Call for Exclusion of Sri Lanka from Human Rights Council

INDICTMENT AGAINST SRI LANKA

Sri Lanka's Genocidal War '08
...after Abrogation of Ceasefire

Call for Exclusion of Sri Lanka from UN Human Rights Council, 16 May 2008

Comment by tamilnation.org The recognition by 3 Nobel Prize Winners of Sri Lanka's horrendous human rights record is welcome. Said that, the 'dirty war against the LTTE using torture on prisoners suspected of having links with the LTTE and the perpetration of hundreds of enforced disappearances and extrajudicial executions' that Nobel Laureate Adolfo Perez Esquivel speaks about, was very much the harsh reality even when Sri Lanka was first elected to the Human Rights Council in May 2006. The record of extra judicial killings and rapes during the immediately preceding six months from November 2005 to May 2006 is proof enough of that reality. What has changed since May 2006 is not President Rajapakse's horrendous human rights record but his increasingly open foreign policy tilt towards China/Iran.

Furthermore, Sri Lanka's gross and systematic violations of human rights did not begin with the assumption of power by Sri Lanka President Rajapakse in November 2005. The record proves the contrary. In the island of Sri Lanka, the record shows that during the past sixty years and more, the intent and goal of all Sinhala governments (without exception) has been to secure the island as a Sinhala Buddhist Deepa.

As long ago as 1984, Paul Sieghart Q.C. in his Report of a Mission to Sri Lanka on behalf of the International Commission of Jurists, concluded:

".. Communal riots in which Tamils are killed, maimed, robbed and rendered homeless are no longer isolated episodes; they are beginning to become a pernicious habit."

And Patricia Hyndman, Secretary, LAWASIA Human Rights Standing Committee pointed out in 1985 -

"The approach adopted by the Tamil community to achieve what it sees as its due measure of recognition in Sri Lankan society, was, for the first thirty years after Independence, which was granted by Britain in 1948, a peaceful one. The Tamils sought a federal arrangement within one united country, not a separate state, and did not resort to, or advocate, violence as a means of achieving this. Indeed, their response to the attacks of violence against them which erupted in 1958, 1977, 1981 and 1983 has been very restrained."

It is unfortunate but true that in the international arena, real politick is all too often the driver for 'humanitarian intervention'. For instance, in September 1983 (in the immediate aftermath of Genocide'83), in the UN Sub Commission on Prevention of Discrimination And Protection of Minorities, there was considerable opposition to even a very mild resolution calling for 'information' from the West leaning President Jayawardene's government. Eventually the resolution was passed by a bare majority of just two votes - 10 voted in favour, 8 against and 4 abstained.

Professor Leo Kuper wrote in Prevention of Genocide, 1985

"...there were also political currents observable in the alignment of members, though I could not altogether fathom the geo political considerations involved. In the end a very mild resolution was passed calling for information from the Sri Lanka government and recommending that the commission examine the situation at the next meeting in the light of the information available. There was, however, only a bare majority for the resolution (10 for, 8 against and 4 abstaining). It is unfortunate that the United Nations did not take a firm stand at this stage..."

Today those who had opposed even the very mild resolution of 1983 calling upon West leaning Sri Lanka President J.R.Jayawardene to provide 'information' are now concerned to exert pressure on China/Iran leaning Sri Lanka President Rajapakse. On the other hand, states who had supported the resolution on Sri Lanka in 1983 (albeit a very mild one) are today supporters of President Rajapakse in the name of 'non aligned' solidarity - and oppose any UN resolution on Sri Lanka. It is said that States do not have permanent friends - they only have permanent interests, and it is those permanent interests that they are intent on advancing.

Given all this, it is understandable that Human Rights Watch which evolved from Helsinki Watch (and which was regarded by many as an instrument of US policy in the the Cold War after the Helsinki Accords) is now concerned to pressure a China/Iran leaning Sri Lankan President Rajapakse.

In the early 1980s, India used the UN Human Rights fora to pressure a West leaning Sri Lanka President Jayawardene by condemning Sri Lanka's human rights violations. For instance Mr.R.C.Bandare, Indian Expert Member of UN Sub Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities declared in August 1984 -

"..mounting violence continues to work against the search for a political solution because it leads to a hardening of positions, the building up of resentment, the deepening of the feeling of insecurity, of fear and desperation, of being victims of a concerted plan of genocide... today, not only is the right to life of Tamils threatened but their property, their way of life is jeopardised. They are made to suffer political and civic disabilities. Draconian laws and emergency regulations reinforce and react with harsh counter-measures taken by the Government to severely curtail their human rights and effectively block out any access to remedies..."

That was 24 years ago.When Sri Lanka eventually bowed to India's strategic interests in the 1987 Exchange of Letters, India then pressured the Tamil people to accept the comic opera reforms of the 13th Amendment and rule by a Provincial Governor appointed by a Sinhala Sri Lankan President. In the years following the 1987 Exchange of Letters, India's silence in UN fora on Sri Lanka's continuing and systematic violations of human rights (including torture, rape, war crimes, extra judicial killings and disappearances) has been deafening.

The Nobel Laureates' statements would have been more welcome if they had also condemned Sri Lanka for continuing to deny the fundamental right of self determination of the Tamil people and called for the recognition of the Tamil Eelam struggle for freedom - freedom from rule by a permanent alien Sinhala majority within the confines of a single state. To continue to call upon Sri Lanka to protect the human rights of the people of Tamil Eelam is akin to calling upon the fox to protect the 'human' rights of the chicken in the farm yard.

We say this with no feeling of joy. The painful reality is that the Tamils as a people are being continually reminded of the international dimension of the conflict in Sri Lanka. They are being reminded that there are two conflicts in the island. One is the conflict arising from the people of Tamil Eelam struggling to free themselves from oppressive rule by an alien ethno-Sinhala nation masquerading as a ‘civic’ Sri Lankan nation. The other is the conflict between international actors jostling for power and influence in the Indian Ocean region. In the end it seems that it is that international dimension which the people of Tamil Eelam will need to face - and challenge. Here we ourselves take some solace (some may say we are mistaken) from the views that Hillary Clinton expressed on 23 October 2007.

