Sri Lanka: A failure of justice (UN event)

Sri Lanka: A failure of justice (UN event)

An event at the UN Human Rights Council on 28 February will highlight the continuing failure of Sri Lanka to secure justice for crimes under international law, and discuss ways forward for international efforts to fill the gap.

The event will take place 28 February 2020, 13:00 – 14:00, in Room XXIII of the Palais des Nations in Geneva.

It will be moderated by Human Rights Watch, with a short video will be followed by an interactive discussion with panelists from Amnesty International and the International Commission of Jurists.

A flyer for the event can be downloaded in PDF format here: HRC43 – Sri Lanka

Sri Lanka: Government’s refusal to implement UN Resolutions strengthens case for international justice mechanisms 

Sri Lanka: Government’s refusal to implement UN Resolutions strengthens case for international justice mechanisms 

The ICJ today condemned the Sri Lankan Government’s announced “withdrawal” of support for the process under UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) Resolutions 30/1, 34/1 and 40/1.

Minister of Foreign Affairs, Dinesh Gunawardane, formally announced the decision on 26 February at a High-Level Segment of the 43rd session of the UNHRC in Geneva.

“The Government of Sri Lanka’s refusal to implement effective measures for truth, justice, accountability and reconciliation, including as set out in the resolutions of the Human Rights Council, places it in violation of its obligations under international law,” said Frederick Rawski, ICJ’s Regional Director for Asia and the Pacific. “Holding perpetrators of human rights violations accountable at the international level now appears to be the only real option – including referral to the International Criminal Court, the creation of an ad hoc international mechanism, and the exercise of universal jurisdiction.”

Gunawardane stated that the Government of Sri Lanka would instead “achieve sustainable peace through an inclusive, domestically designed and executed reconciliation and accountability process, including through the appropriate adaptation of existing mechanisms, in line with the Government’s policy framework.”

“It is the Sri Lankan Government’s failure to initiate a credible and comprehensive approach to transitional justice in the aftermath of the war that led to the intervention of the international community in the first place,” said Rawski. “Sri Lanka’s domestic legal system has repeatedly demonstrated that it is unable to address systemic and entrenched impunity for crimes under international law perpetrated by the military and security forces,” he added.

Pronouncements by the President, on protecting military personnel from any accountability measures coupled with appointments to senior command positions individuals credibly accused of serious human rights violations indicate that the long history of impunity of security forces in Sri Lanka is set to continue.

The ICJ is deeply concerned that the Government’s official refusal to implement the UN resolutions comes at a time when the human rights situation in Sri Lanka is rapidly deteriorating. It threatens to undermine even the meagre progress made over the past few years, which albeit slow and wholly insufficient, has been primarily due to the continued engagement of the Council, OHCHR and international community. The UNHRC process is also the only forum at the global level where Sri Lankan civil society and victim groups have had the opportunity to engage openly in dialogue with the Government and other States on human rights concerns in Sri Lanka.

The validity of adopted resolutions of the Council does not depend on their acceptance by the government concerned. Reporting and discussion of Sri Lanka’s implementation or failure to implement them will take place this year and in 2021 at the Council regardless of the Government’s position.

Contact

Frederick Rawski, ICJ’s Asia Pacific Regional Director, t: +66 2 619 84 77; e: frederick.rawski(a)icj.org

Sri Lanka: President’s remarks on “missing persons” are an affront to victims

Sri Lanka: President’s remarks on “missing persons” are an affront to victims

The ICJ expressed alarm about comments made by Sri Lankan President Gotabaya Rajapaksa which offensively mischaracterized the situation of “missing persons” in Sri Lanka, many of whom have been the victims of the crime of enforced disappearances.

According to a statement released by the President’s office after President Rajapaksa’s meeting with UN Resident Coordinator, Hanaa Singer, on 17 January 2020, the President had “explained that these missing persons are actually dead” and that “most of them had been taken by the LTTE or forcefully conscripted. The families of the missing attest to it. However, they do not know what has become of them and so claim them to be missing.”

