LLRC Action Plan – Commentary by Centre for Policy Alternatives

This commentary is the  most recent initiative in a process of engagement with the  Government and   other  key stakeholders  to  develop  and   implement  the recommendations  and   provide constructive criticism  and  suggestions. 
 Read as a PDF

Bhavani Fonseka, Luwie Ganeshathasan and  Mirak Raheem (CPA)

INTRODUCTION

Since its establishment in May 2010, the  Lessons Learnt  and  Reconciliation Commission (LLRC) has    generated   significant   national   and    international   interest,   especially   following   the presentation of  its  Final  Report to  President Mahinda Rajapaksa in  November 2011  and   the subsequent tabling of the report in Parliament in December 2011. The LLRC was brought back into  focus  in March  2012  when the United Nations Human Rights  Council  (UNHRC) passed a resolution at its 19th Session, which called on the  Government to implement the  LLRC recommendations.

 While it was unclear at the outset as to whether the Government would  take substantive steps to  respond to  the  recommendations in  the resolution and   implement the LLRC recommendations,  the  subsequent  presentation  of  the  National  Plan   of  Action   to Implement the  Recommendations of the  LLRC (Action Plan) has  increased expectations that  the Government is committed to  reviewing the findings of  the LLRC and  acting on  some of  the recommendations.

Although various Government Ministers and Officials have commented on  the implementation of the LLRC, there has  been no  substantive official statement regarding progress made so  far. This is in the  context of numerous commissions and  committees that  have been established in the recent past, where follow-up  action  has  been limited  at  best.1  Since the  LLRC report was made public  seven months ago, the Government has  made a series of pledges  to  implement the LLRC. Contradictory statements have also  been made by  Government Ministers creating confusion   as   to   the  Government’s   overall    stance  on   the  LLRC,  including   whether  the Government endorses the findings  and   recommendations  of  the Final  Report.2    

Hence, the ment of the  Action  Plan by the  cabinet in July 20123  can  be seen as a significant move in  terms of  the Government publicly   accepting at  least   a  portion of  the LLRC Report  and committing  to   implementing  these  recommendations,  even  while   there  continue  to   be concerns as  to  whether the Government is genuinely interested in implementing the recommendations  of  its  own   volition   and   as  to   whether  it  has   the political  will to   follow through. For example, the  absence of clear  information regarding the  status of implementation of the Interim  Recommendations  which  the commissioners  of the LLRC considered  important “to   engender a  sense of  confidence  among the people  affected  by  the conflict   and   also provide  an  impetus  to  the reconciliation  process”4  raises  questions about the commitment  of the Government to implement the recommendations of the LLRC including those which are  not contained in the Action  Plan and  to move forward on a wider reconciliation process.

CPA  has  followed  the LLRC process, made statements on  the process and  the Final  Report, and  proposed ways  forward for implementing key recommendations of the LLRC.5 An overall concern with the LLRC process, including the LLRC Final Report and  now  the  Action  Plan, is the accessibility  and   dissemination  of  these  key documents  to  the public,  including  the timely availability   of  these  documents in  Sinhala   and   Tamil.  CPA  continues  in  its  endeavour  to increase public understanding of and  debate on  the  LLRC process, findings and  implications.6

This commentary is the  most recent initiative in a process of engagement with the  Government and   other  key stakeholders  to  develop  and   implement  the recommendations  and   provide constructive criticism  and  suggestions.

This  document takes note of  the larger problems in  implementing the Action  Plan  and   the implications these  may  have on  issues of  justice, accountability, peace  and   reconciliation in post-war Sri Lanka. The table that  accompanies this commentary examines each of the issues in the Action  Plan,  commenting on  the proposed actions, raising  questions and  concerns relating to the implementation and  pointing out  aspects that  are  missing. It needs to be noted that  this commentary is an initial response to the Action  Plan and  does not  substantively address issues, including those relating to  accountability, justice, peace and  good governance, many  of which are only partially  addressed in the LLRC Final Report. Given the limitations and  the gaps in the Action  Plan  and  the LLRC process at  large, CPA reiterates the importance of re-visiting  these issues  in  a  more  comprehensive  and   participatory  manner  in  order  to   ensure  meaningful progress.

