 |
| REMIGIUSZ A. HENCZEL, President of the Human Rights Council declaring the result |
(To read the resolution as word document go to end)
In a resolution (A/HRC/22/L.1/Rev1) on promoting reconciliation and accountability in Sri Lanka, adopted by a vote of 25 in favour, 13 against and 8 abstentions, the Council welcomes the report of the High Commissioner on promoting reconciliation and accountability in Sri Lanka; encourages the Government of Sri Lanka to implement the recommendations made in the report of the High Commissioner, and to cooperate with Special Procedures mandate holders and to respond formally to their outstanding requests, including by extending invitations and providing access.
The Council also calls upon the Government of Sri Lanka to conduct an independent and credible investigation into allegations of violations of international human rights law and international humanitarian law, as applicable; and requests the High Commissioner to present an oral update to the Council at its twenty-fourth session, and a comprehensive report followed by a discussion at the twenty-fifth session, on the implementation of the present resolution.
The result of the vote was as follows:
In favour (26): Argentina, Austria, Benin, Brazil, Chile, Costa Rica, Côte d'Ivoire, Czech Republic, Estonia, Germany, Guatemala, Gabon, India, Ireland, Italy, Libya, Montenegro, Peru, Poland, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Sierra Leone, Spain, Switzerland and United States.
Against (13): Congo, Ecuador, Indonesia, Kuwait, Maldives, Mauritania, Pakistan, Philippines, Qatar, Thailand, Uganda, United Arab Emirates and Venezuela.
Abstentions (8): Angola, Botswana, Burkina Faso, Ethiopia, Japan, Kazakhstan, Kenya and Malaysia.
United States, introducing resolution L.1, encouraged Sri Lanka to take the necessary steps to ensure accountability and lasting peace following almost three decades of civil war. The resolution welcomed important progress made by Sri Lanka but also recognized that much remained to be done. The resolution also highlighted the constructive role of the Office of the High Commissioner and of special procedures’ mandate holders in providing technical assistance and advice, and encouraged Sri Lanka to cooperate these actors.
Pakistan, speaking in a general comment, said that the delegation of Sri Lanka had briefed several delegations bilaterally and in regional groups and had explained in detail why it found the resolution unacceptable despite several revisions. In draft resolution 22/L.1, Pakistan observed that the parameters had been shifted with the introduction of substantive elements and this was of concern, given that Sri Lanka was being asked in effect to implement the recommendations of the Office of the High Commissioner’s report with disregard to the on-going domestic reconciliation process. The substantive amendments proposed by Pakistan and other delegations during informal sessions, intended to bring some semblance of balance to the text, had been disregarded. Pakistan then called for a vote on the resolution.
India, speaking in a general comment, said that the resolution on Sri Lanka provided an opportunity to forge a way forward through national and inclusive reconciliation. India noted with concern that Sri Lanka had not kept its 2009 commitments and called on Sri Lanka to move forward on its public commitments and to take measures to ensure accountability. India had always been of the view that the end of the conflict in Sri Lanka had presented an opportunity to achieve a lasting peace. Sri Lanka’s elections scheduled for 2013 were an opportunity for its people to exercise their electoral right in a free environment.
Ireland, speaking on behalf of the European Union, in a general comment, said that the European Union fully supported all efforts to promote reconciliation and accountability in Sri Lanka. The European Union noted that the main sponsor had reached out to the country concerned and had sought to address a number of its concerns. Genuine reconciliation was essential and required justice and accountability for past events. The European Union urged Sri Lanka to carry out independent, credible investigations of alleged violations of international human rights and international humanitarian law. The European Union urged the Government to cooperate with the special procedures’ mandate holders and to respond to all outstanding requests.
Montenegro, speaking in a general comment, fully aligned itself with the resolution on promoting reconciliation and accountability in Sri Lanka, which it saw as a step towards achieving lasting peace. Montenegro welcomed the improvements made by Sri Lanka and joined with other countries in encouraging the Sri Lankan Government to take additional steps towards the promotion of justice and the implementation of real reconciliation. Justice would be essential if there was to be true reconciliation after a long and divisive civil war in the country.
Switzerland, speaking in a general comment, welcomed the submission of the resolution on Sri Lanka and remained concerned about the human rights situation in the country. Switzerland underlined the importance of dialogue and cooperation for the process of achieving reconciliation and encouraged Sri Lanka to enhance its cooperation with the Office of the High Commissioner and with special procedures’ mandate holders.
Sierra Leone, speaking in a general comment, said that as a country that had witnessed a bloody and destructive 10-year civil war and from which it that had bounced back through genuine reconciliation and accountability, was compelled to support this resolution. Sierra Leone considered it to be fair, balanced and designed to bring about accountability and reconciliation. Sierra Leone was aware of the glaring fact that the only way to bring meaningful and sustainable reconciliation was through an end to impunity and through meaningful accountability. This resolution did just that in a fair way. Sierra Leone supported it and called on other States to do the same.
