The  LLRC is required  to inquire into and report  on the following:

1. The facts and circumstances which led to the failure of the ceasefire agreement  operationalized (sic)  on 21 February 2002 and the sequence of events that followed thereafter up to 19 May 2009.
2. Whether any person,  group, or institutions directly or indirectly bear responsibility in this regard.
3. The lessons learnt from those events and their attendant concerns, in order to ensure that there will be no recurrence.
4. The methodology whereby restitution to any person affected by those events or their dependents or to heirs, can be effected.
5. The institutional administrative and legislative measures which need to be taken in order to prevent any recurrence of such concerns in the future, and to promote further national unity and reconciliation among all communities, and to make any such other recommendations with reference to any of the matters   that have been inquired into under the terms of this Warrant.

It should be noted that  the LLRC has been authorized to look into facts or circumstances that had occurred during the period from 21^st February, 2002 upto 19^th May, 2009 which led to the failure of the ceasefire agreement.  From the reports in the media it appears that there are more people going before the Commission to complain of the abductions and disappearances  that took place in the region than to speak about the facts and circumstances that   led to the failure of the Ceasefire.  Perhaps,  the LLRC considers disappearances falls  within item 3 of the Mandate which refers to  those events and  their attendant concerns.   If that be so,  the LLRC can inquire into  complaints of abductions and disappearances that took place during the period stipulated in the Mandare but cannot  tentertain to ones that occurred  before  21^st February, 2002  or after  19^th May, 2009.           It appears that most of the complaints that are being  submitted to the LLRC in respect of abductions and disappearances  are those that occurred  after the war ended and  while  the people displaced from the Wanni were in the welfare centres that had been established or after they had   moved out of these welfare centres and had been  ‘re-settled’ .    There had also been a report  in the Veerakesari of 15^th November, 2010  that someone had appeared before  the LLRC had asked it to find those who disappeared  in 1996 after the  Riviresa Operations  which wrested control of the Jaffna District from the LTTE.   One cannot understand why the LLRC does not want to tell  such complainants that their complaints  do not fall within its mandate.   By not doing so, the LLRC  only gives false hopes to these complainants that it  would find those who disappeared or that it would be able to tell them what happened to them.   a similar thing happened  when the all Island Commission on Disappearances headed by Mrs. Manouri Muttetuwegama  was conducting its sittings  in  Jaffna.   More than a  two hundred  persons led by the Organization of Parents and  Guardians  of those who Disappeared in Jaffna,   flocked the Commissioners   and wanted  complaints of  about 600 persons who disappeared following the army take over of Jaffna in 1996 to be  inquired into by that Commission.   They were told that the Mandate of the Commission  authorizes them to inquire only into complaints of disappearances received by the Commissions appointed in 1994  and is not permit  to accept new complaints.  They then dispersed on being  told to give a list of those who disappeared during that period with the assurance that they would be forwarded to the President  with a request to make arrangements for those complaints to be inquired into at a later date.   This was done later  by the  National Human Rights Commission which appointed a special Committee to inquire and report on those complaints.   Similarly, while this Commission had its sittings in Batticaloa,  Father Miller who was then the head of the  Citizens Committee in Batticaloa  came up  with a list of  7000 persons who had disappeared  from the Batticaloa District and wanted  the Commission to inquire into them.   He was also given the same reply and eventually the  National Human Rights Commission  dealt with  those complaints as well.

It cannot be  presumed  that   the LLRC members  are  unaware that there had been three commissions of inquiry set up in  1994 and another in 1998  to look  specifically into disappearances of persons that occurred in Sri Lanka  during specific periods. These Commissions were headed by eminent legal luminaries such as  Justice K. Palakidnar,  Mrs. Manouri Muttetuwegama,   and Justice T. Suntheralingam.    The  unpublished parts of the reports of these Commissions contain the names of  many of the perpetrators against whom the Commissions had found ‘credible material indicative’ of their  responsibility  for several  of the disappearances that took place during the  relevant period.  These Commissions have also  recommended  the  action that should  be taken against these perpetrators and  have also made well-considered  recommendations  on what needs to be done to prevent such incidents happening in the future. Appropriate relief measures had also been recommended to the victims.

In 2002,  a  Committee  of three headed by a senior civil service officer of renown,   Dr. Devanesan Nesiah, was appointed   under the  section 11 (b) of the Human Rights Commission Act No. 21 of 1996  to inquire into the  disappearances of persons that took place in the Jaffna District following  Jaffna being taken over by the Government from the LTTE in 1996.  An exhaustive  investigation was done into 281 of   the 327 complaints  of disappearances  were received by this Committee  and its findings were  endorsed by Dr. Radhika Coomaraswamy, who  was then the Chairman of the NHRC and forwarded to the President for necessary action. The recommendations made by the above mentioned Commissions  of Inquiry into Disappearances, were re-iterated by this Committee which concluded that  in a large majority of the cases inquired into by the Committee there was clear evidence that the persons who had disappeared had been taken by the army  and  that there is no evidence whatsoever as to  what happened to them thereafter.

This Committee whilst making additional recommendations also endorsed the recommendations made by the earlier Commissions on the measures that are  needed to be taken  to prevent   the occurrence of such incidents in the future.

Even the UN Working Group on Enforced Disappearances has made valuable recommendations on this matter following their visits to Sri Lanka during the 1990s, many of which still remain unimplemented.