We believe that the long term strategic interests whether of the US or India, whether in the Indian Ocean region or elsewhere will benefit by a foreign policy which 'inspires and attracts as much as coerces'. If the US or India aspires to play a lead role in an asymmetric multi lateral world, we believe that that lead role will not come simply by the display of military might and economic power. There is a need to defend the very real values that a people stand for and speak from the heart to their hearts. We need both mind and heart - neither a desiccated calculating machine nor a mindless emotion. And it will be hopelessly wrong to structure foreign policy in the belief that if you get them by the testicles, their heart and mind will follow. It is the marriage of power with principle that will secure leadership. The problem with military might is always with the 'victor', because he (or she) has then demonstrated that superior force pays - and, sooner rather than later, there will be those who will rise to show that they have learnt well the lesson that was taught.

Nobel Prize Winners tell UN: Vote Sri Lanka off Human Rights Council - Human Rights Watch, 19 May 2008

Sri Lanka and the UN - Adolfo Perez Esquivel, 17 May 2008

"Over the past two years, the government has opted to use a dirty war against the LTTE using torture on prisoners suspected of having links with the LTTE and the perpetration of hundreds of enforced disappearances and extrajudicial executions, including humanitarian workers. Instead of promoting human rights throughout the world, Sri Lanka has used his position within the Council to avoid scrutiny as a violator of human rights"

Carter Center urges U.N. Assembly not to re-elect Sri Lanka to Human Rights Council,16 May 2008

Sri Lanka not fit to be in UN Rights Council- Archbishop Desmond Tutu, 15 May 2008

"The systematic abuses by Sri Lankan government forces are among the most serious imaginable. Government security forces summarily remove their own citizens from their homes and families in the middle of the night, never to be heard from again. Torture and extrajudicial killings are widespread. ..With a terrible record of torture and disappearance, Sri Lanka doesn't deserve a seat on the UN human rights council. It should be voted out,"

Say no to Sri Lanka's Bid for U.N. Rights Council Seat - Joint NGO Letter to Member States, 6 May 2008

Sri Lanka's Record of Abuses: Human Rights Watch

Sri Lanka's Record of Non-Cooperation with the Council and U.N. human rights mechanisms - Human Rights Watch

Sri Lanka loses race for HRC seat

Nobel Prize Winners tell UN: Vote Sri Lanka off Human Rights Council
Human Rights Watch, 19 May 2008

Winners of the Nobel Peace Prize from three continents called on UN members to reject Sri Lanka’s candidacy for the UN Human Rights Council, the NGO Coalition for an Effective Human Rights Council said today. Nobel laureates Desmond Tutu of South Africa, Adolfo Pérez Esquivel of Argentina, and Jimmy Carter of the United States each published statements urging opposition to Sri Lanka because of its abusive human rights record.
Elections to the 47-member council, the United Nations’ leading human rights body, will be held in New York on May 21, 2008. Six candidates – Bahrain, Japan, Pakistan, South Korea, Sri Lanka, and Timor Leste – are running for four seats allocated to Asian states. Council members are required to “uphold the highest standards” of human rights and “fully cooperate” with the council.

In a commentary published by The Guardian in London, Archbishop Desmond Tutu of South Africa charged that “the systematic abuses by Sri Lankan government forces are among the most serious imaginable,” citing widespread torture and extrajudicial killings. “Governments owe it to Sri Lankan human rights victims – and to victims of human rights abuses around the world – to ensure that the Sri Lankan bid fails,” Tutu declared. Tutu won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1984 for his leadership of the campaign to end apartheid in South Africa.

In a commentary published by Página 12 in Buenos Aires, Adolfo Pérez Esquivel compared the routine torture and the hundreds of “disappearances” and extrajudicial killings committed by Sri Lankan government forces to the “dirty wars” waged by various Latin American governments against their own citizens in the 1970s and 1980s. “As Latin Americans know all too well, there are few crimes more horrible for a government to commit than summarily removing its own citizens from their homes and families, often late at night, never to be heard from again,” declared Esquivel. “Latin American governments can do a great service to the people of Sri Lanka by rejecting their government’s candidacy for the Human Rights Council.” Esquivel won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1980 for his opposition to the “disappearances,” extrajudicial killings, and torture used by the military government of Argentina in combating domestic terrorists.

Former US President Jimmy Carter observed that the UN established membership standards for the Human Rights Council in 2006 so that it would be “led by countries with a greater commitment to human rights.” A statement released by the Carter Center in Atlanta “calls on the General Assembly not to re-elect Sri Lanka to the Human Rights Council,” citing “the country’s deteriorating human rights record since its first election to the Council in 2006.” Carter won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2002 for his work to resolve international conflicts, advance democracy and human rights, and promote economic and social development.

The Nobel laureates added their voices to the Sri Lankan and international campaigns against the re-election of Sri Lanka to the council. Human rights organizations within Sri Lanka urged UN members to “hold the Sri Lankan government accountable for the grave state of human rights abuse in the country” by rejecting its candidacy, observing it “has used its membership of the Human Rights Council to protect itself from scrutiny.”

A coalition of more than 20 nongovernmental organizations from all regions of the world wrote to UN members to oppose Sri Lanka’s re-election to the council, citing its government for a wide range of serious abuses, including hundreds of extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearances, widespread torture, and arbitrary detention. The website established by the NGO Coalition for an Effective Human Rights Council detailed how Sri Lanka rejects the recommendations of UN human rights experts, harshly attacks senior UN officials who report on human rights issues, and has refused to engage in serious discussions to allow international human rights monitoring.

The coalition noted in its letter that the armed separatist Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam have long been implicated in serious human rights abuses, but says this provides no justification for government abuses. The abuses in Argentina opposed by Esquivel were committed by that government in the name of combating extreme domestic terrorist organizations.

In 2007, a coalition of NGOs successfully opposed the candidacy of Belarus for the Human Rights Council.

“Cheers went up amongst human rights defenders around the world when Belarus was defeated,” said Hassan Shire Sheikh of the East and Horn of Africa Human Rights Defenders Project in Uganda. “This year’s election provides an opportunity for African states to send a strong signal, following up on the defeat of Belarus. The Human Rights Council must stand with the victims, not become an abusers’ club.”