“It is appalling to hear such callous declarations from the Office of the President, particularly given that no credible investigations have been conducted into the cases of those who have gone missing during the armed conflict,” said Frederick Rawski, Asia Pacific Director for the International Commission of Jurists.

The fate and whereabouts of some 20,000 people were reportedly unaccounted for in the immediate aftermath of the armed conflict in Sri Lanka. Many of these people are suspected to have been subjected to enforced disappearance, unlawful killings and/or other crimes under international law.

The Report of the UN Secretary-General’s Panel of Experts on Accountability in Sri Lanka (2011) and the reports of the State-led Commissions of Inquiry on Lesson Learnt and Reconciliation (2011), and Presidential Commission of Inquiry into Complaints of Abductions and Disappearances (2015) found that at least some of those who had surrendered to the Sri Lankan military at the end of the war in 2009 remain unaccounted for to date, and that many cases remain unresolved.

According to the same statement, Rajapaksa further informed the UN Resident Coordinator that, “after necessary investigations, steps would be taken to issue a death certificate to these missing persons. Afterwards their families would be given the support they need to continue with their lives.”

Under international law and standards, allegations of enforced disappearances and unlawful killings must be investigated, promptly, thoroughly, impartially. Those responsible must be brought to justice in fair trials, and the victims and their families are entitled to effective remedy and reparation.

“The President’s statement appears to disregard the purpose of the Office of Missing Persons. Any attempt to provide ‘closure’ to the relatives of the missing without following the necessary legal procedure to establish the truth is unacceptable,” said Rawski. “Their families have waited for ten years or longer to find out the fate of their loved ones.  The response of the State should be to help facilitate the existing process, not to disrupt or obstruct it,” he added.

The previous government adopted the Office of Missing Persons Act in August 2016 and established the Office of Missing Persons (OMP) in February 2018, in light of its commitments to the UN Human Rights Council under Resolution 30/1. According to Section 13 (1) (a) (ii) of the OMP Act, a certificate of death shall be issued only upon the conclusion of an investigation and the issuing of a report to the relative of such missing person to such effect. However, as an interim measure, the OMP is empowered to facilitate the provision of certificates of absence to family members of a missing person. A certificate of absence legally recognizes that a person is missing and allows the family to conduct transactions as though the person is dead.

The ICJ urges the Government of Sri Lanka to desist from any measures that would derail from the established legal procedure to search and trace the “disappeared” and other missing persons in Sri Lanka. ICJ instead calls upon the Government to support the Office of Missing Persons to speed up the investigation process in establishing the truth, accountability, and reparation.

Contact

Frederick Rawski, ICJ’s Asia Pacific Regional Director, t: +66 2 619 84 77; e: frederick.rawski(a)icj.org

Sri Lanka must demonstrate respect for human rights and address impunity

Sri Lanka must demonstrate respect for human rights and address impunity

Sri Lanka’s newly elected president, Gotabaya Rajapaksa and his government must demonstrate that they will uphold human rights and rule of law, and ensure that Sri Lanka sustains its international obligations and commitments to justice and accountability, said the ICJ today.

Gotabaya Rajapaksa faces credible allegations of involvement in war crimes and crimes against humanity that took place during the country’s armed conflict.

“The election of Gotabaya Rajapaksa, after a highly polarizing campaign, has alarmed human rights defenders in Sri Lanka and abroad, who have little reason to believe that someone facing such serious allegations of perpetrating human rights violations can be relied upon to meet the country’s obligations under international law,” said Frederick Rawski, ICJ Asia Pacific Director.

Gotabaya Rajapaksa, who won the presidency with 52.25% of votes, served as Sri Lanka’s Secretary of the Ministry of Defence from 2005 to 2015 during the tenure of his brother Mahinda Rajapaksa, at the height of the armed conflict against the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE).

Both the military and LTTE perpetrated war crimes and gross human rights violations during the conflict, and particularly during its bloody final stages. As Defence Secretary, Gotabaya was accused of ordering the killing of surrendering LTTE fighters, ordering strikes on civilians and hospitals, and authorizing attacks on human rights defenders.