It would be naïve to think  that  Chairman of the LLRC  who was then the Attorney General, must be  unaware  of these reports and the recommendations therein.   These  well considered recommendations  made by equally eminent members of those Commissions  and those made by the UN Working Group,  are gathering dust in the archives of the Presidential Secretariat and the Attorney General’s Department.  If only those recommendations had  received due consideration and implemented,  disappearances of persons  in Sri Lanka would have been a thing of the past.  Their non-implementation has promoted the spread of the cult of impunity among the perpetrators and has now perhaps become a standard practice  to deal with those whom  the authorities find to be irritants or threats to their positions.   It is no wonder that the International Independent Group of Eminent Persons who were invited  to Sri Lanka in 2007  to  ensure that the proceedings of  another Commission of Inquiry  appointed during that period was following international  norms and standards in conducting their inquiries,  had aborted their  mission and left with a statement in their report that  the government does not have the will to end  human rights violations.

In the circumstances,  it is preposterous for  the LLRC  to  continue to receive  complaints of disappearances which do not fall within its mandate and give false hopes to the complainants. It is equally preposterous for the State to ask the  LLRC to make recommendations on how to prevent  the repetition of such instances  in the future, while  they already have well considered recommendations on this matter  right before them.   Besides,  in the absence of an effective witness protection mechanism it is hardly likely that  the LLRC would receive any worthwhile evidence on what actually happened  during the last days of the war.    Therefore  the LLRC may as well do something useful  by listening to the submissions by learned persons  on what needs to be done to bring about a reconciliation.   Some eminent members of the  community have already appeared before the LLRC  and  made representation   on this and  on  the matters  that  lead to the break down of the ceasefire agreement.   The State continues to proclaim loudly that it is waiting for the recommendations of the LLRC to bring about a reconciliation.   But other organs of the State are doing undesirable things that negate the declared objectives of the State and   appear to be contributing  further  to put the communities asunder.   Lets us hope the LLRC would not waste their times on issues that are irrelevant to its Mandate and  make  their candid observations  without delay  on the lessons learnt and  make way for the  mutual suspicion between the two important sections of the people of the country  to be dispelled before it is too late  to   bring them  together  to live as equal citizens of Sri Lanka.

• Still waiting for justice in Sri Lanka
• Disappearances of Persons in Sri Lanka
• The latest Commission of Inquiry in Sri Lanka: Another Exercise in Deception
• Mass Graves: Nothing new to Sri Lanka
• A Commissioner’s Perspective: Citizens’ Commission on the Expulsion of Muslims from the Northern Province by the LTTE

the analysis identified three different graveyards, counting a total of 1,346 likely graves. The satellite images can neither reveal if these graves contain civilians or Tamil Tiger fighters,..

In the circumstances, it is likely that more and more graves would be discovered, if free access to the area is available to the people and the security forces do not  take any steps to obliterate the graves.

That is however only with regard to the graves alleged to be those of  the victims of the last  war in the Vanni.  There could be many more such mass graves in other parts where the war was fought.  Many may not know that during the period from  1^st January, 1988 onwards, which period the former Commissions of Inquiry into Disappearances of Persons  appointed in 1994,  had been mandated to conduct inquiries,  evidence with regard to a  large number of  mass graves in several parts of  the country came to light.  These are graves of suspected Sinhala militant youth, who had chosen to rebel against the government of that time.  I use the word ‘suspected’  because it was the finding of the said  Commissions that  most of those who had disappeared were  youth or other persons who had been staunch supporters of the Sri Lanka Freedom Party, who were suspected by the then government, to be members of the Jathika Vimukthi Peramuna.   It is therefore no wonder  President Rajapakse who was then, just a Member of Parliament,  was in the fore front of the agitation of the parents and guardians of the disappeared youth in the Southern Province,  to call for a full investigation into these incidents and the culprits  brought to book !  It is estimated that nearly 60,000 Sinhala youth had disappeared during the relevant period.  Hardly any of them were found. It is likely that many of their bodies are still in the several mass graves  in respect of which evidence was made available to the Commissions of Inquiry.   Let us see what one of the Reports of a Disappearances Commission has to say on these mass graves  –

The phenomenon of mass graves is a macabre pointer to the clandestine nature of the counter-insurgency operations carried out in this period. Their very existence and the recoveries from them bear vivid witness to a complete disregard of the constitutionally guaranteed safe-guard of the physical security of persons in detention.

This Commission listed twelve mass graves about which evidence had been placed before it.  Let us see some of the information available about these graves.

One may recall that during the Presidential Elections of 1994,  President Chandrika Bandaranaike who was  then one of the candidates at the elections, went around  speaking about these graves in relation to the disappearances of persons which was a widespread occurrence during those days.  She was present at the time the mass grave at Sooriyakanda was  exhumed, in an unconventional manner, with much publicity.  It was alleged that the bodies of  the abducted school children from the Embilipitiya High School were buried there. It was said that over 300 bodies had been buried at this site. The government of the time conducted a forensic analysis  but the investigations were said to be unsatisfactory.

The mass graves  in Hokandara, Dikwella and Angkumbura had been located in pits carved out by bomb explosions.  Some of these graves such as the ones at Wilpita, Akuressa, and others had been located near Army Camps.  Others were in public places like highways, as in the case of Hokandara, in public schools as in Essella or a government farm as in Walpita.

The mass graves  at Hokandara, Essella, Wavulkelle, Walpita Farm and Ankumbura   had also been disinterred on a judicial order.   It was in evidence that  the people of the area knew the existence of these graves  even though  they are not known nationally. Yet they had not been acknowledged by the authorities.  When some members of the public had made attempts to report on their existence to the Police at that time, the  complaints had not been recorded.   The disturbing piece of evidence in this regard was that some of the graves  had been kept open for a period of time as in the case of the  Hokandara Mass Grave.  The Judicial Medical Officer who visited the mass grave at Vavulkelle had noted  that  he saw the fire blazing with logs and tyres which had been used to burn the bodies.  There was evidence placed before the Commission indicating  that a pile of burning bodies had been displayed at the junction near the Walpita Farm mass grave. It was the same with respect to the mass grave at Essella  where bullet ridden bodies of several young men and women  had been found lying  lined up  in a drain near the  home of an army officer who had suffered attack by the subversives of the time.

