Minister Mahinda Samarasinghe tells Geneva sessions:
UNDUE PRESSURE ON ACCOUNTABILITY
* SL needs adequate time to
resolve deep rooted issues
To some, reconciliation in the Sri Lankan context must be based
principally on issues of ‘retributive justice and accountability’,
Plantations Minister and President’s Special Envoy on Human Rights
Mahinda Samarasinghe said addressing the 22nd UNHRC sessions in Geneva
yesterday.
“This is just one aspect, but the overall dimensions of the subject
are extremely complex and consultations among all stakeholders are
necessary to finding lasting solutions acceptable to all. Sri Lanka
needs adequate time and space to resolve such deep-rooted and
wide-ranging issues.
“Undue pressure exerted by external parties on this one aspect is not
helpful in the resolution of these issues,” he said.
“This is not to state that the LLRC recommendations on accountability
have been ignored. A Court of Inquiry was established by the Commander
of the Sri Lanka Army to inquire into the observations made by the
Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC) in its report as to
alleged civilian casualties during the final phase of the Humanitarian
Operation and the Channel-4 video footage irrespective of its
authenticity or otherwise. The Court of Inquiry will now proceed to
investigate the second part of their mandate - to examine the Channel 4
allegations,” he said.
The minister said in relation to the killings of five students in
Trincomalee and the 17 ACF workers, the Police are conducting further
investigations guided by a special team of senior prosecutors specially
mandated for the purpose of examining documents and other forensic
material that may be useful to conclude the investigations relating to
these two cases.
“The government of Sri Lanka’s efforts continue, through the relevant
agencies, to bring finality to the crimes involved in these two cases. I
am able to announce that in the case of the five students, the Attorney
General has instructed the Police to commence a non-summary inquiry
before judicial authorities. Thus this matter may be brought to a
conclusion and is concrete evidence of our commitment to
accountability,” Samarasinghe said.
“Referring to the concern expressed on the alleged lack of government
implementation of the interim recommendations and that the National Plan
of Action (NPoA) deals with only selected recommendations of the LLRC, I
wish to inform this Council that some of the recommendations were
already being addressed, including through the National Human Rights
Action Plan. They have not been reflected in the NPoA. Further it may be
noted that the NPoA is an evolving process,” he said.
Following is the full text of the speech:
Mr President, It is an honour and a pleasure to address this august
Council today. On behalf of my delegation, let me felicitate you upon
your assumption of the Presidency and offer our support to you in the
discharge of your office during your tenure. As with your distinguished
predecessors, we are confident of working together in ensuring that the
objectives of the Council are met.
At the conclusion of Sri Lanka’s universal periodic review (UPR) last
November, I informed the Working Group that we would continue our
practice of sharing with the Council our ongoing progress towards peace
and normality. We are present here today to share that progress. Though
faced with skepticism and even hostile criticism from some quarters, Sri
Lanka has continued to engage its interlocutors in a spirit of openness,
candour and constructive dialogue.
Let me now briefly address some of the highlights of our
achievements.
Work on HR
Three and a quarter years ago Sri Lanka emerged from a long-drawn out
conflict to eliminate terrorism, successfully conducting a humanitarian
operation to free a captive population, with a view to bringing about
lasting stability, peace and prosperity that had eluded our nation’s
people for nearly three decades. In the aftermath of this operation it
was established, beyond doubt that the Sri Lankan Government was doing
its utmost to continue promoting and protecting human rights of all
citizens. The Reconstruction, Resettlement, Rehabilitation,
Reintegration, and Reconciliation programme (known as 5R), demonstrates
that Sri Lanka today is well on the path to usher in an era of
sustainable development, social progress and a durable peace.
Reconstruction includes restoration of physical and social
infrastructure, strengthening of civil administration, provision of
livelihood support and housing. As a result, a 27% growth rate has been
recorded in the Northern Province the former theatre of conflict, while
Sri Lanka’s overall GDP recorded around 8% growth in 2011.
