Government to this communication was received on 25 August 2009.
2237. Mr. Sunanda Deshapriya, a prominent journalist and human rights defender, who is
number six on the list, has been living in exile in Switzerland since May 2009, due to the threats
received and the ongoing denigration campaign in the media following his participation and
intervention at the March 2009 session of the Human Rights Council and the 11th Special
Session on Sri Lanka. He has been accused of being a “traitor” and a “liar” due to his
participation at the Special Session. Videos containing death threats against him have been
posted on the social networking site Facebook; he has received numerous threatening text
messages and has been vilified in television and radio shows and a number of editorials. The
President of Sri Lanka, Mr. Mahinda Rajapaksa allegedly stated in an interview on 7 June 2009
in The Nation that it was a betrayal by Mr. Deshapriya to talk against his own country and to say
that Sri Lanka violates human rights, while countries like India, China and Russia were firmly
standing by the Government. In an interview with ITN TV on 4 June 2009, Mr. Mahinda
Samarasighe, the Minister of Disaster Management and Human Rights allegedly did not object to
the talk show host’s suggestion that Mr. Deshapriya should be expelled from the country for his
intervention at the HRC Special Session. Mr. Deshapriya was the subject of urgent appeals sent
on 7 June 2006 and 23 May 2005 by the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of
the right to freedom of opinion and expression. A response from your Excellency’s Government
to this communication was received on 27 June 2006.
2238. Concern was expressed that threats and harassment of, and intimidation against human
rights defenders and journalists, including media smear campaigns, might be related to their
legitimate activities in defense of human rights, in particular to their international advocacy and
outreach efforts. Further serious concern was expressed that some of the threats might be related
to their having cooperated with the UN Human Rights Council and Special Procedure mandate
holders. Given the extent of the allegations, there is an overarching concern that the threats,
attacks and media smear campaigns may form part of a broader attempt to delegitimize the
activities of human rights defenders who are critical of actions and policies of the Government.
Observations
2239. The Special Rapporteur thanks the Government of Sri Lanka for its replies, but regrets
that at the time of the finalization of the report, the Government had not transmitted any replies
to a number of communications sent in 2010, 2009, 2008, 2007, 2006, 2005, and 2004. He
considers response to his communications as an important part of the cooperation of
Governments with his mandate. He urges the Government to respond to the concerns raised by
him, and provide detailed information regarding investigations undertaken, subsequent
prosecutions as well as protective measures taken.
116

UN HRC 14 - June 2010-References To Sri Lanka

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

UN HRC 14 - June 2010-References To Sri Lanka

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Report on

References to Sri Lanka

31st May to 18th June 2010

Law & Society Trust (LST)

#3, Kynsey Terrace, Colombo 8, Sri Lanka

PART A: STATEMENTS MADE BY THE SRI LANKAN GOVERNMENT 5

PART B: EXCERPTS OF ORAL STATEMENTS MADE BY THE UN IN

PART C: EXCERPTS OF ORAL STATEMENTS MADE BY OTHER COUNTRIES

PART E: EXCERPTS OF REFERENCES TO SRI LANKA IN REPORTS

Statements made by the Sri Lankan

Date: 31 May, 1st Meeting

Date: 31 May, 2nd Meeting

3. Interactive Dialogue with the Special Rapporteurs on the Independence

Date: 03 June, 9th Meeting

4. Interactive Dialogue with the Special Rapporteurs on the Promotion

Date: 03 June, 9th Meeting

5. Interactive Dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial,

Date 03 June, 11th Meeting

Interactive Dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary

6. Discussion on Women’s Human Rights: Empowering Women through

Date: 07 June, 14th Meeting

Date: 07 June, 16th Meeting

8. Panel Discussion on Maternal Mortality

Date: 14 June, 29th Meeting

My delegation is pleased to join this panel of discussion on Maternal Mortality, which we

Excerpts of oral statements made by the UN in

Date: 31 May, 1st Meeting

10. Statement by Professor Philip Alston, Special Rapporteur on

Date: 03 June, 10th Meeting

Statement by Professor Philip Alston, Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary or

Excerpts of oral statements made by other

Date: 31 May, 2nd Meeting

12. Interactive Dialogue with the Special Rapporteurs on Freedom of

Date: 03 June, 11th Meeting

13. Interactive Dialogue with the Special Rapporteurs on Freedom of

Date: 03 June, 11th Meeting

Date: 08 June, 18th Meeting

Date: 08 June, 18th Meeting

Date: 08 June, 18th Meeting

Date: 08 June, 18th Meeting

Date: 08 June, 18th Meeting

Date: 08 June, 18th Meeting

Date: 08 June, 18th Meeting

Date: 08 June, 18th Meeting

Oral statements and excerpts of oral

Date: 31 May, 2nd Meeting

24. General Debate on the Annual Report of the High Commissioner

Date: 31 May, 2nd Meeting

Date: 03 June, 10th Meeting

Available documentation reveal that thousands of innocent persons could be arressted,

Date: 04 June, 12th Meeting

27. Interactive Dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of

Date: 04 June, 12th Meeting

28. Interactive Dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of

Date: 04 June, 12th Meeting

Date: 04 June, 12th Meeting

Turning to the report of the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, arbitrary or summary

Thank you Mr. President.”

Date: 09 June, 21st Meeting

Date: 09 June, 20th Meeting

Date: 09 June, 20th Meeting

33. General Debate on Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and

Date: 15 June, 31st Meeting