United Nations
|
A/HRC/WG.6/14/LKA/3
|
||
 |
General
Assembly
|
Distr.:
General
30
July 2012
Original:
English
|
|
Human
Rights Council
Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review
Fourteenth session
Geneva,
22 October – 5 November 2012
Summary prepared by the Office of
the High Commissioner for Human Rights in accordance with paragraph 5 of the
annex to Human Rights Council resolution 16/21
Sri Lanka*
The present report is a summary of 46 stakeholders’ submissions[1]
to the universal periodic review. It follows the general guidelines adopted
by the Human Rights Council in its decision 17/119. It does not contain any
opinions, views or suggestions on the part of the Office of the United
Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), nor any judgement or determination
in relation to specific claims. The information included herein has been
systematically referenced in endnotes and, to the extent possible, the
original texts have not been altered. As provided for in Resolution 16/21 of
the Human Rights Council, where appropriate, a separate section is provided
for contributions by the national human rights institution of the State under
review that is accredited in full compliance with the Paris Principles. The
full texts of all submissions received are available on the OHCHR website.
The report has been prepared taking into consideration the periodicity of the
review and developments during that period.
|
I. Information provided by other accredited
national human rights institutions and other stakeholders
A. Background and framework
1. Scope of international obligations
1. The Human Rights
Commission of Sri Lanka
(HRCSL) stated that Sri
Lanka had yet to ratify and reflect in the
national legal system the international human rights treaties to strengthen the
human rights framework in the country. The HRCSL encouraged the ratification of
the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural
Rights, and the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, as
recommended by Joint Submission 15 (JS15) [2]
and its Optional Protocol.[3]
2. Amnesty
International (AI) recommended the ratification of the International Convention
for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance; the Optional
Protocol to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading
Treatment or Punishment[4]
(OP-CAT); the Rome Statute on the International Criminal Court as well as the
establishment of procedures in law to consider modalities for implementing the
views of the UN Human Rights Committee.[5]
3. Canadian Tamil
Youth Alliance (CTYA) recommended that Sri Lanka become party to the 2000
UN Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons especially
Women and Children.[6]
2. Constitutional and legislative framework
4. AI noted that in
September 2010, Sri Lanka
enacted a constitutional amendment, which abolished the Constitutional Council
and replaced it with an advisory Parliamentary Council, empowering the
President to make direct appointments to the HRCSL and other key institutions,
including the Judicial Service Commission, the Public Services Commission and
the National Police Commission. According to AI, this has destroyed the
political independence of these commissions.[7]
Joint Submission 1 (JS1) expressed a similar concern.[8]
5. JS1 stated that
persons of diverse sexual orientation and gender identities were not explicitly
protected from discrimination by the Constitutional provisions regarding
non-discrimination thereby contributing their vulnerability.[9]
6. International
Commission of Jurists (ICJ) recommended amending section 12 of the Sri Lanka
CAT Act to include the term “suffering” within the definition of torture, and
enacting a non-refoulement provision
in the Act in conformity with obligations under article 3 of the CAT.[10]
7. ICJ recommended
incorporating the offence of enforced disappearance into law as a specific
criminal offence, clearly distinguishable from related offences such as
abduction, kidnapping and punishable by appropriately severe penalties.[11]
8. The HRCSL
encouraged the Government to enact the Right to Information Bill with necessary
changes.[12]
3. Institutional and human rights
infrastructure and policy measures
9. According to AI,
the HRCSL is weak or weaker than it was in 2008 despite Sri Lanka’s specific
commitments to building the capacity and enhancing its independence during the
first UPR.[13]
Specifically, Joint Submission 7 (JS7) stated that the HRCSL had not proved
capable of effectively investigating into torture complaints.[14]
Tamil Information Centre (TIC) expressed a similar concern.[15]
AI recommended strengthening and guaranteeing the independence of the HRCSL.[16]
10. Whilst noting Sri Lanka’s
voluntary commitment to strengthening national human rights mechanisms and
procedures by initiating a national plan of action on human rights during the
previous UPR, AI stated that progress on this commitment had been extremely
slow. AI specified that the Cabinet approved the proposed Action Plan in
September in 2011 and appointed a sub-committee to oversee its implementation
in February 2012, but there has been little progress on implementation. AI
expressed the view that this National Plan of Action on Human Rights (NHRAP)[17]