The reconstruction of the Northern railway line which was totally
destroyed by the LTTE is currently under way. This involves re-laying of
the entire railway line stretching 110 miles (177 Km) from Vavuniya to
Kankesanthurai. It is expected that this will be completed by the end of
2015 thus restoring a main artery of transport, commerce, ease of
movement and communication between the previously sundered people of the
north and their southern brethren.
Unparalleled progress has been made in areas such as the resettlement
of internally displaced persons, facilitated by demining. By the time
the LTTE was finally defeated in May 2009, over 295,000 IDPs displaced
after April 2008 were in the care of the Government. A Presidential Task
Force for Reconstruction and Resettlement was appointed to expedite IDP
resettlement and reconstruction in parallel with the demining efforts in
the North. While every effort was being made to resettle persons in
their original habitat, in instances in which this is not possible, they
were given alternate land.
The last batch of the IDPs was resettled in their villages in
Mullaitivu on 24 September 2012. 1,186 persons from 361 families were
thus resettled. With this last batch of IDPs, the Government has
resettled a total of 242,449 IDPs. A further 28,398 have chosen to live
with host families in various parts of the country. A batch of about 200
families living with host families has been resettled with their consent
in their original habitat in Mullaithivu in September 2012. At the
conclusion of resettlement, 7,264 IDPs had left the camps on various
grounds and did not return while a further 1,380 sought admission to
hospitals. The resettlement of the final batch of IDPs marks a day of
historic significance as the resettlement is now complete and there are
no more IDPs or IDP camps in the island. This makes the achievement
reached within the short period of three years, remarkable when compared
with similar situations in other parts of the world.
Mr President,
To address issues pertaining to land, the Government is in the
process of establishing a Land Commission. The Terms of Reference of the
Fourth Land Commission are being formulated. This is in accordance with
the LLRC recommendation on land return and resettlement.
With the termination of military operations and the gradual
restoration of normality, the strength of the military in the North has
been reduced considerably. Further rationalization of this presence
would be considered in line with national security interests. Members of
the military have been engaged in the reconstruction work in the North,
which is a normal phenomenon following the end of an armed conflict. The
former High Security Zones (HSZs) have ceased to exist. The Palaly
Cantonment is now the only area in which some security restrictions
remain, but even within the Cantonment, civilians have unrestricted
access to the Palaly airport and the Kankesanthurai harbor. The former
HSZ in the Sampoor area in the Eastern Province designated in 2007 has
been reduced in extent by 65% and the remainder declared a development
zone under the Board of Investment law.
Implementation of LLRC recommendations
Mr President,
The Government is in the process of devising measures to pay
compensation to the owners of properties within such areas or provide
them with alternate land. I must re-emphasize that the military is in no
way engaged in civil administration which is the sole responsibility of
civilian officials. There are absolutely no restrictions on travel today
in the North and civilians enjoy complete freedom of movement. The tens
of thousands of foreign passport holders who have visited Sri Lanka and
have travelled to the North is ample evidence of the freedom that exists
throughout the country at present.
A significant aspect of the resettlement process is demining. The Sri
Lanka Army was responsible for demining approximately 75% of the land
which was the largest single area assigned to any of the parties
involved in demining and included most of densely mined regions. As of
January 2013, about 99% of the areas identified for demining have been
cleared and less than 98 square kilometers of territory remains to be
cleared. It is expected that these areas too will be completely cleared
in the very near future. The total land cleared of mines from 2002 to
end of December 2012 is 1,967.29 Km2. Approximately 946,719 devices have
been recovered, including anti-personnel landmines and unexploded
ordnance (UXOs), from 2002 to end of December 2012.
With regard to the rehabilitation and subsequent reintegration of
ex-combatants, from approximately 12,000 persons at the inception, as of
15th January 2013, 396 beneficiaries (378 male and 18 female) are
undergoing rehabilitation and 225 are under legal proceeding (under
judicially mandated custody remanded or bailed).