Brazil, speaking in a general comment, said that it had followed with interest and concern the human rights situation in Sri Lanka and that it showed challenges and advancements since the end of the conflict in 2009. The Sri Lankan Government had made significant progress in building infrastructure and resettling displaced persons. Cooperation with the United Nations human rights’ mechanisms was a two-way street and Brazil encouraged the High Commissioner to act upon the invitation of the Government to visit the country.
Venezuela, speaking in a general comment, categorically rejected the selectivity and double standards which were increasingly used in the Council against the will of countries concerned, as had been the case with Sri Lanka. The Council was turning a blind eye to the efforts that Sri Lanka was undertaking to improve the human rights situation. Venezuela warned about the serious risks created by the interventionist approaches of certain Members of the Council and stated that would vote against the resolution.
Ecuador, speaking in a general comment, said that it had always condemned violations of human rights anywhere in the world. There should be no biased approach to specific countries nor should double standards be tolerated in the Council. Sri Lanka was showing signs of political will to improve the human rights situation and, therefore, Ecuador would vote against the resolution on Sri Lanka.
Sri Lanka, speaking as the concerned country, said that the draft resolution before the Council was premised upon resolution 19/2 of 2012 which was not recognised by Sri Lanka. Despite its dissociation with that initiative, Sri Lanka had shown clear progress towards comprehensive reconciliation including by the preparation and implementation of the action plan called for by the resolution. The draft resolution before the Council today was unacceptable to Sri Lanka. The present draft moved dramatically away from the ambit and scope of previous resolution 19/2 and the preambular part of the text was highly intrusive, replete with misrepresentations and, in its overall scope, accentuated the negative and eliminated or was dismissive of the positive. The tone set for the rest of the document was overwhelmingly pessimistic. The paragraph dealing with progress achieved ignored many areas of clear progress. It also sought to allege continuing reports of discrimination on grounds of religion or belief when this was manifestly not the case. Sri Lanka’s constructive engagement through the Universal Periodic Review process had unfortunately been ignored.
The operative paragraphs of the text showed they were based on a political process. Sri Lanka noted that the report introduced new elements such as an international inquiry, incidentally first proposed by the Council in May 2009. The reference to the Panel of Experts’ report set the dangerous precedent of introducing unsubstantiated reports. Sri Lanka totally rejected attempts by the Office of the High Commissioner and others to introduce elements of the Panel of Experts’ report, which attempted to legitimize its recommendations and seek to impose them on Sri Lanka. Why this preoccupation with Sri Lanka? Why the inordinate and disproportionate attention, despite so much progress in a relatively short period of time? Given the background and anomalous nature of the text, many countries would naturally have concerns as it could establish a bad precedent. Stakeholders may be forewarned that if the current tendency towards politicization continued the Council may face the fate of its predecessor, the Commission on Human Rights. Rather than singled out, Sri Lanka should be encouraged in its current process of reconciliation.
Indonesia, speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said that it could not go along with the resolution on Sri Lanka because it believed that during this difficult transitional period Sri Lanka deserved support and assistance. Sri Lanka should be allowed to spend its energy and resources on the implementation of its National Action Plan. The adoption of Sri Lanka’s Universal Periodic Review last week demonstrated the country’s engagement with United Nations’ mechanisms.
Thailand, speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said that it remained concerned about the draft resolution on Sri Lanka and would vote against it. The resolution did not take into account the continuing progress which Sri Lanka was making in the implementation of recommendations. Thailand urged Sri Lanka to continue to ensure accountability and to combat impunity, but recognized that the process would take time.
Republic of Korea, speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, noted with appreciation the efforts and the achievements made by Sri Lanka in rebuilding infrastructure, demining, and rehabilitating child soldiers. Republic of Korea understood the importance of accountability for genuine reconciliation and the considerable difficulties faced in the process of ensuring it. The Republic of Korea would vote in favour of this resolution.
Japan, speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said that it attached utmost importance to the promotion of human rights and fundamental freedoms. Japan welcomed certain progress in rebuilding infrastructure and resettlement of internally displaced persons. However many challenges remained. Japan encouraged Sri Lanka to make the utmost efforts to continue to cooperate with the international community. It would abstain from the vote on the resolution.