Sri Lanka and the UN - Adolfo Perez Esquivel, 17 May 2008

As Latin Americans are well aware, there is a handful of crimes that a State may commit, which by their nature involve removing people regarded as political enemies, never to know more about them. Our region suffered terribly during the dirty war the years'70 and '80, when thousands of our citizens were disappeared, tortured and killed by security forces.

Other countries still suffer from similar abuse of human rights. According to the United Nations (UN), Sri Lanka now has the highest rate of enforced disappearances in the world. For a long time Sri Lanka has faced the threat of terrorist Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE). Over the past two years, the government has opted to use a dirty war against the LTTE using torture on prisoners suspected of having links with the LTTE and the perpetration of hundreds of enforced disappearances and extrajudicial executions, including humanitarian workers .

Incredibly, the government of Sri Lanka is seeking international recognition of their abusive tactics by filing his candidacy for the United Nations Human Rights Council. Even if this council noted in 2006 that the countries elected to demonstrate the highest standards "on human rights and" fully cooperate 'with the mechanisms of the Council itself, Sri Lanka has not complied with any of these requirements. For this reason, members of the United Nations should not vote in favour of Sri Lanka in the elections to be held at the UN General Assembly next May 21.

Instead of promoting human rights throughout the world, Sri Lanka has used his position within the Council to avoid scrutiny as a violator of human rights Among other things, it successfully objected to a Council resolution on its human rights situation and refuses to accept that the UN monitor the humanitarian crisis as recommended by experts in human rights and the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights.

The governments of Latin Americas can do a great service for the people of Sri Lanka by rejecting its candidacy to the Human Rights Council

It should be noted that a precedent already exists within the UN, when the Foreign Minister of Argentina, Jorge Taiana, noted the creation of the Council. Then society Argentina suffered the consequences when the former Commission on Human Rights failed to condemn the serious human rights violations committed by the military dictatorship between the years 1976 to 1983.

Americas can help the suffering people of Sri Lanka, making an international call to those responsible for torture, disappearances and killings in Sri Lanka are properly investigated and prosecuted, as well as refusing to support the reelection of governments responsible for such abuses to the Council Human Rights.

Carter Center urges U.N. Assembly not to re-elect Sri Lanka to Human Rights Council,16 May 2008

The Carter Center calls on the General Assembly not to re-elect Sri Lanka to the Human Rights Council in the upcoming Council elections. Recently adopted reforms of the former Commission on Human Rights, including competitive elections, call for the conduct of a government to be a factor in whether it is selected for a seat on the Council.

In a March 5, 2006, New York Times opinion piece on the establishment of the Council, five Nobel Laureates, including former U.S. President Jimmy Carter, wrote, "With these new procedures and the articulation for the first time of standards for membership, we believe the new body will be led by countries with a greater commitment to human rights." The expectation was that governments submitting their candidacies would be judged on their performance on human rights issues as a test of willingness to tackle tough problems and to assess honestly human rights violations wherever they occur.

Political resolve to abide by the new provision will be tested in the coming round of election to the Council's membership. Will candidates be judged by their peers on the basis of their commitments to improve human rights conditions in their countries? There must be no return to the old habit whereby regional blocs would offer uncontested slates for election, during which the merits of any country's particular qualifications for membership were never questioned.

Six countries -- Bahrain, Japan, Pakistan, South Korea, Sri Lanka, and Timor Leste – are competing for four open seats in the Asian Group of U.N. member states. The Carter Center urges delegations to support the candidacies of Bahrain, Japan, Pakistan, South Korea, and Timor Leste because these governments have demonstrated a greater commitment than has Sri Lanka to the advancement of human rights. However, numerous nongovernmental groups have raised concerns about Sri-Lanka's candidacy due to the country's deteriorating human rights record since its first election to the Council in 2006. For example, Sri Lanka has one of the highest rates of enforced disappearances in the world, with little or no discernable commitment to accountability.

To re-elect states with deteriorating human rights records would undermine the Council at a time when it should be taking steps to shore its credibility as the principle platform for addressing human rights violations.

It is our hope that by electing states that demonstrate through their actions a commitment to furthering human rights, the Council will become a more courageous and united voice on behalf of victims of human rights violations.

Sri Lanka not fit to be in UN Rights Council- Archbishop Desmond Tutu, UK Guardian, 15 May 2008

"With a terrible record of torture and disappearance, Sri Lanka doesn't deserve a seat on the UN human rights council. It should be voted out,"

It would seem self-evident that a country which tortures and kidnaps its own people has no place on the world's leading human rights body. Apparently not: Sri Lanka, despite repeated criticism for its human rights record, is running for re-election to the UN human rights council, with a vote to be held in New York on May 21.

Governments owe it to Sri Lankan human rights victims - and to victims of human rights abuses around the world - to ensure that the Sri Lankan bid fails. This will be an important test of the 47-member council, to show that the UN's standards for it will be honoured.

If Sri Lanka is defeated this year, that will be important not just for the Sri Lankan human rights leaders who, at great personal risk, have called for Sri Lanka's defeat, and for Sri Lankan civil society. In combination with the humiliating defeat last year of Belarus, it will send an important signal for the future: governments with track records of serious human rights abuses do not belong on a body set up to protect the victims of such abuses.

Sri Lanka has failed to honour its pledges of upholding human rights standards and cooperating with the UN since joining the council two years ago. Indeed, its human rights record has worsened during that time. The Sri Lankan idea of cooperation with the UN, meanwhile, has been to condemn senior UN officials (including the high commissioner for human rights, Louise Arbour, and the under secretary general for humanitarian affairs, John Holmes) as "terrorists" or "terrorist sympathisers."

The systematic abuses by Sri Lankan government forces are among the most serious imaginable. Government security forces summarily remove their own citizens from their homes and families in the middle of the night, never to be heard from again. Torture and extrajudicial killings are widespread. When the human rights council was established, UN members required that states elected must themselves "uphold the highest standards" of human rights. On that count, Sri Lanka is clearly disqualified.

The separatist Tamil Tigers have used despicable tactics in their war against the government, including frequent suicide bombings. But that can in no way excuse the scale of government abuses.

Fortunately, the news from the council is not all bad. Countries running from other regions of the world have credible claims to be leaders in promoting human rights. Argentina and Chile, which suffered terribly from torture, enforced disappearances and extrajudicial killings in the past, have become leading supporters of human rights, and now seek to join the council. On the African slate, there are some true human rights leaders, and - thankfully - no candidacy from Zimbabwe or Sudan. In the entire world, Sri Lanka stands out as the most clearly unqualified state seeking election to the council this year, and the place where things are getting unambiguously worse.