As of 15th January 2013, 11,456 (9,203 male and 2,253 female)
persons, including 594 former LTTE child soldiers, have been
rehabilitated and reintegrated into the society. It should be noted that
GOSL adhered to a policy of treating all these children as victims, not
as perpetrators and all possible efforts have been taken to look into
their welfare and secure their future. It must be noted that Sri Lanka
has now been delisted by the UN Secretary General from Annex II of the
UN Security Council Resolution 1612, on Children and Armed Conflict.
This is a result of the efforts taken by the GOSL inter alia to
investigate several cases on child recruitment and comply with the
recommendations of the Security Council Working Group on Children and
Armed Conflict and the UNSG’s Special Representative. The Working
Group has adopted the ‘Draft Conclusions on the situation of children
and armed conflict in Sri Lanka’ on December 19, 2012, thereby closing
the dossier on Sri Lanka in the Security Council.
At no time has the rehabilitation process been used to target
ex-combatants or LTTE sympathizers but has been used for their benefit
and to ensure speedy their reintegration into society. Despite
possessing sufficient evidence to take legal action against these
individuals, the Government chose the option of rehabilitation, as a
part of the reconciliation process. Reintegration rather than
prosecution and extended incarceration, has been the hallmark of our
efforts. This is based on our commitment to restorative, rather than
retributive, justice. Successful reintegration goes far beyond mere
rehabilitation and release. Follow-up action must be taken to ensure
that those reintegrated into the mainstream of community life do not
tend towards recidivism. We are conscious that many of these persons
have no life experience other than achieving their objectives through
the force of arms.
Reconciliation is a multifaceted process. We, perhaps more than any
other comparable national government, know the need for reconciliation
among our people. We Sri Lankans have suffered - North and South, East
and West - from an internecine conflict for nearly three decades. It
ended in 2009. Now we are on the path to reconciliation.
The focus of reconciliation in the Sri Lankan context, to some, must
be based principally on issues of retributive justice and
accountability. This is just one aspect, but the overall dimensions of
the subject are extremely complex and consultations among all
stakeholders are necessary to finding lasting solutions acceptable to
all. Sri Lanka needs adequate time and space to resolve such deep-rooted
and wide-ranging issues. Undue pressure exerted by external parties on
this one aspect is not helpful in the resolution of these issues.
This is not to state that the LLRC recommendations on accountability
have been ignored. A Court of Inquiry was established by the Commander
of the Sri Lanka Army to inquire into the observations made by the
Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC) in its report as to
alleged civilian casualties during the final phase of the Humanitarian
Operation and the Channel-4 video footage irrespective of its
authenticity or otherwise. The Court of Inquiry will now proceed to
investigate the second part of their mandate - to examine the Channel 4
allegations.
In relation to the killings of 5 students in Trincomalee and the 17
ACF workers, the Police are conducting further investigations guided by
a special team of senior prosecutors specially mandated for the purpose
of examining documents and other forensic material that may be useful to
conclude the investigations relating to these two cases. The GOSL’s
efforts continue, through the relevant agencies, to bring finality to
the crimes involved in these 2 cases. I am able to announce that in the
case of the 5 students, the Attorney General has instructed the Police
to commence a non-summary inquiry before judicial authorities. Thus this
matter may be brought to a conclusion and is concrete evidence of our
commitment to accountability.
Referring to the concern expressed on the alleged lack of Government
implementation of the interim recommendations and that the National Plan
of Action (NPoA) deals with only selected recommendations of the LLRC, I
wish to inform this Council that some of the recommendations were
already being addressed, including through the National Human Rights
Action Plan. They have not been reflected in the NPoA. Further it may be
noted that the NPoA is an evolving process.
All interim recommendations have been included in the NPoA.
Recommendations (particularly those which are relevant to
forward-looking strategies) that are neither in the NPoA nor the NHRAP,
will nevertheless be implemented. For ease of processing implementation,
the Government has designated them under four categories. Namely
recommendations relating to : · National policy· The final phase of the
conflict · Human Rights and Security Issues · Resettlement, development
and humanitarian issues. The LLRC recommendations are being implemented
by the corresponding implementing agencies under short, medium and long
term goals, based on priority considerations within specified time
frames.