OHCHR
Human Rights Council
Twenty-second session
Agenda item 2
Annual report of the
United Nations High Commissioner
for Human Rights and reports of the Office of the
High Commissioner and the Secretary-General
for Human Rights and reports of the Office of the
High Commissioner and the Secretary-General
Austria,
Belgium*, Bulgaria*, Canada*, Croatia*, Denmark*, Estonia, Finland*,
France*, Georgia*, Germany,
Greece*, Hungary*, Iceland*, Ireland,
Italy, Liechtenstein*,
Lithuania*, Malta*, Monaco*, Montenegro,
Norway*, Poland,
Portugal*, Romania,
Saint Kitts and Nevis*, Slovakia*, Slovenia*, Spain,
Sweden*, Switzerland,
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland*, United States of America: draft
resolution
22/… Promoting reconciliation
and accountability in Sri
Lanka
The Human
Rights Council,
Reaffirming the purposes and principles of the Charter of the
United Nations,
Guided by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the
International Covenants on Human Rights and other relevant instruments,
Bearing in mind General Assembly resolution 60/251 of 15 March
2006,
Recalling Human Rights Council resolutions 5/1, on
institution-building of the Council, and 5/2, on the code of conduct for
special procedures mandate holders, of 18 June 2007,
Recalling also Human Rights Council resolution 19/2 of 22 March
2012 on promoting reconciliation and accountability in Sri Lanka,
Reaffirming that it is the responsibility of each State to ensure
the full enjoyment of all human rights and fundamental freedoms of its entire
population,
Reaffirming also that States must ensure that any measure taken to
combat terrorism complies with their obligations under international law, in
particular international human rights law, international refugee law and international
humanitarian law, as applicable,
Welcoming the announcement made by the Government of Sri Lanka that
elections to the Provincial Council in the Northern Province will be held in September
2013,
Welcoming and acknowledging the progress made by the
Government of Sri Lanka in rebuilding infrastructure, demining, and resettling
the majority of internally displaced persons, and noting nonetheless that
considerable work lies ahead in the areas of justice, reconciliation and the
resumption of livelihoods, and stressing the importance of the full
participation of local populations, including representatives of civil society
and minorities, in these efforts,
Taking note of the report of the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation
Commission of Sri Lanka and its findings and recommendations, and acknowledging
its possible contribution to the process of national reconciliation in Sri Lanka,
Taking note also of the national
plan of action to implement the recommendations of the Lessons Learnt and
Reconciliation Commission of the Government of Sri Lanka and its commitments as
set forth in response to the findings and recommendations of the Commission,
Noting that the national plan of action does not adequately address
all of the findings and constructive recommendations of the Commission,
Recalling the constructive recommendations contained in the
Commission’s report, including the need to credibly investigate widespread
allegations of extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearances, demilitarize
the north of Sri Lanka, implement impartial land dispute resolution mechanisms,
re-evaluate detention policies, strengthen formerly independent civil
institutions, reach a political settlement on the devolution of power to the
provinces, promote and protect the right of freedom of expression for all and
enact rule of law reforms,
Noting with concern that
the national plan of action and the Commission’s report do not adequately
address serious allegations of violations of international human rights law and
international humanitarian law,
Expressing concern at the continuing reports of violations of human
rights in Sri Lanka, including enforced disappearances, extrajudicial killings,
torture and violations of the rights to freedom of expression, association and
peaceful assembly, as well as intimidation of and reprisals against human
rights defenders, members of civil society and journalists, threats to judicial
independence and the rule of law, and discrimination on the basis of religion
or belief,
Calling upon the Government of Sri Lanka to fulfil its public
commitments, including on the devolution of political authority, which is
integral to reconciliation and the full enjoyment of human rights by all
members of its population,
Expressing appreciation
for the efforts of the Government of Sri Lanka in facilitating the visit of a
technical mission from the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for
Human Rights, and encouraging the Government to increase its dialogue and
cooperation with the Office of the High Commissioner,
Noting the call made by the High Commissioner for an independent
and credible international investigation into alleged violations of
international human rights law and international humanitarian law,
1. Welcomes the report
of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights on
advice and technical assistance for the Government of Sri Lanka on promoting
reconciliation and accountability in Sri Lanka[1]
and the recommendations and conclusions contained therein, in particular on the
establishment of a truth-seeking mechanism as an integral part of a more
comprehensive and inclusive approach to transitional justice;
2. Encourages the
Government of Sri Lanka to implement the recommendations made in the report of
the Office of the High Commissioner, and also calls upon the Government to
conduct an independent and credible investigation into allegations of
violations of international human rights law and international humanitarian
law, as applicable;
3. Reiterates its call
upon the Government of Sri Lanka to implement effectively the constructive
recommendations made in the report of the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation
Commission, and to take all necessary additional steps to fulfil its relevant
legal obligations and commitment to initiate credible and independent actions
to ensure justice, equity, accountability and reconciliation for all Sri
Lankans;
4. Encourages the Government of Sri Lanka to cooperate with
special procedures mandate holders and to respond formally to their outstanding
requests, including by extending invitations and providing access;
5. Encourages the
Office of the High Commissioner and relevant special procedures mandate holders
to provide, in consultation with and with the concurrence of the Government of
Sri Lanka, advice and technical assistance on implementing the above-mentioned
steps;
6. Requests the Office
of the High Commissioner, with input from relevant special procedures mandate
holders, as appropriate, to present an oral update to the Human Rights Council
at its twenty-fourth session, and a comprehensive report followed by a
discussion on the implementation of the present resolution at its twenty-fifth
session.