Defeating the Sri Lankan candidacy would be a comfort to the people of Sri Lanka. It would place international pressure on the government to respect human rights, and to accept a UN human rights monitoring mission, which it has stubbornly refused. It would help make the council a place where true human rights leaders in all regions can help lead the world towards greater respect for human life and human dignity. An outcome, in short, that would benefit those who care about human rights in the world. Any other result would be a travesty.

Say no to Sri Lanka's Bid for U.N. Rights Council Seat - Joint NGO Letter to Member States, 6 May 2008

NGOs for an Effective Human Rights Council
www.hrw.org/effectiveHRC/SriLanka

6 May 2008

Your Excellency,

We are a coalition of nongovernmental organizations from all parts of the world.

We write to urge that your government not vote for Sri Lanka for membership in the U.N. Human Rights Council in the election in the General Assembly on 21 May 2008 because of Sri Lanka’s failure to meet the Council’s membership standards.

In doing so, we strongly support the position of human rights organizations from within Sri Lanka, who state that their government fails to meet the membership standards, has “presided over a grave deterioration of human rights protection” since first winning Council membership in 2006, and “has used its membership of the Human Rights Council to protect itself from scrutiny.” Their letter of 28 April 2008 is available online at http://www.cpalanka.org/research_papers/civil_society_letter_on_re%20election_of_SL_to_HRC_April%2028.pdf

As you know, General Assembly (GA) resolution 60/251 requires that “members elected to the Council shall uphold the highest standards in the promotion and protection of human rights” and “fully cooperate” with the Council. Sri Lanka falls far short of meeting these requirements.

I. Sri Lanka is failing to protect human rights

We recognize that that the armed separatist Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) have long been responsible for numerous and horrific human rights abuses. However, abuses by non-state armed groups do not justify rights violations by government forces.

In the last two years, Sri Lankan government forces have been directly implicated in a wide range of serious abuses of human rights, and have failed to ensure investigations and bring those responsible to justice. These include :

hundreds of extrajudicial killings, including of humanitarian workers

hundreds of enforced disappearances, the highest rate of new cases recorded by the Working Group on Enforced and Involuntary Disappearances in 2007

arbitrary arrests and long-term detentions without charge or trial

widespread torture of detainees, “a routine practice … both by the police and the armed forces” according the U.N. Special Rapporteur on Torture.

forcibly returning internally displaced persons to unsafe areas

unwarranted restrictions on media freedoms, and threats and killings of journalists

complicity with the recruitment of child soldiers by the Karuna militia

denunciations and threats against human rights defenders and humanitarian workers

These problems are compounded by the authorities having failed to provide easily accessible avenues enabling victims of human rights abuses to make complaints. Extreme delays in adjudication make it near-futile to pursue such complaints, when made. The absence of a witness protection law and system has lead to the harassment and even killing of victims seeking redress and witnesses.

A full list of U.N. and other reports documenting these and other abuses are posted on our coalition website at www.hrw.org/effectiveHRC/SriLanka.

A government which has been proven to engage in such serious human rights violations cannot be said to be upholding the “highest standards in the promotion and protection of human rights.” Based on its current record, Sri Lanka is simply not qualified for re-election to the U.N. Human Rights Council.

II. Sri Lanka refuses to cooperate with the Council and U.N. human rights mechanisms

Government officials have launched unacceptable and unfounded personal attacks on respected international officials who have visited Sri Lanka and raised human rights concerns. Rather than consider the recommendations made in good faith by these officials, the Sri Lankan authorities have instead chosen to question the officials’ integrity. Senior Sri Lankan officials have accused:

U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights Louise Arbour of having become “a football, to be kicked about at will, to score goals for terrorists and others who do not mind sharing a terrorist agenda provided it gets them their goals too.”

U.N. Special Advisor on Children and Armed Conflict Allan Rock of being a sympathizer of the LTTE.

U.N. Undersecretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs John Holmes of being “a terrorist.” When Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon called such comments “unacceptable and unwarranted,” a Sri Lankan cabinet minister said that he “didn’t give a damn” what the U.N. secretary-general had to say.

The Sri Lankan government has not seriously engaged the recommendation by several special procedures and by OHCHR to establish a human rights monitoring mission under U.N. auspices to document and report on violations committed by all sides to the conflict and to prevent further violations.

Sri Lanka did not reply to any of the 12 questionnaires sent by special procedure mandate holders between 1/1/2004 and 31/12/2007, nor to over half of the 94 letters of allegations and urgent appeals sent by special procedures in that period. Sri Lanka has not implemented the principal recommendations of the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances and the Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial Killings. The Special Rapporteur on Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment observed that Sri Lankan authorities impeded his fact-finding, citing “instances where detainees were hidden or brought away shortly before the Special Rapporteur arrived.”

III. Don’t Vote for Sri Lanka this Year

Rather than promote human rights worldwide as required of Council members by GA Resolution 60/251, Sri Lanka has sought to use its Council membership to shield itself from constructive international scrutiny.

GA Resolution 60/251 requires that in voting for members of the Human Rights Council “member States shall take into account the contribution of candidates to the promotion and protection of human rights.” Council members are required to “uphold the highest standards in the promotion and protection of human rights” and to “fully cooperate with the Council.” As Sri Lanka so clearly fails to meet either of these standards, your government should withhold its support this year, and instead vote only for other candidates which do meet the standards.

U.N. Members have an important choice to make in this election. To re-elect Sri Lanka based on its record of the last two years would weaken the Human Rights Council and indicate the international community is unconcerned with the grave human rights situation in Sri Lanka. To reject Sri Lanka’s candidacy at this time would show that U.N. members are serious about the membership standards they established for the Council, and bring new attention to the gross violations in Sri Lanka and hope and support to the victims of abuse.