must not become another vehicle to evade international scrutiny and delay
necessary reform.[18]
JS1 expressed a similar concern.[19]
Joint Submission 15 (JS15) stated that the adoption of the Action Plan had
fallen short of full and proper engagement of civil society groups.[20]
B. Cooperation with human rights mechanisms
1. Cooperation with treaty bodies
11. Joint Submission 4
(JS4) recommended that Sri
Lanka: implement the 2011 recommendations of
CAT; and remove the obstacles to implementing the recommendations of the Human
Rights Committee in relation to individual communications by citizens.[21]
2. Cooperation with special procedures
12. CIVICUS
recommended the extension of a standing invitation to the Special Procedures,
and inviting the Special Rapporteurs on Human Rights Defenders[22],
Freedom of Expression, and Right to Peaceful Assembly.[23]
Similarly, ECCHR recommended cooperation with the Special Rapporteurs on Violence
against Women, the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights while Countering Terrorism,
Torture, the Working Group on the Issue of Discrimination against Women in Law
and in Practice, and the Special Representative of the Secretary General on Sexual
Violence in Conflict.[24]
Freedom from Torture (FT) recommended that Sri Lanka welcome visits by the
Working Groups on Arbitrary Detention, and Enforced and Involuntary
Disappearances.[25]
3. Cooperation with the Office of the High
Commissioner for Human Rights
13. British Tamils
Forum (BTF) and Centre for War Victims and Human Rights (CWVHR) recommended the
establishment of an OHCHR field office in Sri Lanka.[26]
Joint Submission 6 and Joint Submission 14 (JS14) made a similar
recommendation.[27]
C. Implementation of international human
rights obligations, taking
into account applicable international humanitarian law
1. Equality and non-discrimination
14. JS1 stated that
there is also a high incidence of crimes against women. Yet, there is very
limited use of the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act. Women also often face
arbitrary penalization under the Vagrancy Ordinance and sex-workers face
harassment under the Brothels Ordinance. There are also several problems
regarding sexual violence against women and abortion. Furthermore Muslim women
have unequal rights in marriage and divorce under Muslim personal law.[28]
JS16 also highlighted
similar issues.[29]
15. JS1 stated that
despite the advances made in women’s rights, there remained a number of
concerns, including an increasing regressive socio-political environment in
which it is difficult to advance women’s issues and that, despite very low
representation of women in all levels of government, which adversely impacts
the design and implementation of policy, no affirmative action measures had
been initiated.[30]
Joint Submission 16 highlighted recommendations contained in the NHRAP for
targeting a 30 per cent minimum representation of women in Parliament,
Provincial Council and local authorities and the elimination of discriminatory
laws, including Land Development Ordinance and the Vagrants Ordinance.[31]
16. Joint Submission 2
(JS2) recommended taking immediate and targeted steps to embody the principles
of equality and non-discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in public
and private in the Constitution of Sri Lanka and ensure the effective
realization of these principles.[32]
ECCHR recommended revoking the parts of the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA)
that de facto discriminate against women.[33]
Joint Submission 10 made a similar recommendation.[34]
2 Right to life, liberty and security of the
person
17. ICJ recommended
maintaining the existing moratorium on executions, and taking immediate steps
toward abolition of the death penalty in law.[35]
18. AI noted
continuing reports of extrajudicial killings by alleged military operatives and
suspicious deaths in police custody.[36]
In addition, Joint Submission 6 alleged that
most extrajudicial killings and disappearances were carried out by paramilitary
groups directly under the control of the armed forces in counter-insurgency
efforts to eliminate all Tamil activism.[37]
19. Referring to the
accepted recommendation in the previous UPR to prevent kidnapping, enforced
disappearances and extrajudicial killings, CWVHR stated that many enforced
disappearance cases were part of a wider pattern of arbitrary arrests and
detentions carried out by the Sri Lankan forces.[38]
Front Line Defenders (FLD) and Migrant Rights Group International (MRG) noted
the continuing cases of abduction and enforced disappearance.[39]
20. AI continued to
receive reports of enforced disappearances, including activists protesting
human rights violations by the authorities.[40]
Tamils against Genocide (TAG) stated that white van abductions, disappearances from
street corners and the discovery of bodies was commonplace in Sri Lanka. While
all ethnic groups had been victimized, Tamils continued to be more heavily
targeted than other populations.[41]
Tamil Centre for Human Rights (TCHR) expressed a similar concern.[42]
21. International
Movement Against All Forms of Discrimination and Racism (IMADR) recommended
that Sri Lanka clarify its
position regarding the statement made by the former Attorney-General, Mr.