THE ACTION PLAN

The  Action   Plan  is  the   first,  official  document by  the   Government that   details  its  plans   to implement some of the LLRC recommendations. It identifies  activities,  actors and  time  frames with  the  maximum  time  period  for  implementation  being  36   months.  A  Task  Force  was established  to  formulate  the  Action  Plan  and   to  supervise  its  implementation  but  there has been no  public  statement on  its  composition,  including  ethnic  and   gender representation.7

While some  have  welcomed  the publication  of  the Action  Plan,  several  questions  have been

raised, including on  the proposed actions, as to  what  the Government has  done since the final LLRC report was  submitted  to  the President (8  months period) and   tabled  in  Parliament (7 months period) and  why many  of the LLRC recommendations have been left out  of the Action Plan.

Some key concerns regarding the  Action  Plan are:

Selection  of   Recommendations:  Neither  the Action   Plan  nor  any  other  official  statement provides  a   rationale  for   the  choice  of   the  particular  recommendations  included  in   the document as  opposed to  all  of  the 285   in  the   LLRC report. While  it  is  practical  that   the Government selected  a  small  number of  recommendations  to  implement  in  the short-term, there are  some serious limitations in the Action  Plan.   In most cases it does not  build  on  nor expand the  recommendations. If it had  done so,  the Task  Force could have provided a more comprehensive series of action to address critical problems.

In some cases the selected recommendations and  proposed actions are more restrictive than what  is in the final report of the LLLRC. For example:

 a)  No  special  commission  to  investigate  alleged  disappearances  is to  be appointed  under the Action  Plan.  Instead it states that  dealing with  disappearances will “involve present procedures”  despite   the   LLRC  pointing   out    fundamental   problem   with   existing modalities.8

b) On  detention a variety of recommendations are excluded, including specific suggestions on procedures to be taken during detention.9

 c)  The focus  in the  Action  Plan is on disarming individuals rather than  on armed groups.10

There is an obvious question as to what  happens to the remaining recommendations that  have not  been included into  the  Action  Plan.  There is no  information as to  whether the  Government will  implement  these  recommendations  at   a  later  date or  as  to   whether  they  are  to   be completely disregarded.

Recommendations  and Actions  suggested do not match:  In certain  instances,  the Action Plan  lists an  action that  does not  fully address the  problem and  recommendation made by the LLRC. For  instance,  the final  report of  the LLRC recommends child  tracing  (9.81)  of  children who  are missing.  The action  mooted in the Action  Plan  is rehabilitation  and  reintegration  of child combatants.11

Lack  of  Clarity: There are a  number of  areas in  the  Action  Plan  where more information is required in order to avoid  confusion and  to provide clarity on  the current status and  next steps to be taken.

•         Number of  recommendations  in  Action  Plan:  While Lalith Weeratunga, Secretary to the  President   and    head  of   the  Task   Force,  states   that    only   33   of   the  285 recommendations listed  in the LLRC have been included  into  the Action  Plan,12   CPA’s own  study of the Action  Plan  and  the LLRC report indicates  that  82  recommendations contained in the LLRC Final Report have  been included in the Action  Plan.  This creates significant confusion as to how the Task Force understands the Final Report.

•    Timeline: When does the clock  start  ticking  for the implementation of the Action  Plan?

Is it to  be assumed that  the Action  Plan  commenced from  the date of cabinet approval (July),  which  means that  activities  with  a 3-month time  frame  will be completed  by  the end of October?

•   On-going  Activities:  What  is  the status of  activities  identified  as  ‘on-going’?  As  the

Task  Force  will be monitoring  progress it  would   be useful   for  the   Government  to provide information as to what  progress has  been made.

•   Replication  of  Recommendations:  While  the  Action   Plan  seems to  combine  some

LLRC recommendations, in other instances certain recommendations are listed twice  in the Action  Plan.  This  has  resulted  in different  actions  and  time  lines  to  deal  with  the same problem.13

•         Confusing terminology: On  some issues, the Action  Plan uses vague terms resulting in confusion. For  instance, on  land  issues, it calls  for implementing policies and  circulars without clearly stating which  ones. In addition, the Action  Plan  refers to  a Parliamentary Select Committee  (PSC)  being the  relevant implementing  agency on  six issues  but  it does not  specify whether this  would   be the same PSC  that   is proposed to  devise a consensus on the political solution or another one.