With assurances of our highest respect,

Ms. Martha Meijer, Director
Aim for Human Rights

Enrique Bernales, Executive Director
Andean Commission of Jurists

Dr. Agnes Callamard, Executive Director
ARTICLE 19

Michael Anthony, Program Coordinator
Asian Human Rights Commission

Moataz El Fegiery, Executive Director
Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies

Abdurashid Abdulle Abikar, Chairman
Center for Youth and Democracy

Gaston Chillier, Executive Director
Centro de Estudios Legales y Sociales

Maja Daruwala, Director
Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative

Lorena Fries, President
Corporación Humanas—Chile

Ana Lucia Herrera, Director
Corporación Humanas—Ecuador

Robert R. LaGamma, Executive Director
Council for a Community of Democracies

Dokhi Fassihian, Acting Executive Director
Democracy Coalition Project

María Ysabel Cedano García, Director
DEMUS—Estudio para la Defensa y los Derechos de la Mujer

Mr. Hassan Shire Sheikh, Chairperson
East and Horn of Africa Human Rights Defenders Network

Natalia Gherardi, Executive Director
ELA - Equipo Latinoamericano de Justicia y Género

Ms. Souhayr Belhassen, President
Fédération Internationale des Droits de l'Homme/International Federation for Human Rights

Jennifer Windsor, Executive Director
Freedom House

Dieudonné Zognong, President
Humanus International

Tolekan Ismailova, Director
Human Rights Center/Citizens against Corruption

Maureen Byrnes, Executive Director
Human Rights First

Kenneth Roth, Executive Director
Human Rights Watch

Deborah Muir, Project Director Asia-Pacific
International Federation of Journalists—Asia-Pacific

Indria Fernida, Deputy Coordinator
KontraS (Commission for “the Disappeared” and Victims of Violence)

Nozima Kamalova, Chairman
Legal Aid Society of Uzbekistan

Taufik Basari, Chairperson of the Board of Directors
Lembaga Bantuan Hukum Masyarakat (Indonesian Community Legal Aid Institute)

Vo Van Ai, President
Quê Me: Action for Democracy in Vietnam & Vietnam Committee for Human Rights

Robert Menard, General Secretary
Reporters Without Borders

Sri Lanka's Record of Abuses: Human Rights Watch

Sri Lanka Fails to Protect its Citizens’ Fundamental Human Rights

Extrajudicial Killings
State Responsibility for Enforced Disappearances
Arbitrary arrests and Detention
Torture
Forcible Returns of IDPs
Threats to Journalists and Media Restrictions
Recruitment of Child Soldiers
Safety of Humanitarian Workers
Culture of Impunity

Extrajudicial Killings:

“Police and military investigations into the killing of Tamils [and] ddeaths in custody have too often been poorly handled and remarkably few convictions have resulted. . . . from November 2004 to October 2005 the police [fatally] shot at least 22 criminal suspects after taking them into custody. . . . in one of these cases had an internal police inquiry been opened.” - Report of U.N. Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions, Philip Alston on his mission to Sri Lanka from 28 November to 6 December 2005” March 27, 2006. (UN Document: E/CN.4/2006/53/Add.5)

“[D]uring 2006, witnesses in Mutur identified to the Magistrate most of the perpetrators of more than 20 incidents of murder and abduction. The Police in Mutur arrested no one.” – “Can the East be Won through Human Culling?” University Teachers for Human Rights (Jaffna),Special report No 26, August 3, 2007.

“[T] the army – assisted by pro-government Tamil paramilitaries – is also engaged in a deliberate policy of extrajudicial killings and abductions of Tamils considered part of LTTE’s civilian support network. Targeted assassinations have been particularly frequent in Jaffna and parts of the east, often victimising civilians with no connection to the LTTE.” – “Sri Lanka’s Human Rights Crisis” International Crisis Group Report, June 14, 2007.

State Responsibility for Enforced Disappearances:

“The Working Group is gravely concerned at the increase in reported cases of recent enforced disappearances in the country. . . . The Sri Lankan Army and the Criminal Investigation Department were allegedly responsible for a large number of these cases.” -- “Report of the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances” January 10, 2008. (UN Document: A/HRC/7/2)

“[T]he Government is not taking effective steps to bring rising numbers of disappearances under control. The path to achieving justice for the victims and their families is reportedly long and arduous, with delays and interferences by high officials in investigations and inquiries, as well as threats to witnesses and family members.” --“Report of the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances” January 10, 2008. (UN Document: A/HRC/7/2)

“[T]here has yet to be an adequate investigation or credible public accounting for the vast majority of [abductions and disappearances].” -Address by Ms. Louise Arbour UN High commissioner for Human Rights on the occasion of the resumed 6th session of the human Rights council” December 11, 2007.

“Sri Lanka [is] among the countries with the highest number of new cases in the world. The victims are primarily young ethnic Tamil men who ‘disappear’—often after being picked up by government security forces in the country’s embattled north and east, but also in the capital Colombo.” --“Recurring Nightmare: State Responsibility for “Disappearances” and Abductions in Sri Lanka” Human Rights Watch Report, March 2008.

“As with killings, Tamils suffered disproportionately from abductions – 64.6, compared with 3% Sinhalese and 3% Muslims. Men represented nearly 98% of all missing persons.” - Law and Society Trust submission to the Presidential Commision of Inquiry, August 2007.

“Accounts from family members indicate that the police failed to take even the most basic investigative actions to search for the victim or identify the perpetrators. They did not visit the place of the abduction, did not question eyewitnesses, and did not follow the leads provided by the families.” - “Recurring Nightmare: State Responsibility for ‘Disappearances’ and Abductions in Sri Lanka,” HRW Report, March 2008.

Arbitrary Arrests and Detention:

“[Emergency Regulations] grant the security forces sweeping powers of arrest and detention, allowing the authorities to hold a person without charge based on vaguely defined accusations for up to 12 months. Over the past 18 months, the Rajapaksa government has detained an undetermined number of people reaching into the hundreds” – “Return to War: Human Rights under Siege,” Human Rights Watch Report, August 2007.

“As the conflict intensifies and government forces are implicated in a longer list of abuses, from arbitrary arrests and ‘disappearances’ to war crimes, the government has displayed a clear unwillingness to hold accountable those responsible for serious violations of international human rights and humanitarian law.” – “Return to War: Human Rights under Siege,” Human Rights Watch Report, August 2007.