It is interesting to note that  several of these mass graves such as the  one at Kotawakella,  Yakkalumulla,  Dickwella,  Deniyaya and Akuressa  are in the Southern Province, which is the  area from which the present day rulers of Sri Lanka hail !

The Report of the Commission referring to these mass graves stated that  -

The phenomenon of Mass Graves bears a significant correlation to the massive number of disappearances that have taken place in the period under review, independent of any identification of a corpse disinterred to a particular person who has disappeared,…

The Commission appointed to inquire  into disappearances of persons in the North and Eastern Province  do not mention specifically of any mass graves. The security situation at that time in these Province was a deterrent to witnesses complaining or coming forward with evidence against security forces.    However  the report of that Commission speaks of mass killings at the Eastern University, at Sathurukondan  and other places.  A few years later, following a bomb explosion that killed a few army personnel  at Kokaddicholai, almost all the villagers of Kokkaddicholai  were killed and dumped into the pit created by the bomb.

This article will be incomplete if no mention is made of the mass graves found  at Jaffna in Chemmani  at  the Duraiappah  Stadium, in the not too distant past.

In July, 1998 a former army corporal who was charged for the rape and murder of a school girl while he was on duty at the Chemmani check point, told a High Court Judge that he knew about a mass grave where about 400 bodies of Tamils were buried. He said that the bodies of those killed by the army were brought to Chemmani, along with people who were to be executed and then buried there.

A mass grave was found  1999 by municipal labourers at  the Jaffna Stadium grounds while they were doing  three excavations.   On the first occasion  8 skeletons, on the next 16 and on the third  25 skeletons  were found. It was suspected  that those skeletons were those of  Tamils killed  and buried en masse  during the occupation of the Northern Province by the Indian Peace Keeping Force in 1987.

It is not intended to go into the details of all these mass graves at this juncture as it  is considered sufficient  just to refer to them for the purposes  of the theme of this article. One also needs to remember that in the late 1995 bodies of  17 Tamils living in and around Colombo who had been abducted, were found floating in the Bolgoda Lake, the Alawwa oya and the Diyawanna Oya.  Following CID investigations  into these cases, 21 Special Task Force  police officers were arrested along with three civilians  and produced before the Chief Magistrate in Colombo  and remanded in 1996.   But due to reasons better known to the authorities, all but three of  these police officers were released subsequently. The three who were indicted before the High Court were also released later  and the proceedings  against them were suspended.

It should be noted that the mandates of the Commissions on Disappearances  did not permit them to investigate into these mass graves that came to their knowledge.  So they made the information about them available in their Reports and recommended that the government should investigate into them and bring those responsible to book.  That recommendation was never implemented. Consequently the perpetrators became emboldened. Many of them still continue in service with impunity and  they could very well be the ones responsible or at least for having played a part  in the creation  of the mass graves that are being discovered now.

It is significant to note that the graves  the Disappearances Commissions mentioned were those of  Sinhala youth who were suspected to be militants,  while the evidence of graves that are just coming up are  probably those of suspected Tamil militants from the Vanni.  If the perpetrators of the killings of Sinhala youth could have dealt with members of their own community so brutally, how they would have treated  the suspected Tamil militants  could easily imagined.   The recent history of Sri Lanka has so much evidence of mass graves that one need not be surprised when  more and more graves are discovered in the future.  Would Sri Lanka ever acknowledge such brutal incidents of mass graves  and related killings and  provide  solace to the to the grieving family members of  the victims by way of transitional justice?

[Editors note: M.C.M. Iqbal was secretary to two of Sri Lanka’s “truth commissions”, presidential inquiry panels into the 30,000 or more forced disappearances that took place in the late 1980s and early ’90s in the south, during a dirty war that many believe has yet to run its course. As the South China Morning Post noted in late-2009, Mr. Iqbal knows more than most about the skeletons that are locked away in the government’s closet – enough, he says, for him to no longer be safe in his home country.

We also strongly encourage you to read Still waiting for justice in Sri Lanka and The latest Commission of Inquiry in Sri Lanka: Another Exercise in Deception by the author, published earlier this year, anchored to failed Commissions of Inquiry in Sri Lanka.]

• Disappearances of Persons in Sri Lanka
• Still waiting for justice in Sri Lanka
• The latest Commission of Inquiry in Sri Lanka: Another Exercise in Deception
• THE LLRC AND COMPLAINTS OF DISAPPEARANCES OF PERSONS
• At Your Service

Let us therefore have a look at some of the commissions of inquiry appointed by the governments in the past to check  how effective they have been to understand the veracity of the statement made by Dr. Kohana with regard to the current commission. It is common knowledge that several commissions of inquiry had been appointed from time to time to inquire into disappearances of persons and other serious human rights violations in Sri Lanka. I do not intend to go into matters relating to all these commissions now. Instead, as a sample,  I  propose to  deal with the two Commissions of Inquiries into Disappearances to which  I was the  Secretary  and the  Commission of Inquiry into Certain Serious Human Rights Violations  in the recent past  where I was  an adviser to the International Independent Group of Eminent Persons (IIGEP).  The IIGEP  had been  invited by President Rajapakse, to dispel the fear expressed widely at that time, on the efficacy of such commissions. He wanted give credibility to that commission by asking the IIGEP  to ensure that the investigations and inquiries conducted by that Commission are in keeping with internationally accepted norms and standards.