•         Lack  of  awareness regarding  current status of  issues:  At least  in one instance  the Action  Plan indicates a lack of awareness as to the status of a key issue on which several recommendations have been  made. For  example, the LLRC recommends a  range of activities related to  the Land  Circular  (2011/4) which  was  challenged in  the Court   of Appeal in 2011  and  subsequently withdrawn by the Government in 2012. Regardless of the undertaking given by  Government actors to  withdraw the Circular,  the Action  Plan provides for the implementation of the now withdrawn Circular.

•   Lack  of  synthesis  between the activities  set out in  the Action  Plan   and those included in  the National Human Rights Action Plan  (NHRAP):  The Action  Plan  only mentions  the NHRAP  with  regards to  two  activities.14    

However, given  the overlap  of issues in the Action  Plan  and  the NHRAP15   there are  related  questions, including  how will the two  mechanisms complement each other so  as  to  ensure clarity  with  regard to which mechanism takes the lead in implementing each activity?

Investigations  of   violations  of   International  Humanitarian  Law   (IHL):  The  Action   Plan identifies the armed forces as  the primary  agency in charge of carrying out  investigations into allegations of violations of IHL and  the Ministry of Defence is listed as the agency in charge of or overseeing the implementation of these activities.  The issues to be investigated include:

a.    Incidents of attacks on civilians detailed in the LLRC. (9.9 and  9.37a)

b.   Disappearances of persons after  they  surrendered/ were arrested. (9.23)

c.    The   Channel  4   video   in  order  to   establish   the   truth   or   otherwise   of   the allegations arising  from the video footage. (9.39).

The   Action   Plan  like  the LLRC Final  Report  is  selective  in  identifying  activities  related  to violations of  IHL  as  well as  in  identifying incidents. The grounds  for  such  selectivity are not provided.16  The  role of the  Ministry of Defence and  armed forces in such  processes also  raises questions of impartiality and  independence. There is also  a related question of whether those accused of  or  complicit  in  grave violations  can  investigate  the conduct of  their  own.   CPA reiterates  the need for independent  investigations  of all allegations  of IHL violations  involving all actors and  the  need to  take steps to  hold  to  account all those who  are accused of grave violations.  Absence of  progress in  this  area will be a  key  impediment  to  achieving  justice, accountability and  reconciliation in Sri Lanka.

Action Plan  ends up contributing to and/or exacerbating problems: In specific cases the Action  Plan  could  end up  exacerbating  existing  problems.  For  example,  although  the LLRC report and  the Action  Plan call for the limiting  of the security forces in civilian administration as a specific recommendation, the  Action  Plan  lists the  Ministry of Defence in a number of action areas thereby making  clear  that  it will continue  to  have a significant  role.  Similarly, the Action Plan sustains institutions and  mechanisms which  should be phased out  in the post-war context. For example, the  Action  Plan identifies the  Presidential Task Force (PTF) for the  North and  East as  the entity  responsible  for  implementing  activities  with  time  frames  extending  up  to  18 months.

In  other  instances,  the  actions  and   recommendations  ignore  existing  problems,  thereby impairing the effectiveness  of these actions. For instance, while  there are a number of actions to  strengthen the independence of key oversight institutions,17  given the politicization of state institutions  (including   the  police   and    judiciary)   and    the  implications   of   the  Eighteenth Amendment, it is difficult  to  strengthen the autonomy of these institutions  without  amending the  existing   Constitutional   framework   and    fundamental   changes  in   the  manner  these institutions function.

Action  Plan   does not address fundamental  problems:  In  response to  certain  issues  the Action   Plan   suggests  a  series  of  measures  that   do   not   wholly   address  the  fundamental problems as  they exist  on  the ground. For  instance,  with  regards to  missing individuals, the next  of kin have found existing procedures for tracing their  family members (including to  verify if these individuals are being held in detention) extremely difficult  and  the State authorities to be uncooperative.  Hence, the Action   Plan’s  suggestion  of  using   existing  procedures (LLRC Action  Plan  9.63) is inadequate. Given the continuing problem of abductions, and  in specific instances abducted  individual  re-appearing  in  the custody of  State actors, there  has  to  be action to  ensure procedures are followed and  strengthened in order to  safeguard the rights  of those being detained and  reduce the likelihood of subsequent disappearances.