“Although individual cases of killings and disappearances are reported almost daily in the media, no official Sri Lankan body has produced public reports of killings and disappearances.” - Written statement submitted by Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (FORUM-ASIA), a non-governmental organization in special consultative status, to the UN Human Rights Council, February 24, 2008

“They just took him away—I kept asking where they were taking him, but they said they would inquire and bring him back. When they left, I followed them. They took him to a place not far from where we live. There was a house there, and for a while they kept him there; he was just standing near the wall and I could see him. The military then chased me away, and I don’t know where they took him from there.” Statement by wife of a “disappeared” interviewed by Human Rights Watch for “Recurring Nightmare: State Responsibility for ‘Disappearances’ and Abductions in Sri Lanka,” a March 2008 report on disappearances.

“I asked where they were taking him again and he showed me the pistol again and then they took him away... It all happened in front of my eyes—I stood with the kids some 10 meters away. I ran there, screaming, ‘Where are you taking him. Please, let him go!’ In response, one of the soldiers unfastened a strap from his gun and lashed me, saying, ‘Go away, he is not here; if you lost your husband, go and ask the police.’” – Statement by wife of a “disappeared” interviewed by Human Rights Watch for “Recurring Nightmare: State Responsibility for ‘Disappearances’ and Abductions in Sri Lanka,” a March 2008 report on disappearances.

Forcible Returns of IDPs:

“Violence, coercion and intimidation from the State were constant companions of the refugees from the time they reached the government-controlled area. . . . ordered to get into buses without notice, they were beaten by the security forces, parted from children who were at school, and told that if they remained their huts would be bombed or if caught on the road in Batticaloa with a Trincomalee ID, they face an uncertain future.” – “Can the East be Won through Human Culling?” University Teachers for Human Rights (Jaffna), Special report No 26, August 3, 2007.

"Sri Lanka [is] among the countries with the worst displacement situations around the world. . . . On May 14, 2007, the military began to resettle some 90,000 internally displaced people in Batticaloa District to their home villages. With their houses and crops looted they have had to face tough food and livelihood challenges. International aid organizations as well as United Nations bodies have voiced concern about the government forcing IDPs to return to areas ravaged by fighting. Pressuring displaced persons to return to their homes conflicts with UN-recognized principles and is contradictory to the Sri Lankan government’s repeated promises not to enforce resettlement.” – Written Statement submitted by the Society for Threatened Peoples to the U.N. Human Rights Council, February 20, 2008. (UN Document: A.HRC/7/NGO/54)

“[P]rotection of the displaced persons in Batticaloa cannot be guaranteed. The armed Karuna group, a proxy force of the government that broke away from the LTTE in March 2004, has been seen in and around various camps situated in government controlled areas. It has threatened and sometimes used violence against displaced people and the local population, as well as against NGOs. Numerous abductions of IDPs by the Karuna Group were also reported.” – Written Statement submitted by the Society for Threatened Peoples to the U.N. Human Rights Council, February 20, 2008. (UN Document: A.HRC/7/NGO/54)

Torture:

“The Special Rapporteur was shocked at the brutality of some of the torture measures applied to persons suspected of being LTTE members, such as burnings with soldering irons and suspension by thumbs.” --“Report of the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Manfred Nowak,” February 26, 2008. (UN Document: A/HRC/7/3/Add.6)

“[T]orture is widely practised in Sri Lanka. . . . torture has become a routine practice in the context of counter-terrorism operations, both by the police and the armed forces.” --“Report of the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Manfred Nowak,” February 26, 2008. (UN Document: A/HRC/7/3/Add.6)

“There is a nationwide pattern of custodial torture in Sri . . . . The vast majority of custodial deaths in Sri Lanka are caused not by rogue police but by ordinary officers taking part in an established routine.” --“Report of the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, Philip Alston, on his mission to Sri Lanka from November 28 to December 6, 2005. (UN Document: E/CN.4/2006/53/Add.5)

“[C]ontinued well-documented allegations of widespread torture and ill-treatment as well as disappearances, mainly committed by the State’s police forces . . . . are not investigated promptly and impartially by the State party’s competent authorities.” – “Conclusions and recommendations of the Committee against Torture” December 15, 2005. (UN Document: CAT/C/LKA/CO/2)

Media Restrictions:

“[J]ournalists and media workers in Sri Lanka are daily confronting grave threats to the safety of themselves and their families. . . . the failure of Sri Lanka’s security personnel to act to prevent threats and attacks on journalists and media workers and to bring those responsible to account indicates that the State has relinquished its role as keeper of the peace.” - Open letter to President Mahinda Rajapaksa from a coalition of international press freedom and human rights organizations. April 11, 2008.

“Journalists, editors, and publishers are now regular targets of intimidation and violent attacks by various groups. Since January 2006 at least seven have been murdered. Numerous other journalists have been abducted, physically attacked, threatened or forced into exile.” - “The war on the media”, The Sunday Leader, 22 April 2007.

“In April 2007 Defence Secretary Gotabhaya Rajapakse is alleged to have threatened the editor of the independent newspaper The Daily Mirror after it published articles seen as critical of TMVP activities. Rajapakse is reported to have said the stories had angered the Karuna faction and could provoke a violent response, in which case the editor should not expect any security from the government. The Emergency Regulations have been used to detain journalists and newspaper operators.” --“Sri Lanka’s Human Rights Crisis,” ICG report June 2007. . . based on “The war on the media”, The Sunday Leader, 22 April 2007.

“[S]enior members of Sri Lanka’s Government and security personnel have made inflammatory comments condemning journalists as traitors, implicitly allowing for the incitement of violence against journalists and media institutions. . . . Government Minister Mervyn Silva is allegedly linked to continuing threats and attacks against people who witnessed or reported on an incident at the office of the Sri Lanka Rupavahini Corporation (SLRC) in late December.” – Open letter to President Mahinda Rajapaksa from a coalition of international press freedom and human rights organizations. April 11, 2008.

“Eleven Sri Lankan journalists and other media practitioners have been killed by various parties to the conflict since August 2005. To date, no one has been convicted for any of the killings. Tamil journalists work under severe threat from both the LTTE and government forces.” --“Return to War: Human Rights under Siege,” Human Rights Watch Report, August 2007.