Commissions of Inquiry in Sri Lanka, are appointed in terms of the provisions of the Commissions of Inquiry Act. This Act provides for the President to appoint such Commissions whenever he thinks there is a need to find out more information on any matter of national interest and direct such Commission to inquire or investigate and report to him on matters set out in the Mandate given to such commissions.  In other words, their inquiries should  be strictly confined to the terms of reference.  It is mandatory for the Commission to submit the report to the President and not to  make its contents public.

In 1994 three such commissions  known as Zonal Commissions on Disappearances of Persons,  were appointed to inquire into and report on disappearances of persons after 1^st January, 1988 ,  while another was appointed in 1998, known as the All Island Commission on Disappearances,  to inquire only into the complaints received by the Zonal Commissions and remain  un-inquired.  These Commissions handed over their Reports in September 1997 and May, 2000, respectively.

These Commissions, inter alia, reported that they came across evidence that several torture chambers managed by the police and the military existed in different parts of Sri Lanka during the relevant period. Many persons who had been taken to be caused to be disappeared had  been tortured in these chambers to elicit information from them.  A few of them had  escaped. They appeared  before the Commission and  gave evidence  on the  gruesome manner in which they and others who are no more, had been tortured. They even gave the names of the persons who had been managing these torture chambers.

It was the same in the case of more than ten mass graves in the in various parts of the country.  Information about them had been  made available to these Commissions by persons  who knew about them. These graves have still not been disturbed. All that the Commissions could do in respect of these torture chambers and the mass graves  was to list the locations of the torture chambers and the mass graves in their Reports  and make  a recommendation that the President should take further action  to investigate into them.  They could not investigate into these because their  mandates  did not authorize them to do so.  Up-to-date no action whatsoever had been taken on this recommendation about the torture chambers and mass graves. Instead,  some of those  who were alleged to have been responsible for these,  are still in service having  received promotions in their respective services. Others have retired  without having to face any consequence on their dastardly  criminal actions.

The same is true with regard to the recommendations made to take disciplinary action against several police and military personnel whose misconduct during the performance of their duties came to light during the investigations. There was evidence of their violation of   departmental rules and regulations  in  dealing with complaints of disappearances, detention of persons taken into custody,   destruction of Police  information books relating to  the relevant period,  in spite of a directive by the Inspector General of Police to preserve these books and make them available for investigation by the Commissions.

As stated earlier, these Commissions were mandated to inquire only into complaints of disappearances that occurred after 1^st January, 1988. This resulted in a large number of disappearances of persons that occurred prior to that  being excluded from being inquired into.

Similarly,  the Commission that was appointed in 1998 had a specific limitation debarring it from  inquiring into any new complaints but  was authorized to deal only with those  complaints  which  had been received by the Commissions appointed in 1994 and remain  un- inquired.  Consequently this Commission could not inquire into about 12,000 new complaints received by this Commission. This number included  complaints of about 600 persons from the North who had disappeared following the military operation in 1996 called ‘Riviresa’ after which  the government took control of the Jaffna Peninsula from the  LTTE, and about 7000 complaints of persons who had gone missing in the Batticaloa District during the relevant period.

To cap it all, the manner in which action was taken against those  police and security forces personnel and others against  whom the Commission reported that there is credible material indicative of their responsibility for the disappearances,  is a sad reflection on the sincerity of the successive governments in dealing with perpetrators of such incidents.   This only helped to perpetuate the culture of impunity   which had, by this time, pervaded into the police and security forces personnel.  Consequently the families of the victims of disappearances are yet to receive justice being meted out to them though nearly  20 years have lapsed since most of these incidents had occurred while   many of them who had given evidence on the alleged perpetrators live in frustration seeing them still in service after having caused the disappearance of their loved ones.

A Report of  the International Commission of Jurists reveals that “The lack of state accountability for human rights violations in Sri Lanka crosses ethnic divides, all governments and political parties. Neither the regular criminal justice system nor commissions    of inquiry have been able to satisfy the state’s obligation to its citizens.”

It appears that  the only useful purpose   served by these Commissions was  to help successive governments  to know who and who in the police and security services are experienced and  competent in effectively carrying out disappearances of persons, so that those in these governments who required their services  could use them when the need arose.   It is perhaps such persons are the ones behind  the disappearances  that continue even today, and are often conveniently  blamed to be acts of unknown persons.

Another matter that needs to be remembered is that the Commissions of Inquiry Act does not place any obligation on the part of the President to make public the findings of any Commission of Inquiry.  There are reports of several commissions appointed  in the past that have never been published. Others have been published only in parts. It is the sole discretion of the President to publish the whole or any part of the Report if he so desires or not publish them at all.   It may not be known to many  that a special report was called by the then President Chandrika Bandaranayake into the killing of a prominent politician in a hilly district, allegedly by another who had contested him.    The Commission concerned did an exhaustive investigation  and reported that there was enough evidence  against  the alleged person who was at that time  a prominent Member of Parliament.  Yet no action was taken against him.  The wife of the person who was killed was later made a minister and the matter ended there.  No action whatsoever was taken on this Report which was never   published !

Similarly,  When a   prominent Muslim leader  was killed  following a helicopter crash, to stem the allegation that he had in fact been murdered the then government appointed a commission to inquire into the circumstances of his death.  That Commission conducted extensive investigations and submitted its   report. That report was never  published but the wife of the deceased was later  made a Minister and a large amount of money had been paid to her and her siblings as compensation.  The matter ended there.

Journalistic ethics prevents me from mentioning the names of the persons concerned but these facts cannot be denied by those concerned.