Passing  the Buck:   In  several  instances  the Action   Plan  passes on  the decision  of  moving forward on  a recommendation to  another institution, rather than  suggesting a way forward to implementing the recommendation within a specific time frame. In dealing with complex issues such  as  finding   a  consensus on  the political solution this  is  understandable, on  other more straightforward issues this is problematic. There are three main  mechanisms to  which recommendations are  forwarded for further deliberation and  possible action:

•         Parliamentary  Select Committee (PSC): Six recommendations have been passed onto the PSC  for  further deliberation.18  The  PSC  that  has  been referred to  by  Government actors and  in the media  as  the mechanism  that  is to  address the ethnic  question.  It  is yet  to  be constituted  and   a  number of  opposition  parties  have   raised  objections.19

Furthermore, given the complexities and  problems relating to achieving consensus on a political solution, adding more issues to  the PSC would  further burden the mechanism.

Some  of  the   activities  identified  do   not   require  to   be  sent to   a  PSC  but   can   be implemented  immediately and  directly by  the Government such  as  the singing of the national anthem in both official languages.

•         Cabinet:  The Action  Plan  indicates  that  the Cabinet  is to  decide  on  a  time  frame to draft  legislation on  the right  to  information but  there is no  indicator as  to  the status of previous  drafts  and  why  such  initiatives  cannot be revived  as  opposed to  initiating  a whole new drafting process.

•         Setting  up   of  other  mechanisms: Some recommendations  call  for  a  committee  to review  problems.20   While  addressing  some of  the   problems  may   require  a  specific report or  study   with  more detailed recommendations, this  suggestion raises obvious questions of effectiveness and  can  be seen as  a more symbolic rather than  substantive effort  to  address problems,  especially  given the lack  of  reference  to  follow-up action once the  reports and   reviews  have been  completed. This  is  problematic  especially given the history  of commissions and  committees and  reports of such  initiatives, which are yet to be made public and  implemented.21

Problems with  monitoring  implementation:  Even  while  the  Action   Plan  claims  that   some recommendations have been wholly  or  partially  implemented, there are  questions as  to  how these  claims   can   be verified.  For  instance,  according  to   the Action   Plan   the   military   has withdrawn from  95%  of  civilian  activities.22   This  raises  the  question  as  to  how  this  figure  has been calculated. This also  raises a further question of the reliability of the information provided and  whether verification of the information provided is necessary and  possible. The Action  Plan calls  for  disarming individuals, rather repeating a  key  recommendation made in  the Interim Report and  the Final  Report, that  of  disarming  illegal  armed groups, as  it claims  that  illegal armed groups are no  longer operative, without clarifying  how  this  has  been achieved.23 It is imperative that  the Government provide credible and  substantive information as  to  progress made in the implementation of recommendations. The Action  Plan  indicates that  a number of recommendations  have   been completed  but   in  some instances  this  can   be contested, for instance with regards to the claim that  illegal  armed groups are not  operative.24

In several  activities  the Key  Performance  Indicator  (KPI) does not  capture the issues  identified and   is not  a  comprehensive  tool  for  determining  whether the recommendation  has  actually been implemented.  For  example, there is  no  information  in  the Action   Plan  regarding the number  of  investigations  launched,  completed  and   indictments  filed,  when   assessing  the activities which call for investigations and  for perpetrators to be brought to justice.25

In other instances  the KPI is vague, with  questions  as  to  how  progress of a  particular  activity can  be monitored. For  example, monitoring and   verifying  the  actual status of  the  following activity  - reducing the involvement of security forces in civilian administration (LLRC Action  Plan 9.171, 9.227)  - is extremely challenging.26

NEXT STEPS

Listed  in this  document are initial  reactions  to  the Action  Plan  document.  They highlight  the need for greater clarity as well as cognizance and  incorporation of fundamental concerns from the perspective of  democratic governance and  meaningful reconciliation. It is hoped that  in moving  forward,  the key Government actors involved in the implementation of the LLRC and other related  initiatives  such   as  the National  Human  Rights   Action   Plan  (NHRAP)  and   the Universal Periodic  Review  (UPR)  engage in  a  broad discussion  with  stakeholders,  especially affected communities and  those who testified before the  LLRC.