Peiris, during its CAT review in November 2011 that the disappeared journalist,
Prageeth Eknaligoda, had taken refuge
in a foreign country to assist the relating court proceedings in Sri Lanka.[43]
22. FT noted that
torture perpetrated by state actors within both the military and police had
continued following the end of the conflict in May 2009 and was still occurring
in 2011. Those at particular risk included Tamils who have an actual or
perceived association with the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE). A wide
range of different forms of torture had been used, often in combination, to
inflict severe suffering on victims of torture with devastating psychological
and physical consequences.[44]
JS1 and Joint Submission 9 (JS9) expressed similar concerns.[45]
FT recommended taking immediate and effective measures to investigate all acts
of torture and ill-treatment, and prosecuting and punishing those responsible
with penalties consistent with the gravity of the acts, and ensuring that
torture is not used by law enforcement personnel and members of the military.[46]
23. AI noted reports that
torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment of
detainees, remain common and widespread in Sri Lanka. According to AI, legal
and procedural shortcomings contribute to this failure, as does the lack of
political will on the part of the authorities to eradicate the use of torture
and ill-treatment and to bring those responsible to justice in fair trials.[47]
Specifically, JS9 recommended enacting an act on codifying the rights of the
arrestees at the time of arrest and after the arrests, including the right to
know the reason of arrest, procedural steps to be followed by officers,
protection of the detainee, the right to a fair trial without delay, medical
facilities, if necessary, for detainees, and permission for lawyers and
relatives to visit detainees in prison.[48]
24. AI stated that
administrative detention had become a routine tool of law enforcement, used
against suspected members of armed groups, their family members and colleagues,
outspoken critics and other perceived political opponents of the Government,
including journalists. People released from months or years in detention
without charge often remained under surveillance by intelligence forces and
were frequently required to report weekly or monthly to the police. Former
detainees had been harassed and rearrested and physically attacked; murders and
enforced disappearances of newly released detainees had been reported.[49]
25. TCHR stated that
Tamil women prisoners underwent physical and mental torture at the hands of guards
and some became victims to sexual violence perpetrated by the male guards.[50]
26. Canadian Tamil
Congress (CTC) stated that in 2012, three years after the cessation of war,
Tamil women had become victim to domestic abuse, rape, torture and detention.[51]
CTC stated that the threat of sexual abuse by Sri Lankan armed forces had
increasingly focused on Tamil war widows and Tamil female-headed households.[52]
27. According to
CIVICUS, a number of members of civil society organizations and individual
activists exposing human rights violations committed during the civil war by
the Sri Lankan security forces have been abducted to prevent them from
continuing their work.[53]
The state media and news outlets controlled by the Government had been running
a slanderous campaign against human rights defenders engaged in activities at
the UN Human Rights Council accusing them of being traitors and aligned to the
LTTE.[54]
28. Human Rights Watch
(HRW) stated that since 2008, no measure had been taken to prevent threats and
violence against those who are critical of the Government, and prosecute those
responsible. The Government and state media engaged in threatening criticisms
of specific human rights defenders and journalists who supported the Human Right
Council resolution in the months leading up to the March 2012 HRC session.[55]
Tamil Youth Organization (TYO) expressed a similar concern.[56]
JS1 also stated that human rights defenders had been systematically denigrated
and their work disrupted, which made the climate for engaging in human rights
work both challenging and dangerous.[57]
29. CIVICUS
recommended that Sri Lanka
adopt a national policy on the protection of human rights defenders to ensure
investigation of complaints regarding attacks on them by an independent
investigative agency and/or senior police officers.[58]
FLD recommended conducting an independent inquiry into the source of threats,
ill-treatment, and all forms of intimidation and harassment directed towards
all human rights defenders.[59]
30. While noting the
Penal Code does not include a definition of sexual exploitation and lacks
provisions to punish clients who have sex with children, Joint Submission 5
(JS5) recommended the revision of the current legislation to provide clear and
comprehensive provisions relating to trafficking, child prostitution and child
pornography and adequate penalties for those offences.[60]
JS5 also recommended strengthening and enforcing legislation addressing the
commercial sexual exploitation of children in travel and tourism.[61]
31. While noting that corporal punishment of
children is lawful in Sri
Lanka, Global Initiative to End All Corporal
Punishment of Children recommended enacting legislation to prohibit explicitly corporal
punishment of children in all settings, including the home.[62]
32. MRG recommended
ensuring the protection of rehabilitated child soldiers, who might be subject
to discrimination and surveillance.[63]
33. Joint Submission
11 (JS11) addressed grave breaches of treaty-based and customary humanitarian
law between February 2009 and 19 May 2009. JS11 was particularly concerned at
the repeated military action against Tamil people in the “no fire zones”
established by the Government at the beginning of January 2009.[64]
3. Administration of justice, including
impunity, and the rule of law
34. JS1 stated that
the review period witnessed a further deterioration in the rule of law in Sri
Lanka with challenges ranging from the increased centralization of power by the