Commissions of Inquiry were initially appointed to appease pressure from human rights organizations or the people, to end  systematic violations of their rights.  But successive governments have followed a pattern of subverting them. In fact, the non-implementation of the many recommendations of these Commissions on the need to deal with the perpetrators swiftly and effectively, promoted the culture of impunity prevailing among the police and the security forces personnel to become galvanized.  What is more, the Commissions spared no efforts in making well considered recommendations on the steps to be taken to prevent the incidence of disappearances of persons in the future.   These recommendations are gathering dust in the archives of the President.

Let me now deal with the Commission appointed in year 2007  to inquire into serious human rights violations such as the killing of five university students in Trincomalee, the killing of seventeen employees of and NGO  in Muttur,   bombing of  a children’s home in Sencholai in the Mullaitivu District,  etc.  The series of such high profile incidents that  took place during that period resulted in a public outcry for the government to end such incidents.  President Rajapakse  decided to appoint a commission to inquire into such incidents to contain the surging pressure on him from various quarters.  Given the past experience on what happened to the disappearances commissions and many others, both the local and international human rights organizations expressed  their  reservations on the outcome and efficacy of the Commission proposed by the government.   Consequently, the President himself came out with a suggestion that he was prepared to invite a  few  International Independent  Group of Eminent Persons  (IIGEP)  who could be tasked to ensure that the proposed Commission conducts its investigations and inquiries in keeping with international norms and standards  and does not end up  the way the other commissions in the past had ended.

The Commission of 2007 was  created  with seven members.  A few days after the commencement of the proceedings of this Commission  the IIGEP  found that the services of a representative of the  Attorney General (AG)  was being availed of  by  this Commission  to lead the evidence in respect of the cases  the Commission was mandated to deal with.  Former Chief Justice of India – the late Justice Bhagawathy  who headed the IIGEP  had  to point out to  Justice Udalagama who was the President of the Commission, and later to the President himself of the impropriety  of the AG leading the evidence of witnesses  during the proceedings of the Commission which was inquiring into the propriety of the investigations already carried out by the police.  Both the President and the head of the Commission persisted on insisting that  the AG should be there  and that he is an independent official.  Haggling over this issue went on for some time. IIGEP was  told that they being foreigners, did not understand the nuances of the laws in Sri Lanka and the independence of the AG.  Subsequently IIGEP had to obtain the opinion of two eminent retired judges of renown,  on the question of the independence of the AG  and the justification for the involvement of the AG in the proceedings of the Commission.  They gave a well-considered written opinion to the IIGEP,  confirming that  the Attorney-General is not an independent official  and that the role played by the AG  in the proceedings of the Commission was a conflict of interest as the AG’s representative had advised the original investigations in the cases which had been mandated for inquiry by the Commission. Even though this was pointed out, the AG’s representative continued his role in the Commission  and eroded the  Commission’s  real and perceived independence. Incidentally, this particular AG who has now retired has been appointed as the Chairman of the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission.  

In view of the  high profile nature of the cases the Commission was inquiring into, witnesses  to the incidents were hesitant to come  before the Commission and give evidence for fear of reprisals.  Though the IIGEP insisted on the need for a law to protect witnesses coming before the Commission,  the government failed to  take meaningful and effective steps to  provide protection for the witnesses.

Eventually the IIGEP had to abort its mission stating  that  they (I quote), found there a lack of  political and institutional will on the part of the Government to pursue with vigour  the cases under review by the Commission, with the intention of identifying the perpetrators or at least uncovering the systemic failures and obstructions to justice that rendered  the original investigations in to these cases ineffective.

Ultimately the term of the Commission which was mandated to  inquire into 15 high profiles cases was not extended even though inquires in the cases concerned had not been completed.  That Commission then ceased to exist, confirming the suspicion that the government was not even at the outset,  keen on investigating into the serious human rights violations concerned.  A report this Commission is said to have handed over to the President, has never been made public.

From the disclosures  I have  made  so far about what happened to the Commissions  referred to,  it would be clear  that in Sri Lanka, successive  governments had  been appointing Commissions not with the honest intention of finding out what actually happened  and to mete out justice to the victims,  but with the intention of deceiving the people concerned and the international community.   Commissions have always helped governments to divert  pressure on the government regarding the relevant issues.

The commissions appointed so far, have failed to address the serious questions that have been affecting Sri Lanka in the conflicts in the recent past. These commissions have been condemned by international organizations  as well as by local human rights groups who have published extensive reports and analysis on the workings of these commissions. Amnesty International has  called the work of these Commissions as “Twenty Years of Make Believe”  in a report analyzing the work of these commissions. The International Commission of Jurists has published a work on this subject entitled “Families of the Disappeared, Still Waiting for Justice”. The reports of these organizations only confirm the fact of the ineffectiveness of these Commissions.

There isn’t a single commission appointed by the government  so far whose report or findings had been taken seriously and steps taken to implement their recommendations.  In fact, all such commissions have only been  exercises of denial of state responsibility, in instances when they  had been mandated to look into violations of human rights.

The recently appointed  ‘Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission’  in connection with the incidents relating to the conflict,  is bound to be another attempt at deception by the government which has now become well known for adopting such dubious tactics. As stated earlier this Commission is headed by the former Attorney General who crossed swords with IIGEP when he was in service and was well known for his  pro-government views.  His  personal links to the President  since their youthful days are also known.  Another key member of this Commission is the former representative of Sri Lanka at the UN where he had been vehemently defending the government’s  blood bath in the beaches of Mullaitivu during the war.  It is widely  alleged that  the President’s brother, the Defence Secretary who claims to have managed the war, had committed  violations of the rules of war and is responsible for the death of large number of civilians.  In the circumstances how can one expect  this commission to conduct its proceedings  without any bias ?