International condemnation of atrocities committed during the conflict led to the UN Human Rights Council demanding that the Sri Lankan government commit to a process of transitional justice, in view of the systematic failures of accountability mechanisms in Sri Lanka in the past, as documented by the ICJ in its submission to the Human Rights Council, and others. Despite commitments from the Sri Lankan government, the transitional justice process has effectively stalled and impunity has prevailed.

“The ICJ is deeply concerned that even the limited strides made over the past five years in Sri Lanka on transitional justice, positive constitutional amendments and institutional reform will be reversed,” said Rawski.

The ICJ urged the Government to deliver on its commitment to the transitional justice process, including by holding those responsible for human rights violations and abuses accountable, and complying with the obligations set out in United Nations Human Rights Council Resolutions 30/1, 34/1 and 40/1.

Contact:

Frederick Rawski, ICJ’s Asia Director, t +66 644781121; e: frederick.rawski(a)icj.org

Sri Lanka: executions of the four prisoners convicted of drug-related offences must be halted

Sri Lanka: executions of the four prisoners convicted of drug-related offences must be halted

The ICJ categorically condemns Sri Lankan President Maithripala Sirisena’s endorsement of death warrants of four people convicted of drug-related offences.

Today, the ICJ urged the President to stop the imminent execution of these four convicts and to respect the de facto moratorium Sri Lanka has observed on capital punishment that over the past 43 years.

The ICJ has called on Sri Lanka to move toward full abolition of the abhorrent practice.

“President Sirisena’s resolve to resume executions would be a violation of Sri Lanka’s obligations under international human rights law and a disastrous for human rights in the country. It is also inconsistent with the global trend towards the abolition of the death penalty,” said Frederick Rawski, ICJ’s Asia-Pacific Director.

Speaking to the media on Wednesday June 26, President Sirisena announced that four execution warrants of those convicted of drug offences had been signed and that the dates for the execution had also been determined.

Those dates were left unspecified. With 1299 people on death row, the lives of at least 46 more prisoners, whose execution warrants have been prepared, are now under imminent threat.

Sri Lanka is a party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, under which it is not permitted to impose the death penalty for drug offences, the resumption of the death penalty after an extended is also incompatible with the ICCPR.

The ICJ opposes the death penalty in all circumstances without exception. The death penalty constitutes a violation of the right to life and the right not to be subjected to cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment.

The UN General Assembly has adopted repeated resolutions, most recently in December 2018, by overwhelming majority in calling for all retentionist States to observe an immediate moratorium with a view to abolition.

Sri Lanka voted in favour of a moratorium on the use of the death penalty in the 2018 UN GA Resolution.

The ICJ urgently calls on the Government of Sri Lanka to immediately halt all plans for execution and to do away with the capital punishment once and for all in keeping with its own commitment before the UN General Assembly for a global moratorium on the use of death penalty.

Instead of resuming executions, the Sri Lankan authorities should focus on effective, evidence-based approaches to crime prevention in manners that conform to international human rights law and standards.

Background

The UN Human Rights Committee, the supervisory body for the ICCPR, has made it clear that the imposition of the death penalty for crimes that are not of extreme gravity involving intentional killing, such as “drug offences” is incompatible with the Covenant as such offences do not meet the threshold of “most serious crimes”.

It has affirmed that that States parties that are not yet totally abolitionist should be on an irrevocable path towards complete eradication of the death penalty, de facto and de jure, in the foreseeable future.

The death penalty cannot be reconciled with full respect for the right to life, and abolition of the death penalty is both desirable and necessary for the enhancement of human dignity and progressive development of human rights.

It is contrary to the object and purpose of article 6 for States parties to take steps to increase de facto the rate and extent in which they resort to the death penalty, or to reduce the number of pardons and commutations they grant.

Contact

Frederick Rawski, ICJ Asia Pacific Region Director, e: frederick.rawski(a)icj.org, t: +66 644781121

Translate »