Presidential nominee on Human Rights Minister Mahinda
Samarasinghe at UNHRC:
‘Channel 4 video tainted with bias and partiality’
The response of the government of Sri Lanka on May 11, 2011 to the
Technical Note by the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or
arbitrary executions Christof Heyns, in relation to the authenticity of
the second extended Channel 4 video tape regarding Sri Lanka.
“Whilst welcoming the Special Rapporteur’s efforts to provide the
GoSL, an opportunity to respond to his Technical Note and annexures, the
procedure adopted failed to achieve its objective for the following
reasons;
The incomplete nature of the Note – the reports annexed contained
blurred and illegible images which were not of a quality that could be
examined and therefore precluded the Government from making an objective
assessment. The apparent lack of professional diligence in ensuring that
legible copies were made available in a timely manner is suggestive of a
want of good faith.
Lack of professional diligence
The original copies of the Special Rapporteur’s Technical Note of 26
April, 2011 and annexures reached the permanent mission of Sri Lanka in
Geneva on the same day. At this juncture a short deadline of 06 May was
stipulated for the Government of Sri Lanka to respond. However, the
annexures provided with the initial Note from the Special Rapporteur
were faxed versions of original document. The illustrations in these
documents were not legible and defied view. Thereupon a request was made
from the Special Rapporteur to provide documents in their original
electronic form. These versions of the documents were received on 29
April, 2011.
However, neither communications of 26 nor 29th April contained the
report of the expert Mr Spivack despite the Special Rapporteur’s Note
stating that it is attached. This omission was noted in Colombo and an
immediate request was made for Mr Spivack’s report. His report was
received by the Sri Lankan Mission on 30 April. This too was a scanned
image of a faxed document. Further to a request from the Government an
extension of the deadline until 11 May was agreed upon. The
illustrations in the Spivack report are also illegible as the document
is not an original. This means that the images on which many assertions
were based would not be reviewed in time and a full analysis of the
Technical Note along with its annexures has not been possible to date.
Once such analysis is complete, the outcome will be shared with the
Special Rapporteur.
A categorical assertion has been made by the Special Rapporteur that
the “material also includes pictures of the dead body of Charles Anthony
(son of the late LTTE leader Prabhakaran)” (in paragraph 34 of the
Note). The video provided by the Special Rapporteur does not to the
naked eye display a body that can be identified as that of Charles
Anthony when the video is compared with the photographs of the deceased
terrorist Charles Anthony.
There appears to be an absence of a satisfactory material to support
the Special Rapporteur’s contention. It also gives rise to the question
whether the Special Rapporteur has withheld relevant material, which
ought to have been released to the Government at the earliest
opportunity, in a spirit of constructive engagement and transparency. No
less could be expected when engaging with a sovereign state. It is the
Governments view that in an inquiry of this nature, complete disclosure
of the material is an indispensable requirement. The Government has
initiated steps to obtain the other materials adverted to by the Special
Rapporteur which he offers to make available upon request (vide.
Paragraph 35 of the Note).
Sri Lanka notes that the experts report submitted by Mr Grant
Fredericks appears to have arrived at firm conclusions that both videos
i.e. the video (2009) and extended video (2010) are authentic. He was
initially requested by The Times of London Newspaper to evaluate the
video (2009) around December 2009 and his conclusion was referred to by
the previous Special Rapporteur Mr Philip Alston in his report of
January 2010 although Mr Alston had not seen the full report.
Lack of unanimity
Despite not seeing the reports he cited Mr Federicks with approval
since there was no apparent unanimity between Mr Fredericks and the
experts commissioned by Mr Alston, Mr Fredericks, on or around 15
December 2009, made public assertion on print and electronic media that
the video of 2009 was authentic. It was inconceivable that he should
alter his perception of the genuiness of the extended video which also
includes the 2009 video given the position taken by him publicly.
Sri Lanka also notes that the self-same experts are relied upon by
the successor to Mr Alston including Mr Fredericks, in evaluating the
extended video (2010). This hardly amounts to an independent evaluation
of the extended video but appears to be a general reaffirmation of the
conclusions of 2009 with the addition of some explanations aimed at
dispelling the legitimate doubts and questions raised by the Sri Lankan
experts in their analysis of the shorter video in 2009.
It is surprising that the Special Rapporteur should continue to rely
on the same four experts who had already committed themselves by
asserting that the video was genuine. It is remarkable that the Special
Rapporteur, with all the resources available to his office, could not
identify any other experts of equal or greater standing or repute who
could objectively comment on the extended video.
If the governing interest of the Special Rapporteur is to undertake a
truly impartial analysis,’ it would appear more feasible to commission
experts other than then four who had already pronounced on the video of
2009. Suspicion of bias may well arise given the determination of the
Special Rapporteur to re-commission the experts who had arrived at the
most definite conclusions on the video (2009).
