Today Sri Lanka Brief launch on line three
Human Rights Reports on Sri Lanka in coincidence with the on going 22nd
session of the United Nations Human Rights Council. The reports have been
compiled in Sri Lanka.
Executive summaries of the three reports
and PDF links to three reports given
below.
Limited number of printed copies will be available at side event on Sri Lanka Human Rights on 5th March at room No 27, 16 PM to 17.30 PM.
CRTIQUE ON THE
LLRC NATIONAL PLAN OF ACTION AND ITS IMPLEMENTATION
The
Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC) was appointed by President
Mahinda Rajapaksa for the pursuit of reconciliation in Sri Lanka,
following the conclusion of a 27-year-old war in May 2009. This
report looks at specific recommendations made by the LLRC in order to achieve
reconciliation in the country by calling for institutional reform, introduction
of new institutions for the delivery of expeditious justice and redressal to
communities which suffered due to the war and the requirement to strengthen the
processes which are currently in place.
Specific recommendations have been made to
strengthen the county’s human rights regime and the maintenance of law and
order, in a bid to assist Sri
Lanka return to normalcy, specially the
communities that suffered due to the protected war. In this regard, the LLRC
had called for, through specific action, the strengthening of key public
institutions and the introduction of new instructions to address the current
issued faced by the country.
Specific recommendations have been made to
strengthen the county’s human rights regime and the maintenance of law and
order, in a bid to assist Sri
Lanka return to normalcy, specially the
communities that suffered due to the protected war. In this regard, the LLRC
had called for, through specific action, the strengthening of key public
institutions and the introduction of new instructions to address the current
issued faced by the country.
Among the key recoemmdnations for the
strengthening of democratic institutions included the call for the establishment
of an Independent Permanent Police Commission
Independent Public Service Commission, appointment of a Special
Commissioner of Investigation to investigate the alleged disappearances and an
Independent Advisory Committee to monitor and examine the detention and arrest
of persons, disarmament of armed gangs through specific police action,
enhancement of the capacity of the Police Department for improved maintenance
of law and order and the establishment of a National Lands Commission, among others.
Sri Lanka’s response to the call by the international
community had been less than satisfactory.
The Sri Lankan Government’s onslaught on
the Judiciary together with the crushing of political dissent had proved a
potent combination that had undermined democracy while accelerating the path
towards an authoritarian rule, threatening long-term stability and peace. The
most significant blow to the country’s democratic institutions was witnessed
with the politically-motivated impeachment of the Chief Justice, reflecting
both intolerance of dissent and the weakness of the political opposition, an
outrageous act that undermined a vital organ of government.
The Executive and
the Legislature have thus, together, incapacitated the last institutional check
on the Executive, at a time when the State has made strong commitments to
strengthen public institutions in a bid to help the country to return to
normalcy.
Given Sri Lanka’s
failure to practically implement the recommendations by the LLRC, it is
incumbent upon the international community to demand time-bound actions to
restore the rule of law, investigate rights abuses and alleged war crimes by
government forces and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) and to make
genuine effort to devolve power to Tamil and Muslim areas of the North and
East.
The island’s
governance crisis became manifest with the impeaching of an independent Chief
Justice whose ouster is traced by independent observers to two judgments
delivered by her on crucial bills, one of which presented by the president’s
brother, Basil Rajapaksa which was designed to subvert the process of shared
power through the provisions of the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution by
creating a parallel mechanism.
So far, the
government has failed to conduct credible and impartial investigations into
allegations of war crimes, disappearances or other serious human rights
violations or to take genuine corrective measures as recommended by the LLRC.
In addition, an Independent Commissioner to investigate rights abuses and to
expedite the process has become a matter for examination by the National Plan
of Action (NPA) while the government has in effect, removed the last remnants
of judicial independence by unceremoniously impeaching the Chief Justice. At present,
the military enjoys the same degree of control it enjoyed over terrain and
matters during the time of war with many civilian tasks still being carried out
or supervised by the military. Over 90,000 people remain displaced in the
former war zones due to military occupation with no possibility of land
restitution in the near future.