A budget line of 763 million Rupees has been provided for 2013 to
fund a substantial number of recommendations. This was supplemented by
an additional allocation of 500 million Rupees. The allocated funds are
being made available to the Ministries from end of January 2013. The
bulk of the activities will be implemented therefrom, the progress of
which will be measured. The latest update on implementation of the NPoA
was shared with diplomatic representation in Colombo last week and we
will be issuing web-published reports regularly, as and when progress
review meetings are held.
National consensus
As to the proposed Parliamentary Select Committee (PSC) the
Government is of the view that it is the most appropriate forum on this
matter since constitutional reforms need a two-third majority and a
broad national consensus. While the Government has nominated its
representatives to the PSC, the nominations of the opposition parties
are awaited. Provincial elections are envisaged to be held within the
course of this year for the Northern Province in keeping with the
Provincial Councils Elections Act and relevant judicial pronouncements
interpreting the provisions of the law. Despite these gains within Sri
Lanka, remnants of the terrorist organization remain very active in some
countries in the Western hemisphere, where their proxies are continuing
to lobby host governments, opinion makers in the media and elsewhere, to
undermine the peace and reconciliation process that is ongoing.
Anti-SL lobby
It is regrettable that some part of the international community has
fallen prey to these efforts based on disinformation, outright falsehood
and pressure tactics. This has at times, resulted in biased and unequal
treatment of Sri Lanka. An example of this selective and inequitable
process seeking punitive action on Sri Lanka, are some efforts in this
Council. We believe that Resolution No 19/2 on Sri Lanka, which was
introduced and adopted at the 19th session of the Council in 22 March
2012, was entirely unnecessary, unwarranted and unfair. Moreover, as is
already announced in this Council and elsewhere, a follow up draft
resolution on Sri Lanka, already circulated, is to be introduced at this
session - a year after the earlier Resolution. We strongly object to any
unfair, biased, unprincipled and unjust approach that may be adopted by
this Council with regard to the protection and promotion of Human Rights
in Sri Lanka. We are, therefore, firmly of the view that this Council
should not embark upon or encourage either debate on or any
country-specific resolution by virtue of a selective process which would
run counter to the founding principles of the Council. Doing so will
clearly reflect an application of double standards.
Mr President, It is our position that it is the Government’s primary
responsibility to resolve domestic issues. Unwarranted
internationalization of such issues would only undermine the local
reconciliation process in Sri Lanka; a process that is still ongoing,
impacting adversely on the people in the former conflict- affected areas
in their efforts to reap the dividends of peace.
Targeting Sri Lanka unfairly in this manner would only serve to
further polarize the affected parties, particularly considering that
there is no imminent threat to the human security of its citizens or to
international peace and security. The bona-fides and the objectivity of
the proponents of action on Sri Lanka may, therefore, be questioned.
Moreover, the subjective selectivity in focusing on Sri Lanka in this
manner, a country which has always cooperated and engaged with the
United Nations System and the international community is unacceptable.
Sri Lanka is of the view that country specific action in the Human
Rights Council, such as the Resolution 19/2, is a selective and
arbitrary process which is not governed by objective norms or criteria
of any kind. It is our firm belief that it is vitally important for the
structures and procedures of multilateral organizations to be uniform
and consistent and devoid of discrimination.
Mr President,
In this context, the Report of the High Commissioner for Human Rights
titled Advice and technical assistance to the Government of Sri Lanka on
promoting reconciliation and accountability in Sri Lanka (A/HRC/22/38)
has been compiled pursuant to Resolution 19/2. This Report will be
considered later during the session. Comments and observations of the
GoSL in general on the High Commissioner’s Report were forwarded and our
comments in full are placed on the website.