Despite the foregoing, it is noteworthy that one expert – Mr Spivack
– appears to have substantially altered some of his observations.
Moreover the statement that the experts worked “independently of one
another” in analysing the video of 2009 is also questionable. The
Government of Sri Lanka has discovered that Mr Spivack in a technical
representative for a brand of specialized proprietary software which was
used to enhance the video (2009) and which was shared with two other
experts.
Hence the assertion of independence may be impugned on the basis of
the prior collaboration between the experts. The recipient experts –
responsible for ballistics and forensic pathology – both based their
conclusion on the conclusions on the enhanced video provided by Mr
Spivack. Furthermore he does not at any point acknowledge the usage of
the specialized software which has had a profound impact on the
analysis.
It is axiomatic that an expert should provide objective and unbiased
opinions on matters within his expertise and should not assume the role
of an advocate. This duty overrides any obligation to the person from
whom he received instructions or by whom he is paid. This duty certainly
includes an obligation to inform all parties of the expert’s opinion
changes and this is hardly noticeable in the reports.
Preliminary study carried out
A preliminary study of the available legible material has been
carried out and the following observations are made:
Initially, the experts concluded that the video (2009) was an
unedited original video recording on a Phillips brand mobile telephone
available in Sri Lanka. This level of certainly does not appear
justified as another expert concluded that the extended video (2010) was
edited using Phillips software but using a Nokia mdoel 6600 series
mobile telephone for recording.
The first expert then changed his conclusion so as to be consistent
with the later conclusion by Fredericks. However there does not appear
to be any basis for the change other than the opinion of the second
expert which taints Spivack’s opinion.
The expert – Fredericks – has generally identified the devise used
for recording the extended video to be a Nokia 6600 series model. He
also states that “it is clear that the camera used to record this
segment (images 765 and 766) has an ability to jump to a 2X (200%) zoom.
The zoom appears to be an optical zoom, since digital zoom artifacts are
not present.” Having checked the standard specifications relating to
this series of mobile telephone, it is apparent that the mentioned
series do not have optical zoom capability.
In the extended video from frame Nos. 3 to 8 the person identified as
victim #3 makes a body movement for which there is no apparent reason.
From frame Nos. 17 to 30 when a gun is aimed and allegedly fired at
victim #2, victim #3 who is away from the line of fire and is lying on
the ground raises and lowers his head. The failure of the experts -
Fredericks to note this feature raised concern as to whether he has
reviewed all visual evidence including that which does not support his
conclusions. This selective analysis leaves room for questioning the
degree of diligence exercised by the expert.
The expert Spivack states that CMOS technology based imaging sensors
are commonly found in mobile phone cameras while standard definition
video camcorders typically use CCD imaging sensors. There are many
digital video camcorders from almost every reputed manufacturer that
utilise CMOS technology based imaging sensors.
Hasty conclusions
The Special Rapporteur has asserted in paragraph 36 of his Note that
neither the Attorney-General nor the Independent Lessons Learnt and
Reconciliation Commission have given serious consideration to the video.
The Commission referred to by the Special Rapporteur has, in fact, taken
cognisance of the matter and has called for the assistance of an expert
from the premier technological University in Sri Lanka on the basis that
it has examined the video and possesses the technical means to ascertain
the authenticity of the video.
The Commission had requested the university to provide expertise on
12 April, 2011 and is a further reflection of the unprofessional and
hasty conclusions arrived at in the Note. The Commission is in the
process of receiving the expert evidence and it is expected that it will
evaluate the same in its eventual findings. The concerns of the Special
Rapporteur in this connection have been addressed. As far back as
September 2009, it is a matter of record that the Attorney-General has
given this matter his serious consideration.
For instance, on an initial broadcasting of the video by Channel 4 in
August 2009 immediate steps were taken in September by the
Attorney-General to complain to OFFCOM (UK) and demand an inquiry into
the conduct of Channel 4 which declined to provide an original copy of
the video to the Government of Sri Lanka for purposes of investigation.
Therefore to suggest that the Attorney-General did not give this
matter serious consideration is misplaced and strongly suggestive of an
intention to convey an attitude of inaction on the part of the
Government.
It has to be highlighted that the legal efficacy of any report or
publication is hinged upon the fundamental requirement of impartiality
and a complete lack of bias, having regard to the rules of natural
justice.
It is respectfully submitted that the process adopted in regard to
the publication of the videos and subsequent steps taken fall far short
of this requirement and is tainted with the fundamental vice of bias and
partiality.
The fact that the contents of the video were not made available to
the Sri Lankan Government by Channel 4 lends support to the suspicion
that the broadcast of the videos was for a collateral purpose.
The Government of Sri Lanka is ready to constructively engage with
the Special Rapporteur in the future on the basis of transparency and
fair process being adopted.
Progress achieved through domestic procedures and mechanisms will be
communicated to the Special Rapporteur upon completion of internal
processes.”
|