Jan 14, 2021 | News
The ICJ today deplored the comprehensive failure of the Sri Lankan authorities to ensure accountability for conflict-era crimes, marked by the dropping of charges and release of all five accused in the Joseph Pararajasingham murder trial.
Parliamentarian Joseph Pararajasingham was killed by unidentified gunmen on 25 December 2005 while he attended Christmas mass at the Batticaloa St. Mary’s Cathedral, in the Eastern Province of Sri Lanka. Eight other people, including his wife, were injured during the firing.
Yesterday, the Batticaloa High Court acquitted and ordered the released of all five accused, including former-LTTE cadre and now-Member of Parliament, Sivanesathurai Chandrakanthan alias ‘Pillaiyaan’, in the trial of Pararajasingham, a former Tamil National Alliance Parliamentarian. The judgment was delivered after the Attorney General’s Department (AG) informed the Court that it would not proceed with the prosecution. The AG provided no reason publicly for this decision.
“The shelving of this case five years after it began, is a blow to the victims of this serious human rights atrocity.” said Ian Seiderman, ICJ’s Legal and Policy Director.
“This constitutes yet another marker of Sri Lanka’s consistent failure to hold accountable perpetrators of serious conflict-era crimes,” he added.
In November 2020, the AG had informed the Batticaloa High Court that he intended to proceed with the case, notwithstanding the Court of Appeal deemed inadmissible important evidence of the prosecution’s case.
The UN Office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights Investigation on Sri Lanka (2015) had already concluded that “there are reasonable grounds to believe that the Karuna Group (of which Chandrakanthan was a member) killed Joseph Pararajasingham, and that it was aided and abetted by security and army personnel.”
The acquittal in Pararajasingham’s murder case follows that of another Tamil Parliamentarian Nadarajah Raviraj, where an all-Sinhalese jury acquitted five persons including three Navy intelligence officers in December 2016, a decade after his murder.
The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights identified both these cases, in which no progress had been made, emblematic of Sri Lanka’s dismal record on accountability.
The ICJ called on the Attorney General’s Department to reopen fresh investigations into the murder of the deceased legislator so as to ensure justice and justice for the victims of this atrocity.
The ICJ notes that the Attorney General maintains the dual role of public prosecutor and as attorney for the State, positions which are prone to come into tension. The former UN Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers, Monica Pinto, following her mission to Sri Lanka in 2016 observed that “there is a general perception that, first and foremost, the [Attorney General’s] department defends the interests of the government and not the public’s interest.”
Background
Sivanesathurai Chandrakanthan who broke away from the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) in 2004, functioned as a paramilitary, in support of the then-Rajapaksa Government. He is presently the leader of Tamil Makkal Viduthalai Pulikal (TMVP), a political party aligned to the Government and was voted into Parliament at the 2020 General Elections.
Investigation into the killing only began in 2015, after a new government was formed following elections which saw the defeat of Rajapaksa. Chandrakanthan was taken into remand custody on 11 October 2015 when he arrived at the Criminal Investigation Department to record a statement in relation to the assassination of the late Tamil politician. The Attorney General indicted that Chandrakanthan (who was 3rd accused) in the High Court of Batticaloa for offences committed under the Penal Code and the Prevention of Terrorism Act. He was granted bail for the first time in November 2020 after the primary evidence against the accused was deemed inadmissible by the Court of Appeal. The case was fixed for January 11 only after the AG informed courts he intended proceeding with the case notwithstanding the Appeal Court ruling.
Contact
Osama Motiwala, ICJ Communications Officer, Asia & Pacific programme, e: osama.motiwala(a)icj.org
Dec 2, 2020 | News
The ICJ today called upon the Sri Lankan authorities to conduct a prompt, thorough and impartial investigation into the events involving the use of lethal force by prison guards at Mahara prison on 29 and 30 November, which left at least nine inmates killed and over hundred others injured.
The action by the guards was taken in response to unrest resulting from protests by inmates over unsafe and overcrowded conditions in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.
The ICJ also called for urgent measure to address the unsafe conditions in Sri Lankan prisons to protect the right to health and life, including where necessary by releasing detainees.
“The tragic events of Mahara prison are a consequence of the failure of the Sri Lankan authorities to effectively address the situation of prison conditions, which has turned into a full blown human rights and public health crisis in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic”, said Ian Seiderman, ICJ Legal and Policy Director
The unrest was the culmination of a series of protests staged by the prisoners demanding an increase in coronavirus testing and new isolation facilities for infected prisoners. According to Senaka Perera, President of the Committee for Protecting the Rights of the Prisoners, around 200 inmates of the Mahara prison have been infected with COVID-19.