It is  obvious from the very beginning that this Commission is going to be another in the series of  deceptive commissions appointed so far,  and would suffer the same fate as most of the other Commissions.   To cap it all, the President was heard to say at an interview  Al Jazeera has  had with him recently,  that he was not going to punish any of his soldiers who fought the war valiantly to defeat the LTTE ! This statement is a pointer to the Commission not to find any military personnel guilty of any violation of the  rules of war or even the human rights of the victims of war.  Isn’t that statement of the President enough to expose the dubious intention of the President in appointing this Commission ?

[Editors note: The author was one of the secretaries of the first Provincial Council of the Western Province. We also encourage you to read Still waiting for justice in Sri Lanka by the author, published in March 2010, which also deals with Commissions of Inquiry in Sri Lanka.]

• Still waiting for justice in Sri Lanka
• THE LLRC AND COMPLAINTS OF DISAPPEARANCES OF PERSONS
• Disappearances of Persons in Sri Lanka
• Reflections One Year On: The Commission of Inquiry and the International Independent Group of Eminent Persons
• A Commissioner’s Perspective: Citizens’ Commission on the Expulsion of Muslims from the Northern Province by the LTTE

This remarkable victory augurs well for a country which has for more than thirty years, been passing through a turbulent  stage in its modern history. During that period much of the resources of the country had to be utilized to contain the LTTE  at the expense of neglecting the  development of  the country, especially in the North and the East. Heavy burdens were imposed  on the civil society which had to bear with an alarming increase in the cost of goods and services.  None of the Presidents who were  in power during such   turbulent periods, had been  able to muster that amount of power and popularity as President Rajapakse has been able to do.  It was  that  which enabled him to conduct  the war ruthlessly  to a finish, ignoring appeals by several international bodies and countries for a ceasefire to avert civilian casualties.

Now that President Rajapakse has become the virtual king of Sri Lanka everyone is waiting to see what he is going to do to put the country on the road to prosperity.  The LTTE is no more and the Tamil National Alliance which is a reasonably moderate Tamil Party has indicated that it is prepared to accept a political solution to the ethnic problem which would enable the Tamils and the other minorities to live as equal citizens within a united Sri Lanka. The Jatika Hela Urumaya which was a virulent extremist Sinhala Party is no longer in the current Parliament.  An important faction of the JVP headed by a person who had been   vociferously  against any concession to the Tamils,  is now a Minister under his government.   The party of the contender for the post of President at the last elections and the main party which was in the opposition earlier,  are now in tatters.  Consequently, the key political party in the opposition in the parliament   has become impotent.  They are unlikely to oppose any reasonable measures that the President may take to deal with the urgent issues facing the country.  The President  who was once a champion of the cause of the victims of human rights violations in the late 1980s and the early 1990s needs no lessons on the importance of  protecting  and promoting  human rights in the country.

The extra-ordinary circumstances that prevailed in the country when he became President had made him turn a blind eye to human rights violations that had been taking place in the country  so that he may deal with the  conflict related issues that were more urgent then.  Now that is history,  the door is now open for him to become a champion of the rights of all the citizens of this country.  Besides, it is no secret that most of the key departments of the State are under  ministries held by him or his  kith and kin.  With all these circumstances and opportunities being favourable to the President,  one could  reasonably  expect President Rajapakse to  gear up  his team to tackle the burning issues  with acumen and put the country on the right track  to peace and prosperity.  He certainly knows that this cannot be achieved unless all the people living in the country are treated as equal citizens without any discrimination whatsoever. Sri Lanka needs to be made a country where there is law and order, respect for democratic traditions and human values,   and where the human rights of  all  the citizens are guaranteed.

In his efforts to accomplish these expectations the President will inevitably have to face  numerous challenges. He certainly is capable and well equipped to meet these challenges. All that is needed now is ‘the will’ to  meet the expectations.  Regrettably, he appears to have got his priorities mixed up. In spite of  Rajapakse’s  unrelenting  military offensive he had always been saying that there needs to be a political solution to the ethnic problem.  He had been repeatedly saying that he would put forward a political solution to the ethnic conflict after the LTTE is defeated militarily.

Though almost an year has lapsed since the war ended, no meaningful steps appear to have been taken in all earnest to table the promised political solution.  Instead, building of statues and monuments to commemorate the  victory  are been given priority and the triumphalism that followed the war continues to be  encouraged.  The social consequences of such measures immensely  damage the reconciliation process that needs to be promoted for the welfare of the  future of the country.  There is no need for a study by a social scientist to understand that the militancy of the Tamil youth which eventually turned into terrorism, was only a symptom of the unresolved  problems of the Tamils which  had been allowed to fester through sheer  default by successive governments.  Unless steps are taken in all earnest to swiftly and effectively   deal with the factors that led to the war,  the victory achieved in May last year would be squandered in no time.  Trampled people cannot be held down for long  using  military might.   The moves to appoint a team to study the reasons for the conflict would be an exercise in futility.  There are an innumerable number of  books  by independent social scientists and  researchers on the ethnic problem in Sri Lanka   with  suggestions for  possible  remedies.

Besides the All Party Conference (APC) appointed by the President had, after prolonged discussions at its sittings that went on for years, was ready with a solution for the ethnic problem arrived at by consensus. It is no secret that that the President intervened and struck it down and wanted the learned Professor who headed the Conference to come out with an interim report on the lines suggested by him.  It is hoped that there will be no such dramatics in the future and that the President would take steps to prove his sincerity to arrive at a political solution for this problem.