“Tamil journalists, especially in the north and east, have been frequently subject to intimidation and harassment by the security forces and armed groups. Since the beginning of 2006 over two dozen Tamil media workers have been abducted, threatened, assaulted or killed.” --“Return to War: Human Rights under Siege,” Human Rights Watch Report, August 2007.

Child Soldiers:

“There has been no evidence to date that any measures have been instituted by the police or the security forces to secure the release of the children abducted, recruited and used by the TMVP/Karuna faction despite clear knowledge of the same by the police or the security forces.” --“Report of the Secretary General on Children and Armed Conflict in Sri Lanka” December 21, 2007. (UN Document: S/2007/758)

“Grave concern was also expressed about the development of a recent but increasing pattern of abduction and recruitment of children in the eastern region by the Karuna faction. . . . [and] about the fact that the Karuna faction had abducted children in areas considered to be Government controlled, raising questions about the complicity of certain elements of the security forces.” -- “Conclusions of the Working Group on Children and Armed Conflict in Sri Lanka” June 13, 2007. (UN Document: S/AC.51/2007/9)

“[The mission] found strong and credible evidence that certain elements of the government security forces are supporting and sometimes participating in the abductions and forced recruitment of children by the Karuna faction.” --“Statement on Sri Lanka from the UN Special Advisor on Children and Armed Conflict in Sri Lanka, Allan Rock following his 10-day mission to the country,” November 13, 2006.

“The Sri Lankan government is also violating international law by facilitating child recruitment by the Karuna. . . . The abductions of the Karuna group have taken place in areas of strict government control, with myriad military and police checkpoints. No armed group could engage in such largescale abductions and forced recruitment, training abductees in established camps, without government knowledge and at least tacit support. The police do not investigate the cases that parents report. The Sri Lankan government knows about the abductions and has not intervened.” - Written statement* submitted by Society for Threatened Peoples, a non-governmental organization in special consultative status to the UN HRC, February 25, 2008. (UN Document: A/HRC/7/NGO/54)

Safety of Humanitarian Workers:

“In the 24 month period between January 2006 – December 2007, there has been a killing or enforced disappearance of at least one person engaged in humanitarian service in every month, except March and October 2006.” – “Under Fire: Persons in Humanitarian Service” A Preliminary Report from the Law and Society Trust of Sri Lanka on Killings and Disappearances of Persons in Humanitarian Service in Sri Lanka, March 7, 2008.

“Since 2006, numerous people engaged in humanitarian work have been killed and subjected to enforced disappearances. Many more individuals and organizations have been subjected to threats and attacks. Restrictions have been created which make it difficult or, in some cases, impossible to access civilians needing protection and assistance. . . . While some incidents such as the killing of 17 ACF staff in August 2006 in Mutur received public attention, many incidents received hardly any coverage in local and international media. . . . there has not been a single prosecution or conviction in any of the incidents.” — “Under Fire: Persons in Humanitarian Service” A Preliminary Report from the Law and Society Trust of Sri Lanka on Killings and Disappearances of Persons in Humanitarian Service in Sri Lanka, March 7, 2008.

Culture of Impunity:

“[T]ake the missing [persons] list. Some have gone on their honeymoon without the knowledge of their household is considered missing. Parents have lodged complaints that their children have disappeared but in fact, we have found, they have gone abroad.… These disappearance lists are all figures. One needs to deeply probe into each and every disappearance. I do not say we have no incidents of disappearances and human rights violations, but I must categorically state that the government is not involved at all.” –Sri Lankan President Mahinda Rajapaksa, in an interview to Asian Tribune, October 4, 2007.

“in the context of the armed conflict and of the emergency measures taken against terrorism, the weakness of the rule of law and prevalence of impunity is alarming” --“Press statement by the High Commissioner for Human Rights, Louise Arbour, on conclusion of her visit to Sri Lanka,” October 13, 2007.

“[C]ontinued well-documented allegations of widespread torture and ill-treatment as well as disappearances, mainly committed by the State’s police forces . . . . are not investigated promptly and impartially by the State party’s competent authorities.” -- Conclusions and recommendations of the Committee against Torture” December 15, 2005. (UN Document: CAT/C/LKA/CO/2)

“[I] it is an enduring scandal that there have been virtually no convictions of government officials for killing Tamils, and many Tamils doubt that the rule of law will protect their lives.” -- “The interim report on the worldwide situation in regard to extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions submitted by Philip Alston, Special Rapporteur” September 5, 2006. (UN Document: A/61/311)

“The criminal justice system — police investigations, prosecutions, and trials — has utterly failed to provide accountability. Indeed, it is an enduring scandal that convictions of government officials for killing Tamils are virtually non-existent. . . . The time has come for the establishment of a full-fledged international human rights monitoring mission.” - “Statement by the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, Philip Alston, to the UN Human Rights Council” September 19, 2006.

“[T]here is a growing culture of impunity for perpetrators of enforceddisappearance . . . with delays and interferences by high officials in investigations and inquiries, as well as threats to witnesses and family members.” - “Report of the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances” January 10, 2008. (UN Document: A/HRC/7/2)

“There has been no evidence to date that any measures have been instituted by,the police or the security forces to secure the release of the children abducted, recruited and used by the TMVP/Karuna faction despite clear knowledge of the same by the police or the security forces.” - “Report of the Secretary General on Children and Armed Conflict in Sri Lanka” December 21, 2007. (UN Document: S/2007/758)

“The failure to effectively prosecute government violence is a deeply-felt problem in Sri Lanka. The paucity of cases in which a government official - such as a soldier or police officer - has been convicted for the killing of a Tamil is an example. Few of my interlocutors could name any such case.” - “Report of the Special Rapporteur, Philip Alston on his mission to Sri Lanka from 28 November to 6 December 2005” March 27, 2006. (UN Document: E/CN.4/2006/53/Add.5)

“[W]e have uncovered information that reveals that the 17 aid workers were killed by at least one member of the Muslim Home Guard (Jehangir) and two police constables (Susantha and Nilantha) in the presence of the Sri Lankan Naval Special Forces. . . . The Police are more involved in perverting the evidence and silencing witnesses than in any real investigation.” - “Unfinished Business of the Five Students and ACF Cases– A Time to call the Bluff” Report by the University Teachers for Human Rights (Jaffna) Sri Lanka UTHR(J) April 1, 2008

“The country has learnt to be comfortable with grave crimes going unpunished one after another, with the certainty that even graver ones would follow. The answer to the question why Sri Lanka is steeped in recurrent gross crimes, especially against the minorities, that go unchecked is not far to seek. . . . For years the State has gone on denying, obfuscating, abusing detractors, intimidating or killing witnesses and making matters progressively worse.” - “Unfinished Business of the Five Students and ACF Cases– A Time to call the Bluff” Report by the University Teachers for Human Rights (Jaffna) Sri Lanka UTHR(J) April 1, 2008

“Many of the killings and disappearances, particularly around Colombo and Jaffna, have occurred in high security zones with heavy military presence; in Jaffna, many of these violations have occurred during military-imposed curfew times. In such cases, the involvement or complicity of security forces seems unavoidable.” -Written statement submitted by Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (FORUM-ASIA), a non-governmental organization in special consultative status, to the UN Human Rights Council, February 24, 2008.