While the Minister of Rehabilitation and Prison Reforms and the Inspector General of Police have instructed the Criminal Investigation Department to probe the unrest caused at the Mahara Prison, the Minister of Justice has formed a separate five-member committee, chaired by former High Court Judge Kusala Saorini Weerawardena, to conduct its own investigation.
The ICJ recalls that under international law, the use of lethal force by State authorities is only permissible where strictly necessary to protect life. This standard should govern any investigation, and those responsible for unlawful conduct resulting in death or injuries to prisoners must be held to account.
“In addition to ensuring accountability and redress for any violations at the Mahara Prison, the authorities must act swiftly to meet the legitimate grievances of detainees throughout the country”, added Ian Seiderman.
“An effective response is not optional, but is necessary to fulfill the State’s legal obligation to provide for equal access to healthcare and health services to prisoners, who are among the most vulnerable to the ravages of COVID-19 in highly unsafe, enclosed and overcrowded environments.” Seiderman added.
The incident follows a wave of similar protests in several other prisons in the country. On 18 November, five inmates who were under quarantine at the Old Bogambara Prison attempted to break out and an inmate was shot dead when the prisoner officers opened fire at the fleeing inmates.
The ICJ called for the release of detainees who are particularly at risk of losing their life or suffering severe health effects from COVID-19. This would also apply to other convicts who could be released without compromising public safety, such as those sentenced for minor, non-violent offences.
Background
Speaking in Parliament on Monday, Minister of Rehabilitation and Prison Reforms Dr. Sudharshini Fernandopulle stated that the Government has taken steps to reduce overcrowding by directing COVID-19 positive prisoners out of the prisons to the Welikanda Hospital and moving all women inmates to the Kandakadu Rehabilitation Centre. She also stated that a mechanism has been put in place to obtain bail for those arrested for minor drug offences. Moreover, a presidential pardon has been granted to over 600 convicts of minor offences who were in remand due to their inability to pay the required fine.
Several UN bodies, including the WHO and OHCHR, came together in recommending that States consider limiting the deprivation of liberty including pretrial detention, to a measure of last resort and enhance efforts to resort to non-custodial measures.
Contact
Osama Motiwala, Communications Officer – osama.motiwala(a)icj.org
Oct 27, 2020 | News
The ICJ today condemned the adoption of amendments to the Sri Lankan Constitution, which serve to expand the powers of the President, while encroaching on the powers of the parliament and courts.
The 20th Amendment to the Constitution was passed into law on 22 October, with 156 of the 225 parliamentarians voting in favour of the amendment, after a mere two-day debate, overruling the Opposition’s request for at least four days of deliberation.
The ICJ noted that the Amendment undoes most of the reforms brought about by the 19th Amendment adopted only in 2015. Critically, it introduces judicial appointment procedures which are incompatible with principles of the justice by reintroducing the Parliamentary Council, consisting only of political actors.
That body serves to merely advise the President, regarding appointments to the judiciary and other key public institutions.
The 20th amendment gives the President sole and unfettered discretion to appoint all judges of the superior courts. Under international standards, appointments to the judiciary should not be vested solely with the executive.
Given the gravity of the constitutional changes, the ICJ expressed regret that the Government had suspended Standing Order 50 (2), which requires every bill to be referred to the relevant Sectoral Oversight Committee for consideration prior to being debated in parliament.
“It is appalling that Constitutional amendments with such far reaching consequences on the constitutional governance of the country were rushed through in such haste, especially at a time Sri Lanka battles with its largest COVID-19 outbreak to date,” said Ian Seiderman, ICJ’s Legal and Policy Director.
The ICJ welcomes the alteration made to some of the problematic provisions of the 20th Amendment Bill during Committee Stage, particularly in relation to presidential immunity and the time period within which the president can dissolve Parliament.
The ICJ nonetheless is particularly concerned with the decision of the Minister of Justice to introduce entirely new provisions at Committee Stage, particularly in relation to the increase of the number superior court judges. The Supreme Court Bench will be increased from 11 to 17 and Court of Appeal from 12 to 20. These substantive amendments were not part of the gazetted 20th Amendment bill, the provisions of which were challenged before the Supreme Court by as many as 39 petitioners.
“While an increased number of judges may reduce court delays and expedite the judicial process, introducing substantive amendments such as this at Committee Stage is problematic at multiple levels,” Seiderman added.
“Sneaking in substantial changes at the last stage of the legislative process where there is no opportunity for public comment or judicial review is not consistent with democratic processes under the rule of law.”