The government’s
actions in the past months have only contributed to the consolidation of its
own political power, further diminishing the hope of achieving reconciliation
and peace in the near future.
THE STATE OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN THE NORTH OF SRI LANKA 2012
Repression and human rights violations in the North remained
under-reported throughout 2012. This report attempts to highlight some key
incidents and trends facing the Tamils in the North, while recognizing the
violations and repression faced by all communities across the country, such as
in the East and in the plantation sector.
Forty five months following the end of the war (May 2009 to
date), Sri Lanka
is still unsafe for the minority Tamil community and dissidents of the State.
With abductions arrests and intimidation still continuing, there exists a
general sense of lawlessness rampant across the country. This is much worse in
the North, with heavy military presence and control. To date, people are asked
the question “are you Sinhala or Tamil” at military checkpoints in the North.
Despite of repeated assurances to the International
Community that devolution of power
envisaged by the 13th amendment to the constitution will be fully implemented and
there by a long awaited political solution to the conflict will be
materialized, GoSL has not shown any commitment towards this end.
The attitude of “Victor” vs. the “Vanquished” is quite evident
in every sphere of live. People are not permitted to speak or assemble freely,
some have no access to their homes as the military and their families are
occupying their lands and they still have no security with the security forces
still being able to pick people up from off the street or from their homes on
the “suspicion” of being linked to a terror outfit that the President himself
has claimed to have annihilated in May 2009.
Militarisation and imposition of the Sinhala Buddhist
culture in the north has continued unabated.
In the words of veteran Tamil politician V. Ananada Sangaree '' During
the past three years, hundreds of mini .Army camps and many Major camps had
been set up in the midst of Tamil people who had suffered in many ways during the
past thirty years and lost several lives and valuable properties more
particularly during the last lap of the war; I am convinced more than anybody
else that the minorities now feel discriminated more than ever before.''
(Letters to the President, 24 July & 8 Dec 2012)
Freedom of expression, Right to association and Right to
peaceful assembly and protest has been violated all through out the year. On several occasions burnt oil, which h has
become the symbol of state sponsored terror against dissent, was thrown at the
peaceful protests in the North.
The recent spate of arrests of Jaffna University
students, former LTTE combatants[1] by the
Terrorist Investigation Division (TID) and attacks on media workers has
heightened tension in the area, and fear amongst locals in the North. Dozens of
disappearances has been reported form the North and majority of them remains
unresolved. Two Tamil prisoners have
been killed and many others subject to brutal torture whilst in
custody, earlier this year.
Ironically it was also the current President, who made the
following statement at Sri
Lanka’s 59th Independence Day
Celebrations, on 4 February, 2007. He said "it is our duty to protect the
lives and property of the Tamil and Muslim people and bring sanctity to the future
world of their children.” That being said, the State has not even been able to
fulfil the recommendations made by their own Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC).
UNMASKING INACTION: SRI LANKA:
NATIONAL ACTION PLAN FOR THE PROTECTION AND PROMOTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS 2011-2016
Sri Lanka’s National Action Plan for the
Protection and Promotion of Human Rights (‘National Action Plan’) appeared at
the end of 2011. The drafting process had begun in 2008, consequent to a commitment
made by the Government of Sri Lanka in the first cycle of the Universal
Periodic Review. The first draft of the National Action Plan was formulated in
a process which included the representation of civil society representatives
and was completed in 2009. However, the process floundered following the
abolition of the Ministry of Human Rights in 2010. The subject of human rights
was not formally assigned elsewhere within government. The progress of the
National Action Plan was subsequently entrusted to the Attorney-General’s
Department that produced the second draft, and organised further civil society
consultations in 2010. However, some civil society representatives complained
that the second draft was weaker than the first version, and had removed most
of their contributions, revealing the cosmetic quality of non-governmental
participation in the process. Thereafter, the momentum for the adoption of the
National Action Plan slowed; and its fate appeared to be uncertain.