We now have a political party which can rightly be called the elected representatives of the Tamils who have stated clearly in their manifesto  that they aim to achieve  a just settlement for the problems of the Tamils within a united Sri Lanka. This was re-iterated in the maiden speech of one of the newly elected  representative of the Jaffna electorate  where he eloquently stated  that reconciliation is the need of the hour to protect the country from sliding down the path of divisive politics which could lead to undesirable consequences for the whole nation.  It needs to be noted that in spite of all that had happened in the past, the TNA wants to live in a united Sri Lanka as equal citizens of this country. The President has to grab his opportunity and bring them into the fold to help him in his attempts to find a political solution to the ethnic problem.

There is an urgent need for a program of education of the people in the North and the South  to change their minds to look at each other with a sense of  amity rather than animosity, as is the case today. The President should be able to instill this into the minds of his supporters. A concerted effort is needed to make the people realize that ours is a land where there are neither oppressors nor oppressed.   As the President says, none should consider themselves to be minorities. If that be so, then there cannot be any room for anyone to think he belongs to a majority community.  The majority complex must also go.

There is no doubt that the continuation of the Emergency Regulations and the Prevention of Terrorism Act made way for serious human rights violations taking place in the country. Now that the terrorism is no more there is no justification for the continuance of the ER.  If the fear of the LTTE re-organising themselves  once more is the justification for this, then  it may be necessary for the ER to be kept in force till the ethnic problems is settled once and for all.  This means, the emergency rule is going to be there for a very long time to come.  Is that what the President wishes to do?  Despite the ER being in force abductions, disappearances of persons and extra-judicial killings still continue in the North and East, though on a smaller scale in the South.  Every effort should be made to make the frequent occurrence of these incidents,  a thing of the past.

With the non-implementation of the provisions of the 17^th Amendment to the Constitution, the people have lost confidence in the  institutions that were designed to promote human rights and ensure there is law and order in the country.  The President should not be seen as a person who violates the supreme law of the land – the Constitution. When he took the oath of office he had sworn to uphold the Constitution and abide by  its  provisions.    The 17^th Amendment is an integral part of the Constitution and was hailed as the first measure that the then Parliament had enacted  unanimously, restricting the discretionary power of the President to appoint anyone he pleases to the key institutions of the State.  The President should not be seen of availing himself of all the privileges and powers the Constitution has  conferred on him and not complying with the provisions of the 17^th Amendment which restricts  his discretion in appointing persons to high posts and members of Commissions created by the Constitution. The President needs to face the consequent challenge and comply with the 17^th Amendment without delay and  show the country that he abides by the Constitution and is not a person who would by-pass it on some pretext or the other.

The non-implementation of the 17^th Amendment has had a serious impact on the law and order situation in the country.  It was enacted at a time when political interference in all the key branches of the State mechanism had become a bane and brought  disrepute to the institutions such as the Police Service, the Public Service and even the Judicial Service.  During the short period when the provisions of this Amendment were in force  these services began to show signs of improvement and the politicians found it difficult to interfere in the duties of the respective services.   This was probably the reason why,  when the term of the first Constitutional Council (CC) expired, an excuse was found to avoid  constituting  a  fresh CC.   And eventually when the terms of the commissions  that were appointed  by the CC expired,  the President  started appointing his own nominees to the  such positions and commissions where the need arose. The upshot of  this  was that the images of these institutions got tarnished and relevant services  went back to the state in which they were,  prior to the enactment of the 17^th Amendment.   It is  hoped that the President would henceforth implement fully all the provisions of the 17^th Amendment or make the necessary changes to it if possible, and implement them faithfully. Let not this matter be  referred to a Parliamentary Select Committee once more and the drama re-enacted again.  The President needs to project himself as a person who abides by every provision of the Constitution, even if it is to his disadvantage.

The restoration of the rule of law would necessarily mean that all the checks and balances  in the  laws of the land which had been rendered in-operative  by the Emergency Regulations, should  be made operative. This would mean the provisions of the Fundamental Rights Chapter of the Constitution would have to be complied with. In other words there cannot be the rule of law  in the country as long as the ER is in force with  provisions that negate this concept.  If   the ER are not in force no one could be taken into custody on a mere suspicion and detained indefinitely. All those who are in custody for long periods without any charges being framed against them would be released.   Deterrent action should be taken against police officers who violate the human rights of the citizens. Torture of persons taken to custody should be a thing of the past. There should be no more deaths in custody.  Every incident of disappearance of a person, abduction or extra-judicial killings should be swiftly and thoroughly investigated  and the culprits brought to book.   Blaming ‘unknown persons’ as being responsible for such incidents should never be allowed to be the finding on any investigation into such a crime.  Ensuring that this happens  is  one of the  challenges  the President has to take in all earnest.  Recent reports indicate that the Attorney-General’s Department is to be  brought under the direct control of the President. This is a step backwards.   When most complaints of human rights violations are at the hands of state officers, how could one expect the Attorney-General to conduct prosecutions effectively against such officers who are the servants of the State.  Many Commissions of Inquiries into Disappearances of Persons have emphasized the need for an Independent Public Prosecutor in place of the Attorney General  to deal with cases pertaining to human rights violations because the Attorney General’s Department was, according these reports,  ‘not an independent institution’ . The International Independent Group of Eminent Persons who were invited by the President to  oversee the work of the then Commission inquiring into serious human rights violations, aborted their assignment  after making a scathing attack on the manner in which the Attorney General was  guiding the proceedings of that Commission.  There again the role of the Attorney General became questionable even while it was under the Ministry of Justice.  Now if it goes under the President’s direct control, one could imagine what would happen to its image which is already tarnished. It was revealed in a survey of the prosecutions initiated by the police who act on the advice of the Attorney General, that only four per cent of the cases so filed, end up in conviction.   Therefore improving the procedures  followed to  maintain law and order in the country  is another challenge facing the President.  He should not only ensure that there is fair play in the maintenance of law and order  but should also make it appear to be so.