Sep 17, 2020 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
At the Human Rights Council, the ICJ highlighted deepening impunity for gross human rights violations in Sri Lanka, and the need for a UN investigative mechanism.
The oral statement was made in the interactive dialogue with the UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion of truth, justice, reparation and guarantees of non-recurrence, at which the current Rapporteur presented the report of his predecessor, Pablo de Greiff, on a visit to Sri Lanka in 2017.
The statement read as follows:
“The ICJ welcomes this opportunity to discuss the report of your predecessor’s 2017 visit to Sri Lanka.
We share the report’s assessment that “none of the constituent elements of a transitional justice policy are fully in place.” Indeed, the situation has only further deteriorated since 2017, further entrenching the denial of justice to victims.
Sri Lankan courts remain unable and unwilling to address the impunity of security forces for crimes under international law. We echo the report’s observation ‘in its current state, the criminal justice system in Sri Lanka is inadequate and flawed’.
This will only worsen if the proposed 20th Amendment to the Constitution is passed. The President, himself credibly accused of war crimes and crimes against humanity during his tenure as Defence Secretary from 2005-2015, would have unilateral power to appoint the judges of the superior courts, the Judicial Service Commission, Attorney General and the Inspector General of Police. This would further undermine any independence and impartiality in the already institutionally weakened judiciary.
Given the abject failure of Sri Lanka to implement a credible accountability mechanism, and its ongoing betrayal of the rule of law, the ICJ calls on the Council to establish an international accountability mechanism, and we urge you Mr Special Rapporteur to closely monitor and analyze the country situation in coordination with other mandate holders.
Thank you”
Sep 14, 2020 | News
The Sri Lankan parliament should reject the Sri Lankan Government’s efforts to amend the country’s constitution to provide unfettered powers to the President while encroaching on the powers of the legislature and infringing upon the independence of the judiciary, said the ICJ today.
“The proposed 20th Amendment, which bestows an already powerful executive president with additional powers with no effective checks on him, essentially placing him above the law,” said Sam Zarifi, ICJ’s Secretary General. “These amendments would tilt the balance of State power heavily on the side of the executive and in particular on a single person.”
The proposed 20th Amendment to the Constitution bill rolls back most of the reforms brought about by the 19th Amendment to the Constitution, the passage of which the UN Human Rights Council welcomed as “promoting democratic governance and oversight of key institutions”.
The 19th amendment, adopted in 2015, had imposed certain limits to the Executive President’s authority and powers, including in respect of terms of the office of President, the capacity to dissolve Parliament and to fast-track legislation. It also removed the blanket immunity the President enjoyed from legal proceedings. Critically, it had established a Constitutional Council which restrained the President’s discretion in appointing key governmental actors including in the judiciary, the Attorney General and the Inspector General of Police.
The ICJ notes that the 20th amendment appears to reproduce much of the regressive features of the old 18th amendment, which the 19th amendment had been brought about to correct.
“Sri Lanka’s Executive branch has a poor record of respecting human rights and the rule of law, and the 19th Amendment was an effort to impose the checks and balances necessary for the rule of law,” said Sam Zarifi. “The constitutional changes being proposed would take the country back to the dark days of Executive impunity.”
“We are particularly concerned that these changes would undermine the independence of the judiciary, as the President would have unfettered discretion to appoint the superior judiciary, including the Chief Justice, the President and Judges of the Court of the Appeal, and to control the Judicial Service Commission,” said Sam Zarifi.
The JSC is the body entrusted with the power to appoint, promote, transfer exercise disciplinary control and dismiss judicial officers of the subordinate courts. The changes would also grant the President the power to nominate members of the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) other than its Chairman which is ex officio, the Chief Justice.
The UN Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary states that “Any method of judicial selection shall safeguard against judicial appointments for improper motives.”
Under international standards and recommendations of the UN Special Rapporteur on the Independence of the Judiciary, appointments to the judiciary should not be vested solely with the executive.
A judicial appointment process which gives the President full discretion would inevitably result in the significant erosion of the independence and impartiality of the Sri Lankan judiciary.
Moreover, several checks placed on the President’s powers by the 19th Amendment have also been removed while giving him greater legal immunity. The President would also be granted sole power to appoint the cabinet, assign to himself any cabinet portfolio and been given unfettered discretion in relation to the appointment and dismissal of the Prime Minister. The President would also retain the power to dissolve the Parliament within one year.
Contact
For questions and clarifications: Osama Motiwala, Communications Officer – osama.motiwala(a)icj.org