executive and politicization of independent institutions to the lack of
investigation and prosecution into serious human rights abuses and the
introduction of draconian security laws, all of which contributed to the
consolidation of a culture of impunity.[65]
According to AI, impunity for human rights abuses is perhaps the greatest
obstacle to reconciliation in Sri
Lanka.[66]
35. CWVHR stated that Sri Lanka had
consistently failed to apply the rule of law and due process in prosecuting war
crimes on both sides and in legal proceedings relating to prisoners. This was
due to politicized, weak and corrupt police, public service and judiciary.[67]
TCHR expressed concern that violence against women, sexual harassment, rape,
especially Tamil women continues with impunity.[68]
CSW recommended taking significant steps to bring an end to the climate of
impunity within the state.[69]
Society for Threatened Peoples (STP) made a similar recommendation.[70]
36. People for Equality and Relief in Lanka (PEARL)
stated that impunity reigned which the Government had repeatedly made promises
to set up commissions of inquiry for accountability and recognition of crimes,
including egregious war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide committed
against Tamil civilians, all of which had failed.[71]
37. HRW stated that since the war ended, the
Government had not launched a single credible investigation into alleged
abuses. The lack of investigation was conspicuous with regard to several
incidents featured in two documentaries by the British television station
Channel 4 showing gruesome images of apparent summary executions of captured
and bound LTTE combatants.[72]
38. HRW and JS14 reported that, despite strong
evidence of involvement by state security forces in the execution-style
slayings of five students and 17 aid workers in 2006, government inquiries had
languished and no one had been arrested for the crimes.[73]
JS14 recommended the publication of the full report by the Presidential
Commission of Inquiry.[74]
39. JS7 noted that the
remedy of habeas corpus in Sri Lanka
had proved an ineffective remedy due to long delays in the disposal of
complaints; lack of cooperation from security agencies such as the military,
police and intelligence services; and increasing unwillingness of the judiciary
to exercise its duty to protect the liberty of the individual.[75]
ICJ recommended enacting habeas corpus
legislation clarifying that the applicable standard of proof imposed on the
petitioner is “balance of probabilities”.[76]
40. The HRCSL noted
that the overcrowding of the remand prisons was due to the delay in
prosecution, concluding investigations and lack of provision of bail or
inability of the remandee to furnish the bail owing to the stringent bail
conditions.[77]
41. AI noted the
establishment of Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC) in May
2010 to investigate events between the February 2002 ceasefire with the LTTE
and the end of the conflict in May 2009, which was, in the view of AI, neither
independent nor impartial in composition or performance. AI also noted that the UN SG’s Panel of
Experts on Accountability in Sri
Lanka, established in June 2010 reached
similar conclusions, particularly in relation to the LLRC’s lack of witness
protection. According to AI, the LLRC acknowledged that civilians, including
those in hospitals, suffered directly as a result of LTTE and government
shelling, but was unable to establish the facts about the conduct of the armed
conflict. AI further alleged that the
LLRC’s rejection of allegations that the Government had targeted civilians and
deliberately downplayed the number of civilians caught up in the final phase of
the conflict was not backed up by evidence.[78] In addition, AI recommended that no amnesties
be considered or granted to perpetrators of violations of human rights or
humanitarian law identified by the LLRC investigations, regardless of their
status or role in the Government.[79]
42. Centre for
Canadian Tamils (CCT) also expressed concern that no initiative has been taken
to implement the LLRC recommendations, including closing military camps close
to residential areas and granting legal land ownership to those who had been
resettled, by the Government.[80]
A similar concern was expressed by Christian Solidarity Worldwide (CSW).[81]
43. With respect to an
accepted recommendation to introduce a Witness and Victim Protection Bill in
Parliament and implement the legislation, including by establishing the
necessary institutions in the previous UPR, AI noted that the bill was
introduced but never voted with the result that there was no witness protection
legislation in the country. According to AI, this has had a grave impact on
accountability.[82]
44. AI recommended
that effective witness protection be provided to all witnesses.[83]
JS14 also recommended that Sri
Lanka review all procedures, legal regulations
and national legislations to ensure that the rights of victims to timely,
prompt and effective remedies are respected and strengthened.[84]
45. Sri Lanka Advocacy
Network (SLA) also recommended launching immediately credible investigations
into the disappearances reported to the LLRC, bringing those proven responsible
to justice, and passing effective witness protection legislation to enable
witnesses to give evidence fearlessly before such investigation mechanisms.[85]
4. Right to privacy, marriage and family life
46. JS2 recommended
immediately decriminalizing same-sex sex relations between persons who are over
the age of consent and ensuring that the same age of consent applies to sexual
activities between persons of the same sex as persons of a different sex.[86]
JS2 also recommended immediately including the right to privacy in the national
Constitution.[87]
47. JS5 recommended
adopting legal provisions prohibiting early and forced marriages and raising
the minimum legal age for marriage to 18 years for both boys and girls.[88]
5. Freedom of movement
48. ECCHR noted that
female ex-combatants had limited mobility and freedom, diminished status in
villages, faced a higher risk of rape and violence, and almost no recourse to justice.