In relation to further engagement, it may be recalled that an
invitation was extended to the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights in
April 2011 for a country visit. Thereafter according to her Report, she
indicated in May 2012 that the visit to Sri Lanka will be undertaken
after an advance visit by a team of officials from the OHCHR to explore
possible areas for cooperation, and I quote: to help prepare the ground
for an eventual country visit by the High Commissioner herself; unquote.
The High Commissioner expressed her satisfaction with the cooperation
extended by the GoSL to the OHCHR delegation whose visit in September
2012 was facilitated in close consultation with the UN Country Office.
In granting the team unfettered access, the Government acted in the good
faith expectation that it would in fact prepare the ground for her
visit. Subsequently the High Commissioner addressed a letter in November
2012 proposing possible areas of technical cooperation between the GoSL
and the OHCHR. She also chose to introduce a new conditionality: stating
that meaningful progress needs to be achieved in areas outlined for
technical cooperation, before visiting Sri Lanka at some time in the
first half of 2013. Thus it now appears the team’s agenda was purely to
collect material for her present Report and not to help prepare the
ground for a visit. The GoSL’s reply in December 2012 was to emphasize
that, since the implementation of the NPoA and the NHRAP, are
continuously evolving national processes which were being monitored, in
order to arrive at a considered opinion on the progress of human rights
related issues, that there is no substitute for experiencing, at first
hand, the ground situation.
We reiterate that, therefore, a visit by the High Commissioner would
be an ideal opportunity to view the developments objectively and
holistically, imperative for the discharge of her mandate. As such, the
bona fides of the High Commissioner’s objectives may be called into
question, by virtue of her shifting the goalposts and seeking to impose
new conditionalities.
Mr President,
We also note that an inordinate amount of attention is paid to Sri
Lanka in the High Commissioner’s statements within and outside UN
forums. Whether it be in the UN Security Council or successive sessions
of the Human Rights Council, democracy conferences or merely comments
from her on incidents or events in Sri Lanka ranging from economic
migrants to the judiciary, the High Commissioner, has had, from around
the end of the conflict in May 2009, a regular negative observation to
make. Her frequent comments to the media, some in close proximity to
sessions of the Council, could well have the effect of influencing
delegations, especially when there are Resolutions contemplated. This
runs counter to the detachment, objectivity and impartiality expected
from the holder of such an exalted office. Sweeping generalizations
using such terms as “massive violations” of human rights and the
constant targeting of Sri Lanka “ based on unsubstantiated evidence
founded on conjecture and supposition only supports the impression of a
lack of objectivity.
The Report to the Council - A/HRC/22/38 - is also very much in
similar vein. Very little attention is paid to the significant progress
achieved in the post-conflict phase; matters that we placed before the
Working Group in considerable detail during the UPR, in particular.
However, in contrast, great emphasis is placed on the perceived
negatives as they pertain to the Sri Lanka’s process of reconciliation.
This disproportionate emphasis on the negative to the virtual exclusion
of the positive, gives the report a skewed and imbalanced character.
Code of conduct
It would be incorrect to state that we do not engage with Special
Procedure mechanisms. During the UPR, we placed on record our continuing
engagement with these expert mandate holders; an engagement we value. We
agree that the special procedures, while being independent, play an
important complementary role to the work of the OHCHR. Sri Lanka is
however concerned to note several instances where special procedures
mandate holders have not adhered to the Code of Conduct, and have on
occasion, exceeded their respective mandates. We therefore emphasize the
importance of the need for the mandate holders to adhere to the Code of
Conduct as stipulated, in executing their respective mandates,
Other concerns have been expressed in the High Commissioner’s Report
to the effect that the Government has not established a mechanism to
trace adults who went missing during the last stages of the war. It may
be noted that the GoSL has, on numerous occasions, provided information
to the UNHRC on the process adopted with regard to disappearances. An
Inter Ministerial Working Group to verify cases on alleged
disappearances has been established to address cases brought to the
attention by the WGEID, and report back where possible. In addition, any
reported incident of disappearance to the Police is duly investigated
and information on such cases was provided in the National Report of Sri
Lanka to the UPR. On detention, a centralized, comprehensive database of
detainees has been established at the Terrorist Investigation Division
of the Police “ a 24x7 mechanism with units in Colombo, Vavuniya and
Boossa where the details of detainees and those who are released from
detention can be obtained by the next-of-kin (NoK). It must be noted
that this information is only provided to NoK due to privacy concerns.