Increasing public awareness and  engagement in this  process is essential. In August 2012  the Government made  public  a  Sinhala   and   Tamil  translation  of  the LLRC Final  Report.27   It  is important that  the Government also  translates  the Action  Plan  and  takes steps to  disseminate these documents widely including through the State media.

CPA  recommends that  the Task  Force established to  oversee the Action  Plan  meet with  the former LLRC members to  clarify issues and  recommendations in the  Interim and  Final Reports. It is also  opportune for the Task Force to engage with other actors involved in initiatives, which have a bearing on the  Action  Plan such  as the  NHRAP and  UPR.

In order to  increase  public  confidence  in the process there needs to  be continuous reporting by  the Government on  progress in the implementation of  the said  activities. Given the time frames provided in the Action  Plan,  it may  be useful for  the Government to  provide regular progress reports, including to  Parliament. Furthermore, the  implementation of the  Action  Plan could   be  strengthened  by   an   Oversight   Mechanism,   comprising   of   civil   society  and representatives from  all major  ethnic  communities  that  could  assist  in  the monitoring  of  the plan.

CPA  reiterates  that   the  present  process of  implementing  the LLRC recommendations  and similar   processes  is  the  primary   responsibility  of   the  Government. CPA   hopes  that   the recommendations made in this  and  other documents produced by CPA in the recent past are taken  on   board  in  the   spirit   in  which   they   have been  presented  –  that   of  constructive engagement.   More than   three  years   after   the   end  of  the   war,   it  is  now   critical   for  the Government to  demonstrate its  willingness  to  fully implement  the recommendations  of  the LLRC and   to  sincerely  engage in  processes to  achieve  justice,  accountability  and   long-term reconciliation in Sri Lanka.

- Centre for  Policy  Alternatives August  2012

End notes

1  An Inter-Ministerial Committee was established to implement the interim report of the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC) in September 2010 but there is a lack of clarity as to progress made with the implementation of these initial recommendations. Both  the Final Report and the Action  Plan reiterate the call for implementation of some of these interim recommendations.

2  Cabinet Spokesman and Media Minister Keheliya Rambukwella stated that the government could “implement the recommendations made by the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC) only according to a road map as spelled out  earlier and the government could not  implement the  report in its entirety without having a dialogue with all the stakeholders.” (Kelum Bandara, “Can implement LLRC recommendations only according to road map: Keheliya”, Daily Mirror, 6 January 2012) ; Minister Nimal  Siripala  de Silva the Leader of House in the Sri Lankan Parliament and a member of the  Government delegation to the  19th Session of the  UN HRC stated that “The  LLRC has  gone beyond the  mandate given to it by President Mahinda Rajapaksa at certain points. The  government has  to consider what  parts of the recommendations can  be implemented immediately and what  parts of the recommendations need further attention, in depth study etc and how  they make an impact on the country’s future.” (N.G, “‘Constitution allows  state to hold referendum only for single reason’, Daily News, 27 March  2012); Acting Media Minister and Cabinet spokesperson Minister Lakshman Yapa Abeywardana stated that the “Government is committed to implement Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC) recommendations deemed acceptable to Sri Lanka but will not  give in to undue pressure.“ (BBC Sinhala.com “Parliament to decide LLRC implementation”, 5 April 2012, last accessed on 21 August 2012, (Available at http://www.bbc.co.uk/sinhala/news/story/2012/04/120405_yapa.shtml); Senior Minister Prof Tissa Vitarana stated that “President Mahinda Rajapaksa is very clear that the recommendations of the LLRC appointed by him should be implemented all recommendations cannot be implemented overnight and the government has  already  implemented a number of recommendations.” (Chaminda Perera, “President committed to implement LLRC recommendations”, Daily News, 1 March  2012).