They were not allowed to move outside of their district without permission.[89]
GTF noted that through its vast network of checkpoints, between and within
villages and towns, the security services were able to restrict the movement of
residents and monitor their activities, as also noted by PEARL.[90]
6. Freedom of religion or belief, expression,
association and peaceful assembly, and right to participate in public and
political life
49. CSW noted a 2011 government
circular stipulating that permission be required to conduct religious activities.
The circular deems any construction of a place of worship or continuation of a
place of worship or any activity by a religious leader illegal unless it has
been duly approved by the Ministry of Budhha Sasana and Religious Affairs. CSW also
noted that the circular gave instructions to the police to intervene to prevent
unapproved construction or activity and required that the application include
observations by the regional divisional secretary and chair of the provincial
council.[91]
50. Joint Submission 17
(JS17) stated that Evangelical Christian churches were facing increasing
pressure and harassment by local government bodies to stop worship activities
or close down if they are not “recognized” or “registered” with the Government.[92]
51. European Centre for
Law and Justice (ECLJ) noted that under the most recent version of the
anti-conversion bill, Sri Lankan citizens would be prohibited from changing
their faith unless they were given permission by a local magistrate.[93]
52. GTF noted that
some Hindu temples, the places of worship of the majority of religious Tamils
had been desecrated and destroyed, whilst a number of Buddhist structures had
been built in the Northern and Eastern region since the end of the war.[94]
53. Despite the
constitutional guarantee of the right to
freedom of expression, CIVICUS stated that journalists critical of official
policies remained at heightened risk and continued to be subjected to physical
attacks and abductions with inadequate investigations to bring perpetrators to justice.[95]
PEARL and JS1 expressed
a similar concern.[96]
CIVICUS expressed concern that on 5 November 2011, the Sri Lankan Ministry of
Information issued orders requiring news websites with any content relating to
the country to register without delay.[97]
Joint Submission 12 expressed similar concerns.[98]
54. Joint Submission
13 (JS13) recommended: ceasing harassment, threats, attacks, and murders of
media workers.[99]
Joint Submission 3 and Article 19 also recommended that Sri Lanka: create an
autonomous and independent public service broadcaster; ensure that the
state-owned media are independent and impartial; improve the transparency of
media ownership and refrain from using advertising contracts to influence media
content; introduce a competition commission to safeguard media pluralism;
ensure that media regulation is kept free from political interference; cease
requiring licenses for news websites; and abstain from blocking and filtering
internet-based media.[100]
55. CWVHR stated that
people were not permitted to assemble freely without prior permission from the military
for non-religious activities in Jaffna.
The military continually interfered with, disrupted and threatened events
organized by civic groups.[101]
PEARL and
CIVICUS expressed a similar concern[102].