Contrary to assertions in the Report and, despite the allegation of
hostile or uncooperative treatment, 3,073 NoKs have accessed the above
units and sought assistance.
A related criticism has been made in the Report about the LLRC
recommendations to formally designate and publicize places of detention,
not being included in the NPoA. The need to strictly adhere to the
existing powers under the law to arrest or detain a person has been
emphasized by the Supreme Court of Sri Lanka and any breach of such
provisions would attract the allegation of infringement of the
Fundamental Right enshrined in Article 13 of the Constitution of Sri
Lanka. Under the Prisons Ordinance as well as other written law dealing
with detention of persons, no place of detention can be maintained
without duly publishing it in the Government Gazette that could be
accessed by any member of the public. It has always been considered
illegal to maintain places of detention without properly gazetting such
places and giving them publicity. In these circumstances, it would be
superfluous to include this requirement in the catalogue of new measures
to be adopted through the NPoA.
Article 11 of the Fundamental Rights Chapter of the Constitution
provides that “no person shall be subjected to torture or to cruel
inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment” and the Supreme Court has
entertained a large number of petitions based on the alleged violation
of this right.
These have resulted in the petitioners being successful in securing
orders in their favor and the victims receiving redress. The GOSL has
also introduced some new measures in the last 12 months to enhance the
policy framework on torture. Available statistics show that there are
over 15 indictments on allegation of torture presently pending in the
High Courts under the Convention Against Torture and other Cruel,
Inhuman or Degrading treatment or Punishment Act No 22 of 1994. The
Circular of 29th December 2011 issued by Inspector General of Police
titled, “Safety of the persons in police custody” should also be
referred to in this connection. Awareness programmes are periodically
conducted through the Police Training Institute, as well as Provincial
institutes to raise the level of awareness of the investigating officers
on the regulations and the manner of their implementation in the conduct
of police investigations. Legal aid is available to low income segment
of the society through programmes supported by the State.
In the recent past, the Sri Lanka Police and the Human Rights
Commission of Sri Lanka, in conjunction with UNDP, have launched an
effective awareness programme throughout the country to educate the
public about their fundamental rights including the freedom from
torture. As a specific measure meant for giving effect to this process,
posters and billboards carrying the messages are being displayed at
every police station throughout the country, in all three languages.
In addition, The Asia Foundation in collaboration with the Police
Training School is conducting well-structured awareness programmes on
preventing torture and related issues. GoSL wishes to expand this
process in due course. A Cabinet Memorandum titled ‘Assistance and
Protection of Victims of Crime and Witnesses Bill’ was submitted by the
Ministry of Justice and was taken up for policy approval at the Meeting
of the Cabinet of Ministers held on 07 February 2013. It was decided to
obtain the views of the Attorney General on this matter to aid in the
deliberations of the Cabinet.
The Government will engage with stakeholders in connection with the
implementation of the National Plan of Action for the Promotion and
Protection of Human Rights (NHRAP - 2012 to 2016). The Annual Review of
the NHRAP is under way with further information being collected from
implementing agencies. The progress achieved will be published on the
dedicated NHRAP website.
On the issue of the removal process of the former Chief Justice, due
process has been followed in accordance with the Constitution of Sri
Lanka. Article 107 (3) of the Constitution of Sri Lanka clearly empowers
the Legislature to initiate the process to remove the Chief Justice.
Following a submission of a motion signed by 117 Members of Parliament,
a Parliament Select Committee (PSC) was constituted by the Speaker,
consisting of Government and Opposition MPs, to examine issues connected
with the allegations made against the former Chief Justice. The report
of the PSC was submitted to Parliament and the matter was deliberated
upon and debated for two days, one month after submission of the report.