3  News.lk, “Cabinet approves National Action  Plan to implement LLRC recommendations”, 27 July 2012, last accessed 21 August 2012, (Available at  http://www.news.lk/news/sri-lanka/2676-cabinet-approves-national-action- plan-to-implement-llrc-recommendations) ; News Line, “Cabinet approves National Action  Plan on LLRC”, 26 July

2012, last accessed 21 August 2012,  (Available at http://www.priu.gov.lk/news_update/Current_Affairs/ca201207/20120726cabinet_approves_national_action_plan_on_llrc.htm ).

 4  Report of the Commission of Inquiry on  Lessons Learnt  and Reconciliation (LLRC Report), November 2011, para 1.18.

 5  The  Centre for Policy Alternatives (CPA), Public  Statement,  “Release of the  Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission Report”, January 2012, (Available at  http://cpalanka.org/release-of-the-lessons-learnt-and- reconciliation-commission-llrc-report/); CPA, “Question & Answer Sheet on the Resolution tabled at the United Nations Human Rights Council on Sri Lanka,  March  2012; Bhavani Fonseka, Luwie Ganeshathasan and Mirak Raheem, “Short Term  Benchmarks for Peace and Reconciliation in Post-  War Sri Lanka”, CPA, 30 May 2012.

 6  CPA translated Chapter 9 of the LLRC Report into  Sinhala and Tamil. Furthermore CPA published a simplified version of the recommendations of the LLRC Report (in Sinhala and Tamil).

7  Rasika Somarathna, “LLRC recommendations: Action  Plan being finalized”, The Daily News, 8 May 2012; Political

Editor, “LLRC recommendations go to Weeratunga committee, The Sunday Times, 6 May 2012.

8  “Given the complexity and magnitude of the problem and considering the number of persons alleged to have disappeared, and the time consuming nature of the investigations involved, the Commission recommends that a Special Commissioner of Investigation be appointed to investigate alleged disappearances and provide material to the Attorney General to initiate criminal  proceedings as appropriate.” (LLRC Report, para 9.51).

9  LLRC Report, para 9.54(a) (An arrested person should be promptly produced before a Magistrate to be dealt with in accordance with the law); LLRC Report, para 9.54(b) (Any change of the place of detention should be promptly notified to the  family of the  arrested person and the Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka); LLRC Report, para

9.54(c) (Release from  detention should be done through courts) ; LLRC Report, para 9.54(d) (Magistrates should visit

the places of detention every month); LLRC Report, para 9.65  (Any practices which  violate the right of access of next of kin to detainees should be removed and relevant authorities in cooperation with the ICRC and voluntary organizations should enhance current facilities for the transportation of the next of kin to visit their family members

at the places of detention); LLRC Report, para 9.67  (All places of detention should be those, which  are formally designated as authorized places of detention and no person should be detained in any place other than such authorized places of detention. Strict  legal provisions should be followed by the law enforcement authorities in taking persons into  custody, such  as issuing of a formal  receipt of arrest and providing details of the place of detention).

 10  The  Action  Plan claims  that armed groups are no longer active. The  LLRC Final Report states “Action should also be taken to disarm and put  an end to illegal activities of these groups, as it would otherwise present a serious obstacle to the on-going process of reconciliation. In this regard, the Commission strongly reiterates its Interim Recommendation seeking to disarm all illegal armed groups.” (LLRC Report, para 9.74).

 11  There are a number of such  disparities between the  proposed action under the  Action  Plan and the recommendations made in the Final Report of the LLRC including: (i) on  the setting up of an Inter Advisory Committee to monitor detentions and arrests (LLRC Report, 9.57) while the Action  Plan response is to use the measures for investigating alleged IHL violations i.e an MOD  inquiry (ii) the establishment of an early warning and early diffusing mechanism in consultation with inter-faith groups (LLRC Report, 9.270) while the Action  Plan looks  at the continuation of Civil Defence Committees and community policing.

12  Defence.lk, “President’s Secretary Sheds Light on Implementation of LLRC Recommendations”, August 10 2012, last accessed 21 August 2012,  (Available at http://www.defence.lk/new.asp?fname=President_Secretary_Sheds_Light_on_Implementation_of_LLRC_Recommendations ).