CIVICUS recommended that training be given to members of security forces on the
UN Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms.[103]
7. Right to work and to just and favourable
conditions of work
56. CTC recommended developing
ways in which Tamil women can explore and develop forms of economic enterprise.[104]
CWVHR noted that the army was engaged in competitive small businesses,
including coffee shops, hotels and tourist services in the Northern Province and it was illegally
farming in farmlands which Tamils had traditionally cultivated.[105]
8. Right to social security and to an
adequate standard of living
57. JS1 stated that
food security was a problem in most parts of Sri Lanka but was acute in areas that
had been directly affected by the war.[106]
58. While noting that
in 2008, the slum dwellers in Colombo 2 (Slave Island) were evicted with
assurances of better housing in Colombo 9 and put in temporary shelters in
Colombo 15, JS15 recommended that Sri Lanka resettle the existing slum dwellers
and those previously evicted in proper adequate and accessible facilities for
housing, health, education and means for income generation.[107]
59. Joint Submission 8
(JS8) recommended issuing a policy document regarding housing schemes ensuring
that while participation by beneficiaries is encouraged, single women are
provided with additional support.[108]
9. Right to health
60. HRW recommended expanding
sexual, reproductive, and mental health programmes for survivors of
gender-based violence in the North and East. HRW further recommended continuing
to work with UNICEF on the rehabilitation and reintegration of former child
soldiers.[109]
61. The HRCSL stated
that the Government needed to take measures to ensure legal awareness and free
legal aid for people living with HIV and targeting communities to ensure
dignified life with access to health and legal services.[110]
10. Right to education
62. CSW noted several
recent cases of schools refusing admission to Protestant children on the grounds
of religion. Although public schools require children to receive education
about their own religion, very few schools had provision for religious
education in Christianity.[111]
63. JS1 noted the
shortage of Tamil-language teachers, especially in the hill country, and
reduced access and availability of education in the Tamil-language within those
communities, which in turn impacted on the socio-economic opportunities
available to these communities and their cultural identity.[112]
11. Cultural rights
64. JS1 noted that
Tamil was an official language in law but the relevant provisions of the 13th
and 16th Amendments to the Constitution had not been fully
implemented, particularly within the public service, police and security
forces.
65. CWVHR recommended
providing Northern and Eastern people with self-governance mechanisms, language
rights, land rights and all other political, human rights cultural rights.[113]
12. Persons with disabilities
66. JS15 recommended:
adopting a national policy and action plan for persons with disabilities
without racial, provincial or linguistic discrimination; and providing for
adequate infrastructures and facilities in public building for persons with
disabilities especially in the North and East Provinces.[114]
13. Minorities
67. CIVICUS noted that
religious and cultural events organized by the Tamil minority continued to be
subjected to undue restrictions.[115]
GTF stressed that the marginalization of the Tamils was exemplified by the fact
that they only constitute 2% of the police in Sri Lanka and 6% of the civil
service, despite comprising almost 20% of the country’s population.[116]
68. CSW recommended
ensuring that representatives of Muslim communities in the Eastern Province
are included in post-war settlement discussions pertaining to these
communities.[117]
14. Migrants, refugees and asylum-seekers
69. HRW noted that
hundreds of thousands of Sri Lankan women migrated as domestic workers to other
countries, where they are excluded from labour law protections and often work
excessive hours, and endure physical, psychological violence, unpaid wages and
other abuses. Recruitment agents in Sri Lanka may provide false or
incomplete information about jobs abroad, recruit children, and impose illegal
fees.[118]
Similarly, JS1 noted that the national migration policy had yet to be
effectively implemented and monitored.[119]
15. Internally displaced persons
70. The HRCSL reported
on a total of 317,790 new IDPs and 304,000 long-term IPDs at the beginning of
2010. While the Government claimed the majority of IDPs had been resettled, it
needed to consider the situation of IDPs living with host families and who are
in need of a durable solution.[120]
71. JS1 also noted
that after the end of the war, there had been significant progress at least in
terms of number of “resettled” IDPs. JS1 stated that, although there was
progress in some areas, there were continuing problems, including the issue of
who was classified as an IDP and lack of durable solutions for those officially
resettled.[121]
Moreover, both CCT and GTF alleged that thousands of internally displaced
people were not allowed to go back to their homes, while a group of people were
being moved from camp to camp continuously.[122]
72. JS1 also stated
that the Government and the LTTE were accused of carrying out a series of
violations, including forced movement of and restrictions on movement of IDPs, shortages of food, medicine and other
essential goods to displaced population and other human rights violations
against IDPs, including forcible recruitment and the abduction of individuals.[123]
73. JS8 noted that
thousands of IDPs had lost their title deeds and other land documents. However,
the Government had been slow in providing them with relevant documents or
mechanisms for those whose records cannot be found. Instead, the Government proposed measures to
register their land within a stipulated period.[124]
74. CCT stated that
the IDPs who are mainly Tamil Hindus and Catholics had been systematically
denied their access to religious observance.[125]
75. According to CCT,
thousands of school children in the IDP camps are without proper education/schooling.