“The police are accused not only of a failure to act, but of active obstruction of justice in order to cover up the role of government forces in right violations” - “Sri Lanka’s Human Rights Crisis” International Crisis Group Report, June 2007.

“There is no doubt that TMVP forces are operating openly, extensively, and illegally in the Eastern province and in Colombo and that elements in the government are either facilitating their work or refusing to prevent it.” - “Sri Lanka’s Human Rights Crisis” International Crisis Group Report, June 2007.

Record of Non-Cooperation:Sri Lanka refuses to cooperate with the Council and U.N. human rights mechanisms - Human Rights Watch

Attacks on U.N. Officials
Non-cooperation with Special Procedures of the Human Rights Council

Attacks on UN officials:

Rather than consider the recommendations made in good faith by U.N. officials, the Sri Lankan authorities have instead launched unacceptable and unfounded personal attacks on those who have visited Sri Lanka and raised human rights concerns:

In August 2007 Sri Lankan highways minister told reporters that UN Undersecretary General for humanitarian affairs, John Holmes, who had just completed a visit to Sri Lanka and expressed concern about the safety of humanitarian aid workers there, was a “terrorist” who was helping the Tamil Tiger rebels. "I would say Holmes is completely a terrorist, a terrorist who supports terrorism. . . . This person tries to tarnish the image of Sri Lanka internationally. . . . I think the LTTE has bribed Holmes." According to press reports, the minister offered no evidence to support these claims.
When Secretary General Ban Ki-moon called the minister’s assertions about Under secretary General Holmes “unacceptable and unwarranted,” the minister’s response was, “I don’t give a damn about what he has to tell me or Sri Lanka. He can say whatever he wants, but I will still go by what I said and that is, John Homes is a terrorist who takes bribes from the LTTE.”
In October 2007 a public statement from the Sri Lankan Government accused UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Louise Arbour of becoming “a football, to be kicked about at will, to score goals for terrorists and others who do not mind sharing a terrorist agenda provided it gets them their goals too.”
When UN Special Advisor on Children and Armed Conflict, Allan Rock, reported “strong and credible evidence that certain elements of the government security forces are supporting and sometimes participating in the abductions and forced recruitment of children by the Karuna faction,” the Sri Lankan Defense Minister’s response was to surmise that the main source of Rock’s allegations “might be the LTTE leader himself.” Rather than take the UN envoy at his word, the Sri Lankan Ministry of Defense accused Rock of adopting an “inquiry procedure” which was “not up to internationally accepted methodologies,” and asserted that there were “inherent weaknesses in [Rock’s] analysis of the subject.”
Notably, the Sri Lankan Defense Department’s response to Allan Rock’s report were published on the Sri Lankan government website alongside a photograph of Rock posing years before with former colleagues of a Sri Lankan Native who was arrested by U.S. authorities for supporting the LTTE, implying—as was pointed out in Sri Lankan newspapers—Rock’s allegations were somehow the result of association with colleagues of a suspected LTTE-sympathizer.

Non-cooperation with Special Procedures of the Human Rights Council:

Rather than allowing for the effective monitoring of human rights in Sri Lanka by national or international mechanisms, Sri Lankan authorities have obstructed the work of Special Procedures mandate holders and others who could effectively investigate abuses and failed to implement their recommendations:

In February 2008, UN Special Rapporteur in torture and other cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment, Manfred Nowak, reported that during his most recent visit to Sri Lanka, “[t]he conditions for independent fact-finding were further impeded by certain instances, where detainees were hidden or brought away shortly before the Special Rapporteur arrived. . . . The Special Rapporteur received information from the remaining detainees that the transferred persons were those who had been most seriously tortured before and still bore marks of the ill-treatment.”
In his 2008 report to the UN Human Rights Council, the Special Rapporteur on Torture, Manfred Nowak also highlighted the fact that “prior to the commencement of the visit, the Government denied him permission to travel to LTTE-controlled areas, [and] did not provide him with a letter of authorisation to visit any facilities of the armed forces.”
In March 2007, UN Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, Philip Alston told the UN Human Rights Council that “[t]he Government of Sri Lanka has failed to cooperate with the mandate that [the special rapporteur] has been given by the General Assembly and the Commission on Human Rights.”
According to the Compilation Prepared by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights for the Universal Periodic Review of Sri Lank, released in March this year, “Sri Lanka responded to none of the 12 questionnaires sent by special procedures mandate holders between 1 January 2004 and 31 December 2007, within the deadlines.”
As outlined in the Office of the High commissioner’s compilation prepared for the Universal Periodic Review of Sri Lanka, 94 communications were sent to Sri Lanka throughout the past four years, concerning 208 individuals. Si Lankan responded to only 45 of those communications, which represents replies to just 48% of the communications sent.
The government of Sri Lanka has not honored the key recommendations issued by the Working Group on Enforced and Involuntary Disappearances following visits to the country in 1991, 1992 and 1999. According to the group’s secretariat, “the central register of detainees has not been established; the Prevention of Terrorism Act was absorbed into Emergency Regulations, giving the authorities wider powers to detain individuals; and the Constitution has not been amended to prohibit enforced disappearance.”
Despite repeated requests that the government of Sri Lanka agree to and set a date for the Working Group on Enforced and Involuntary Disappearances to visit the country, according to the Working Group’s Secretariat, “There has been no agreement yet for the visit to Sri Lanka.”