The government was preoccupied with crisis-management
abroad, of its human rights record at home, and particularly, demands for
international monitoring of human rights and investigation into alleged war
crimes in the final phase of the war in 2009. Over the course of 2011, as efforts
began to table a country-specific resolution at the UN Human Rights Council
(HRC), the National Action Plan was finally presented to the Cabinet of
Ministers that further amended the draft, shortly before the 18th
regular session of the HRC in September. The sudden urgency was prompted by
diplomatic exigencies to permit publicity of the NAP as evidence of the
government’s commitment to the promotion and protection of human rights.
However, the final text of the National Action Plan remained inaccessible and
unknown within the country, until its release in December 2011, and was only
made available more widely one year later.
The National Action Plan comprises two broad sets of issues
grouped into Civil and Political Rights, and Economic, Social and Cultural
Rights respectively; as well as six specialised areas: Prevention of Torture,
Rights of Women, Protection of Labour Rights, Rights of Migrant Workers, Rights
of Children, and the Rights of Internally Displaced Persons. Consistent with
best practice, the National Action Plan does not stop with the identification
of broad goals: there are dozens of individual issues isolated for attention –
many reflect longstanding problems in the legal, administrative and criminal
justice systems; key performance indicators are enumerated; as are time-frames
for implementation; and key responsible agencies are named.
Considering the mounting political authoritarianism
of the Mahinda Rajapaksa administration, and combined with the weakness of
democratic movements, institutions and values, the adoption of the National
Action Plan registers an advance.
Whereas influential discourses within state and society
present human rights as alien and imposed from without, the ‘home-grown’
National Action Plan creates opportunities for domestic advocacy on human
rights and is potentially a bridge-head for critical civil society engagement
with the state.
The National Action Plan should be supported, and be swiftly
implemented. In addition, there should be plural civil society representation
in its ongoing monitoring and evaluation; complemented by periodic public
consultations, and ongoing information-sharing on its progress.
In every other respect, there is limited reason for
optimism. More than 12 months since its adoption, it is not possible to
identify where progress has been achieved as a result of the National Action
Plan. There is nothing to show, beyond coordination meetings of government
agencies and internal reports that are not available to the public. None of its
proposed activities, of three or six month duration have, to public knowledge,
been completed – even after 12 months. In actuality, the NAP has made no
appreciable difference to the culture of, and climate for, human rights
promotion and protection in Sri
Lanka.
No reading of the National Action Plan indicates that its
authors have confronted the scale and severity of Sri Lanka’s human rights crisis.
The right to life, the right not to be tortured, and the freedoms of
expression, association and assembly, are violated with impunity. The
Prevention of Terrorism Act continues to be used to repress non-violent
actions. The centralisation of power in the office and the person of the
President unveil the worthlessness of the legislature and the judiciary in
checking abuse of authority and defending the rights of citizens. The
militarisation of state and society has accelerated since the war ended.
Post-war reconciliation is platitudinous for the Tamil victims and survivors of
the war without truth and justice.
If there is no sober acknowledgement of the human rights
crisis in the National Action Plan, there cannot be cause for hope that it will
rise to, leave alone meet the challenges of human rights protection in Sri Lanka. If
the Government of Sri Lanka cannot be trusted not to back-track on pledges and
commitments in international forums, as well as in its own National Action
Plan, then what reassurance is there of sufficient political will for the
remaining promises to be honoured? If there is no transparency in its implementation,
no regular consultation with the plurality of civil society, and no discrete
allocation of institutional, human and financial resources for its progress,
there cannot be any confidence in the progress or in the meaningful realisation
of the goals of the National Action Plan.
Indeed, it is hard not to see the obvious. As of now, the
National Action Plan’s importance to the Government of Sri Lanka is for
international advocacy on its human rights record and as symbol of its
acknowledgement of human rights obligations. There is nothing inherently
dishonourable in these ends; provided it is accompanied by sincerity of purpose
and substantive improvements in human rights at home. However, where the
National Action Plan masks the inaction of the government in confronting abuses
and violations by state actors; and is a tool for deflection of its domestic
and international obligations, then all who profess concern for human rights
should know a fig-leaf when they see it.