Few schools have facilities for their continuous education. Most of the
teachers appointed are volunteers from the IDP camps themselves.[126]
16. Right to development and environmental
issues
76. STP stated that
since the end of the war, the north of Sri Lanka had seen a wide range of
large-scale development initiatives, including infrastructure and tourist
projects. The acquisition of land was
often mentioned as problematic and land grabbing was an often repeated
allegation.[127]
Similarly, MRG noted the concern among minorities at the lack of consultation
and participation of local people in the projects.[128]
77. The HRCSL wished
to see the Government implement due process in the distribution of lands to the
poor and landless people and the second generation of IDPs as an approach to
poverty alleviation. It also observed the acquisition of land for security
establishment and development purposes and that some areas acquired as high
security zones during the conflict were being turned into Special Economic Zones.[129]
17. Human rights and counter-terrorism
78. AI noted that the
PTA, which permits extended administrative detention, had been retained.
According to AI, the authorities introduced new regulations under the PTA to
continue detention of LTTE suspects without charge or trial, and that the PTA
reversed the burden of proof where torture and ill-treatment was alleged and
restricted freedom of expression and association, as also noted by MRG.[130]
ECCHR expressed similar concerns highlighting the fact that the PTA perpetuated
a climate of fear and intimidation where women are vulnerable to gender-based
violence and the worst form of discrimination,[131]
as noted by GTF.[132]
79. ECCHR also noted
the high level of militarization in the North and East. The PTA has empowered members
of the police and military to search and question Tamil women suspected for association
with LTTE creating a climate of intimidation.[133]
18. Situation in or in relation to specific
regions or territories
80. TAG stated that
Tamil civilians were targeted during the final stages of the war in 2009; were
interned in camps for months; and that the Government continued to engender a
climate of fear among the Tamil population of the North and East of Sri Lanka.[134]
IIPJHR expressed similar concerns.[135]
81. CWVHR noted that
the majority Tamil Northern province
of Sri Lanka was under
intense militarization.[136]
According to MRG, in the Jaffna
peninsula, there are some 40,000 army personnel, a ratio of approximately 1:11
of military personnel to civilians. The situation in Vanni is much worse with
the ratio reportedly being 1:3. The military has been given key civilian
administrative positions, including the Governors of the Northern and Eastern Provinces.[137]
GTF expressed a similar concern.[138]
82. The National
Council of Canadian Tamils stated that the military perpetuated the continued
displacement of tens of thousands of Tamils by seizing large amounts of public
and private Tamil lands to build military bases.[139]
Notes
[1] The stakeholders listed below have
contributed information for this summary; the full texts of all original
submissions are available at: www.ohchr.org.
Civil society
AI Amnesty
International, London (United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Northern Island-UK-);
Article19 Article 19, London (UK);
BTF British Tamils
Forum, London (UK);
CCT Centre for
Canadian Tamils (Canada);
CIVICUS CIVICUS, World Alliance for Citizen Participation, Johannesburg
(South Africa);
CSW Christian
Solidarity Worldwide, Surrey (UK);
CTC Canadian
Tamil Congress (Canada);
CTYA Canadian Tamil
Youth Alliance (Canada);
CWVHR Centre for War
Victims and Human Rights (Australia,
Canada and New Zealand);
ECCHR European Center
for Constitutional and Human Rights, Berlin (Germany);
ECLJ European Centre
for Law and Justice, Strasbourg (France);
FLD Front Line
Defenders, Dublin (Ireland);
FT Freedom from
Torture, London (UK);
GIEACPC Global Initiative to
End All Corporal Punishment of Children (UK);
GTF Global Tamil
Forum (UK);
HRW Human Rights
Watch, New York (United
States of America -USA-);
ICJ International
Commission of Jurists, Geneva (Switzerland);
IMADR International
Movement Against All Forms of Discrimination and Racism, Tokyo
(Japan);
MRG Minority Rights
Group International, London (UK);
NCCT National Council