Once the resolution to remove the former Chief Justice was passed in
Parliament with a two-thirds majority of 106 votes (155 members voting
in favour and 49 against), the required address was made to H E the
President. It was only thereafter that the former Chief Justice was
removed from that office. A new Chief Justice has been appointed in
accordance with the Constitution.
Upholding axioms
Mr President,
In the field of human rights we have engaged with the Council since
its inception in 2006 continuing the practice of active participation in
the deliberations of its predecessor “ the Commission. We who come
before this Council to engage, expect that the principles of
universality, impartiality, objectivity and non-selectivity,
constructive international dialogue and cooperation, with a view to
enhancing the promotion and protection of all human rights, civil,
political, economic, social and cultural rights, including the right to
development; upon which this body was founded, will be upheld. I
reiterate Mr President what I said earlier: In the post-armed-conflict
era, we have continued our engagement with human rights bodies “
acknowledging the interest they have in the Sri Lankan situation. We
have been candid in our discourse stating the gains we have made, as
well as the challenges we face. We have put in place structures for
discussion and implementation of solutions. However, we are being told
that our chosen path is, perhaps, the wrong one.
It is supposedly deficient. We must be lectured to: taught even. We
must be instructed by people who know little of our history, culture and
socio-political background. Mr President, from the Ashokan Rock Edicts
of the 3rd Century before the Christian era, societies in our region
have been guided by values underscoring good governance and human
rights. We do not need to be told. We do not need to be taught.
These are not culturally relativist arguments but are values deeply
embedded in our social and cultural makeup. In the modern post-colonial
phase, we have as independent and sovereign democracies, undertaken
international obligations with regard to human rights. We have
democratic constitutional processes in place. We are fully aware of what
we need to do domestically and internationally. We participate in
discussions with treaty bodies. We participate in the UPR process. We
come before this august Body in a spirit of openness and candour and
discuss issues. Sri Lanka has voluntarily provided information on the
various facets the of post conflict developments to the international
community, through the Universal Periodic Review and UN Human Rights
Council sessions. Sri Lanka will continue to proactively and voluntarily
engage with UN mechanisms including Special Procedures, Treaty Bodies,
as it did in the past.
In conclusion Mr President, Even in March 2012, when a resolution was
tabled in the Council which, in effect, asked us to do what we were
already in the process of doing, we continued to engage in the Council.
As has been our custom since the inception, we regularly briefed the
Council and had discussions with regional and cross regional groupings
represented in this body on the Sri Lankan situation as it evolved. We
hosted side events at which our progress was presented and discussed. We
had been open and transparent about our successes and also about the
challenges we faced. That resolution was in our opinion, ill-timed,
unwarranted and violative of the founding principles of the Human Rights
Council. We categorically rejected the resolution on a matter of
principle. However, we pointed out the negative outcomes of the adoption
of the resolution, but notwithstanding our rejection, reiterated our
commitment to achieve lasting peace, stability and prosperity for our
people. Effective reconciliation, based on home-grown solutions, is a
cornerstone of that policy. We do not wish to adopt a policy of
‘destructive disengagement’ but continue with our policy of constructive
and open dialogue.
We expect our actions to be assessed in their totality, in a spirit
of objectivity and impartiality in this Council. Our interlocutors in
this body must also take into account the considerable progress made.
During the UPR process for instance, a clear majority of delegations did
acknowledge and appreciate the advances we have made since 2009. This
only encouraged us to do better and is what we consider constructive.
However, the focus of some other intrusive initiatives that only
emphasize a few areas which need further action, are less than
constructive and we consider these unhelpful. These subjective measures
based on unsubstantiated assertions aimed at ‘naming and shaming’, are
indicative of a different agenda unrelated to the objectives of this
Council. We need time and space, Mr President, to complete our work and
we are confident that we will be able to deliver for our people and our
country.”
|