|
Human Rights &
Humanitarian Law
Sri Lanka & the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
International Human Rights Day
52nd Anniversary of the UDHR
Rajan Sriskandarajah, USA
10 December 2000
| "...It is imperative that any and all who care about human rights,
should commit themselves to work unrelentingly for the repeal of the
(Sri Lanka) Prevention of Terrorism Act - an enactment which is �an ugly
blot on the statute book of any civilized country.�.." |
�Do you want to be governed from London or do you
want, as Ceylonese, to help govern Ceylon? ... On behalf of the Congress and on
my behalf, I give the minority communities the sincere assurance that no harm
need you fear at our hands in a free Lanka.�-
Don Stephen Senanayake, Sinhala leader at the State Council of
Ceylon (Sri Lanka); November 1945, who 3 years later went on to
disenfranchise a million Tamil inhabitants of the island.
The tenth day of December 1948 was a historic day. It was a day
of one of the greatest achievements, indeed a landmark, in human history. This
was the day the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted the
Universal Declaration of
Human Rights.
Fifty-two years on, on the 10th of December 2000, it is well for
Sri Lankans to look back and reflect on what their government has done for human
rights. What have they achieved?
The most significant is that Sri Lanka has achieved the ignoble
distinction of being ranked number two among countries with the
worst human rights
record, next only to Iraq. As a matter of fact, Sri Lanka being such a small
country, on a per capita basis, it should have been ranked number one.
 Over
ninety thousand deaths,
mass graves and
disappearances,
rapes and
torture,,
massive
displacement of people and
flagrant
deprivations of basic human needs � all in the name of a war for
ethnic
and religious superiority. How did they get to be this way?
1948 is also significant for Sri Lanka as the year it gained
independence from colonial rule. So, it is fitting that we start the history of
human rights in Sri Lanka in that year.
Within a few months of the twin events of 1948, independence and the historic UN
declaration,
Sri Lanka enacted two laws to disenfranchise over a million people; the
first direct violation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Article
15.)
Article 15
1. Everyone has the right to a nationality.
2. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right
to change his nationality.
Over one million Tamils were deprived of their hitherto enjoyed citizenship
rights. They lost all their civic rights, including their right to vote.
This action, that was racially motivated to reduce Tamil
representation in parliament, also violated Article 2, which states,
Article 2
Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this
Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex,
language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin,
property, birth or other status.
From then on, it was a straight downhill ride for Sri Lanka.
Emboldened by the lack of protest from the international community (except for
some feeble efforts by India), Sri Lanka, with a government dominated by one
racial group (Sinhalese), went on to enact
a series of racially
motivated laws, statutes and regulations, to oppress the numerically smaller
ethnic groups.
The resultant protest by the oppressed, with its natural
progression from
parliamentary to extra-parliamentary, and from
peaceful
demonstrations to
armed revolt, evoked not measures to redress grievances but further
oppressive laws, which further violated the UN Declaration.
The worst cut of all was the
Prevention of Terrorism Act. This 1979 Act, which has been condemned as an
�ugly blot on the statute books of any civilized country� by the International
Commission of Jurists, violates many of the articles of the Universal
Declaration.
For a
side-by-side comparison, see Table below. What is shown in the table are
just a few examples of how the Sri Lankan PTA violates the Universal Declaration
of Human Rights.
The International Commission of Jurists in two separate reports
condemned this act in no uncertain terms.
�The South African Terrorism Act has been called �a piece of
legislation which must shock the conscience of a lawyer.� Many provisions of the
Sri Lankan Prevention of Terrorism Act are equally contrary to accepted
principles of the Rule of Law.�-
Virginia Leary: Ethnic
Conflict and Violence in Sri Lanka - Report of a Mission to Sri Lanka on behalf
of the International Commission of Jurists, July/August 1981
�These provisions (in the Prevention of Terrorism Act) are quite
extraordinarily wide. No legislation conferring even a remotely comparable
powers is in force in any other free democracy operating under the Rule of Law,
however troubled it may by politically motivated violence. Indeed there is only
one known precedent for the power to impose restriction orders under section 11
of the Sri Lankan PTA, and that - as Professor Leary rightly pointed out in her
report - is the comparable legislation currently in force in South Africa� such
a provision is an ugly blot on the statute book of any civilised country."-
Paul Sieghart: Sri Lanka: A Mounting Tragedy of Errors - Report of International
Commission of Jurists; 1984
|
Sri
Aurobindo, 1907 - "...It is the common habit of established governments and
especially those which are themselves oppressors, to brand all violent
methods in subject peoples and communities as criminal and wicked. When you
have disarmed your slaves and legalised the infliction of bonds, stripes,
and death on any one of them who may dare to speak or act against you, it is
natural and convenient to try and lay a moral as well as a legal ban on any
attempt to answer violence by violence... But no
nation yet has listened to the cant of the oppressor when itself put to the
test, and the general conscience of humanity approves the refusal..."
|
However, these stepwise oppressions, and especially the
Prevention of Terrorism Act and its application, evoked no voice of disapproval
from the UN or its members who signed the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights.