of Canadian Tamils, Ontario (Canada);
NESoHR North East
Secretariat on Human Rights, Kilinochichi (Sri Lanka);
PEARL People for
Equality and Relief in Lanka, Washington
D.C. (USA);
SLA Sri
Lanka Advocacy Network, Frankfurt (Germany);
STP Society for Threatened Peoples
(Switzerland);
TAG Tamils Against
Genocide (USA);
TCHR Tamil Centre for
Human Rights, Garge les Gonesse (France);
TIC Tamil
Information Centre, London (UK);
TYO Tamil Youth Organisation (UK);
JS1 Joint Submission 1 submitted
by Centre for Human Rights & Development, Centre for Policy Alternatives,
Centre for Promotion & Protection of Human Rights, Centre for Women and
Development, Jaffna (Sri Lanka), Dabindhu Collective, Equal Ground, Families of
the Disappeared, Home for Human Rights, Human Rights Organization, Kandy (Sri
Lanka), INFORM Human Rights Documentation Center, International Movement
Against Discrimination and Racism (Asia Group) (Japan), Janaawaboda Kendrya,
Law and Society Trust, Lawyers for Democracy, Mothers and Daughters of Lanka,
Movement for Defense of Democratic Rights, national Fisheries Solidarity
Movement, National Peace Council, Praja Abhilasha Network, Puravasi Kamituwa,
Red Flag Women’s Movement, Right to Life Human Rights Centre, Rights Now
Collective for Democracy, Savisthri Women’s Movement, South Asia Network for
Refugees, IDPs and Migrants Sri Lanka (SANRIM Sri Lanka), Stand-Up Movement
(SUM), Women Action Network, Women and Media Collective, Women Support Group,
and Women’s Centre;
JS2 Joint Submission 2 submitted
by Equal Ground (Colombo, Sri Lanka), Estate Community Care Organization
(Mathugama, Sri Lanka), Rural Women’s Front (Galle, Sri Lanka), Rajarata Gami
Pahana (Anuradhapura, Sri Lanka), Sinhala, Tamil Rural Women’s Network (Nuwara
Eliya, Sri Lanka);
JS3 Joint Submission 3 submitted
by Committee to Protect Journalist (New York, USA), International Federation of
Journalist (Sydney, Australia), International Media Support (Copenhagen,
Denmark), Journalists for Democracy in Sri Lanka (Bremen, Germany), PEN
International (London, UK), and Reporters Without Borders (Paris, France);
JS4 Joint Submission 4 submitted
by Janasanasaya (Panadura, Sri Lanka) and The Citizens Committee of Gampaha
District (Ekala, Sri Lanka);
JS5 Joint Submission 5 submitted
by PEaCE/ECPAT Sri Lanka and ECPAT International;
JS6 Joint Submission 6 submitted
by United States Tamil Political Action Council (USTPAC, Washington
D.C., USA)
and Pasumai Thaayagam Foundation (Chennai,
India);
JS7 Joint Submission 7 submitted
by Asian Legal Resource Centre (Hong Kong, China), Rehabilitation and Research
Centre for Torture Victims (Copenhagen, Denmark), and Action by Christians
Against Torture France (ACAT, Paris France);
JS8 Joint Submission 8 submitted
by The North East Women’s Action Network (Sri
Lanka) and the Centre for Human Rights and Development (Sri Lanka);
JS9 Joint Submission 9 submitted
by Asian Human Rights Commission (Hong Kong, China) and Rule of Law Forum
(Colombo, Sri Lanka);
JS10 Joint Submission 10 submitted by
CREA, EQUAL GROUND, Sexual Rights Initiative and the Women’s Support Group Sri
Lanka (Sri Lanka);
JS11 Joint Submission 11 submitted by
International Education Development, A Non-Governmental Organization on the
Roster and the Association of Humanitarian Lawyers, CA (USA);
JS12 Joint Submission 12 submitted by
Observatory for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders (a joint programme of
the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) and the World Organisation
Against Torture (OMCT)), Geneva (Switzerland);
JS13 Joint Submission 13 submitted by
Free Media Movement (Colombo, Sri Lanka), INFORM Human Rights Documentation
Centre (Colombo, Sri Lanka) and Networking for Rights in Sri Lanka (Reseda, CA,
USA);
JS14 Joint Submission 14 submitted by
Action Contre la Faim (France) and SPEAK Human Rights & Environmental
Initiative (USA);
JS15 Joint Submission 15 submitted by
Franciscans International and Marist International Solidarity Foundation, Geneva (Switzerland);
JS16 Joint Submission 16 submitted by
Consortium of Humanitarian Agencies (Colombo, Sri Lanka) and the Institute
of Human Rights (Colombo, Sri Lanka);
JS17 Joint Submission 17 submitted
World Evangelical Alliance (London, UK) and Asia
Evangelical Alliance.
National human rights
institution
HRCSL Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka, Colombo
(Sri Lanka)