 13  The  resettlement of Muslim  IDPs (LLRC Action  plan 9.113 and 9.195)  Prosecution of illegal armed groups (LLRC Action  plan 9.73  and 9.213) all set out  different actions and time lines to deal with the same problem.

 14  Provide comprehensive, island-wide human rights education programmes (LLRC Action  plan 9.60); Establish an Inter-Agency Task Force mandated to address in a comprehensive manner the needs of women, children, elderly and other vulnerable groups such  as disabled affected by conflict, and provide necessary relief and (LLRC Action plan  9.92).

15  National Action  Plan for the Protection and Promotion of Human Rights 2011 – 2016 (Rights of Internally

Displaced Persons pp. 119  – 130;  Right to Life pp. 17-19; Arrest  and Detention pp. 20-22; Right to Information p.23; Language Rights p 42 – 43).

 16  While the LLRC final report examines the shelling on hospitals in the Vanni it did not  explicitly suggest investigations. The Action  Plan ignores the issue altogether (LLRC Report para, 4.287- 4.294). The  Action  Plan provides no rationale for the selectivity of some incidents over others and comes across as further limiting investigations into  grave violations.

17  The  actions pertain to the  National Police Commission and the  Public  Service Commission.

 18  De- link the Police Department from  The Ministry  of Defence (LLRC Action  Plan 9.214); Constitutional provision for judicial review of legislation (LLRC Action  Plan 9.228); Develop consensus among political parties on devolution (LLRC Action  Plan 9.236 and 9.237); Singing of national anthem in both languages (LLRC Action  Plan 9.277);

Proposal to establish national land  commission (LLRC Action  Plan 9.150);  Bi- Partisan understanding on  use of land (LLRC Action  Plan 9.152).

19  The  TNA has  questioned the  purpose of two  parallel processes for arriving  at a political solution and the Government’s lack of commitment to the Government-TNA talks.  A number of other opposition parties have also not  yet nominated members to the  PSC as of July 2012.

20  LLRC Action  Plan 9.124 (Appoint a 4th   Land Commission); LLRC Action  Plan 9.251 (Experts committee to examine the current policy when admitting students to Universities); LLRC Action  Plan 9.257 (Experts committee to ensure public Universities have ethnically mixed student populations with a choice of courses offered in all three languages.)

 21  CPA, “A List of Commissions of Inquiry and Committees Appointed by the Government of Sri Lanka (2006 –

2012)”, March  2012, last accessed on 21 August 2012, (Available at  http://www.scribd.com/doc/85007346/A-List-of- Commissions-of-Inquiry-and-Committees-Appointed-by-the-Government-of-Sri-Lanka-2006-%E2%80%93-2012).

 22  See  LLRC Action  Plan 9.171, 9.227.

23  The  Action  Plan suggests activities for disarming individuals (LLRC Action  plan 9.204) and conducting investigations into  specific allegations against specific armed groups (LLRC Action  plan 9.207- 9.209). The  interim recommendation of LLRC called for the disarming of illegal armed groups, a recommendation which  was repeated in the LLRC final report. See LLRC Report, para 9.74  and 9.210

24  The  Action  Plan claims  that “During the  time of the  conflict, illegal armed groups were known to operate in the theatre of conflict. Steps have been taken to completely eliminate this activity.” (See LLRC Action  Plan,  9.73)

 25  See  LLRC Action  Plan 9.48, 9.51, 9.73.

 26  The  KPI “A marked reduction or withdrawal of security force personnel for civil activities” there are questions as to what  would constitute a “marked reduction”? Is it reliant on data provided by the Government? This is of concern when there is no scope at present to do an independent assessment of this area.  Also see LLRC Action  Plan 9.73 (“The effective maintenance of law and order”).

27  News Line, “LLRC report translated into  Sinhala and Tamil”,  17 August 2012, last accessed 21 August 2012, (Available at http://www.priu.gov.lk/news_update/Current_Affairs/ca201208/20120817llrc_report_translated_into_sinhala_and_ta mil.htm)

Read as a PDF