Numerous
appeals by elected representatives of the Tamils to a number of international
bodies have gone unheeded.
What is worse, the international community when it did finally
move,
responded only to the effect (the actions of the oppressed) and not the
causes.
There can be no doubt that the Prevention of Terrorism Act was
primarily designed and implemented as an instrument of war against the Tamils in
that island.
Its effect on the Tamil people has been devastating. Tamil people, and only
the Tamil people, are subject to
arbitrary
searches, arrests, and incarceration in unauthorized places of detention,
torture,
sexual
abuse, murder and burials without inquests in Sri Lanka, under this �law.�
At present over three thousand Tamil political prisoners are
languishing in Sri Lankan jails for prolonged periods without charges or trials,
under the Prevention of Terrorism Act. Prisoners under this act have been
butchered
on several occasions within the prison grounds and all remaining prisoners
are in danger of such violence in the future.
As a first step, it is the duty of all countries that are
signatories to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to condemn the human
rights record of Sri Lanka and its Prevention of Terrorism Act, and campaign for
its repeal.
It is also imperative that any and all Sri Lankan nationals who
care about human rights, should commit themselves to work unrelentingly for the
repeal of the Prevention of Terrorism Act - an enactment which is �an ugly blot
on the statute book of any civilized country.�
Universal Declaration of Human Rights
and
Sri Lankan Prevention of Terrorism Act
A side-by-side comparison
| Universal Declaration of Human Rights |
Prevention of Terrorism Act |
| Article
8:
Everyone
has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals
for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the
constitution or by law |
Section
10:
An order
made under section 9 (Detention and Restriction Orders) shall be final
and shall not be called in question in any court or tribunal by way of
writ or otherwise. |
| Article
9:
No one
shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile. |
Section
6(1):
Any police
officer not below the rank of Superintendent or any other police officer
not below the rank of Sub-Inspector authorised in writing by him in that
behalf may, without a warrant and with or without assistance and
notwithstanding anything in any other law to the contrary - (a) arrest
any person; (b) enter and search any premises; (c) stop and search any
individual or any vehicle, vessel, train or aircraft; and (d) seize any
document or thing, connected with or concerned in or reasonably
suspected of being connected with or concerned in any unlawful activity. |
| Article
10:
Everyone
is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an
independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights
and obligations and of any criminal charge against him. |
Section
9(1):
Where the
Minister has reason to believe or suspect that any person is
connected with or concerned in any unlawful activity, the Minister
may order that such person be detained�
10. An order made under
section 9 shall be final and shall not be called in question in any
court or tribunal by way of writ or otherwise. |
| Article
11: 1.
Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed
innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which
he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence. |
Section
16(2):
The burden of proving that any statement referred to in subsection (1)
is irrelevant under section 24 of the Evidence Ordinance shall be on the
person asserting it to be irrelevant. |
| Article
11: 2.
No one
shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or
omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or
international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a
heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time
the penal offence was committed. |
Section
22:
Any person who has committed any offence under section 296 or section
297 or section 300 of the Penal Code prior to the date of coming into
operation of Part VI of this Act� would have constituted an offence
under this Act � (and) be triable without a preliminary inquiry, on an
indictment... |
| Article
13: 1.
Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence
within the borders of each State.
2. Everyone has the right to leave
any country, including his own, and to return to his country. |
Section
11(1):
Where the Minister has reason to believe or
suspect that any person is connected with or
concerned in the commission of any unlawful activity
referred to in subsection (1) of section 9, he may make an order in
writing imposing on such person such prohibitions or restrictions as may
be specified in such order in respect of - (a) his movement outside such
place of residence as may be specified; or (b) the places of residence
and of employment of such person; or (c) his travel within or outside
Sri Lanka;� |
| Article
19:
Everyone
has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes
freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and
impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of
frontiers. |
Section
2(1):
Any
person who -
(h) by words either spoken or intended to be read or by
signs or by visible representations or otherwise causes or intends to
cause commission of acts � shall be guilty of an offence under this Act. |
|