The country has earned a reputation as being one of the dangerous places for journalists and that the State is hostile towards the independent media.  This is confirmed by the fact that several media personnel have been killed or have disappeared while many others have fled the country.  Perhaps the government thought a strict control of the media was necessary to fight the war effectively. Now that the war is over, it is  left to the President to  ensure that restrictions of the free media are removed.  A climate  conducive  to practice the   freedom of expression has to be created where  the media could function independently  and not only reflect the thoughts of the people but also to expose maladministration and  promote good governance.  Let us  hope the  President would take up this challenge head on and lift the restrictions on the media and make way for transparency and the freedom of expression.

The President wanted a 2/3^rd majority in the Parliament to enable him to make changes to the Constitution.  Whether the changes he is having in mind relate to the political solution to the ethnic problem or to whether they are to make his position and those of his kith and kin more secure, one does not know. But the fact remains that it is going to be a big challenge he would have to face in whichever way he is planning to amend the Constitution.  The 17^th Amendment to the Constitution is said to be flawed because it was pushed through Parliament in a mighty hurry without allowing room for a wide public discussion on the provisions of this Amendment. Let not the President repeat this mistake.  Any amendments to the Constitution he has in mind must be made public well in time to enable a wide discussion on the  pros and cons of the proposals.

President Rajapakse’s sweeping victories had been on the support he had received from the marginalized groups in society based on the expectation that there will be post war opportunities which would lead to  prosperity to the country and benefit his supporters.  Given the state of the finances of the government that is not going to be an easy task.  It would not take long for the disappointed supporters to eventually become disillusioned. They  may even turn against the President. There appears to be no letup in the lavish expenses incurred in providing without delay,  privileges and positions to the newly elected  Members of Parliament.  They have wasted no time in ordering duty free limousines for them to get about!   It is time the President took stringent austerity measures and got the parliamentarians to set an example in prudent living before advising the people to do so.  Then he needs to crack down on government expenditure on unproductive ventures. There had been many of that kind in the recent past. Thereafter the President has to devise ways and means of dealing with the unprecedented rise in the   cost of living before it reaches the breaking point.

The other challenge the President will face is the  need to  increase the production of food crops and providing employment opportunities to the ever increasing number of unemployed.  Rice production which was once nearing the point of self-sufficiency, has now dropped far below the expected levels.  Sri Lanka was once the largest supplier of tea to the world. But last year Kenya has succeeded in pushing Sri Lanka to the second place. The war has resulted in  large extents of agricultural land in the North  being  not  utilized for cultivation.   There is an urgent need to revive agricultural activities in the North.  The irrigation canals around the Iranaimadu Tank in the Kilinochchi District and the Giant’s Tank in the Mannar District have to be repaired to enable those being re-settled in those areas to commence cultivation. Cultivators in the Jaffna Peninsula  and the other  districts in the North were one of the leading suppliers of   plantains, seasonal fruits,  onion, chillies and other vegetables to the South. The best area for cultivation is inside the high security zone.  With the displacement of the residents around Mutur, Kinniya and Sampoor  the lands they had been cultivating  are now fallow. All these cultivators need to be given every possible assistance to resume their traditional activities and contribute to the increase of food production in the country.  The same could be said about the fisherman in the Northern Districts whose activities have been curtailed due to restrictions on their movement in the sea. These restrictions  need to be  relaxed  without delay and their activities encouraged to increase fish production.  Meeting these challenges  would help the President  to reduce the cost of living at least to a certain extent and provide employment opportunities to the people in the respective are areas.

While  the President is talking of reconciliation, it is desirable that all  the members of his party in the Parliament should also talk on the same tenor.  Regrettably,  the Defence Secretary, who is the de facto Defence Minister, appears to play a  different  tune.  He has launched on a project to   wipe out all the LTTE cemeteries in the North and is going on a spree of putting up monuments to commemorate the government’s military victory.   There had been reports of such cemeteries being bull dozed one after the other.   These graves contain the remains of  LTTE personnel and others who had died during the war.  Each of them has surviving members of his family, to whom the grave is a place where they perform solemn religious rites  during  anniversaries. The survivors could be  grieving widows  and their children  or even the aged parents of the persons concerned.  Demolishing these graves is a highly inhuman, immoral  and vengeful act which is not going help in the reconciliation process the President hopes to set in motion.

One needs to remember that the war has left behind a large number of victims who have been rendered destitute.  An estimate says that there are nearly 50,000 war widows languishing without anyone to care, either for them or their siblings. In the North nearly 5000 men have been  maimed during the war.  About 11,000 to 15,000 youth are detained as LTTE suspects without their next of kin being informed. 250 university students are also in custody.  Even the Members  of Parliament  are not allowed to visit them.  The names of those  detained are not made public.  Many grieving Tamils have no way of finding out if their loved ones are dead or alive.  These are all citizens of Sri Lanka.  It is the responsibility of the State to inform the next of kin of those detained, that they are under detention.   If the President is serious about reconciliation these problems of the war victims’ should be addressed without delay.  There must be a permanent rehabilitation policy at the national level for the war widows, the maimed and those under detention. They need to be helped to begin a new life.  The education of  the children among the displaced  needs to be  ensured so that eventually they may become assets to society and not liabilities.

The announcement that a truth and reconciliation commission is to be appointed raises many questions.  Many would look at this move with skepticism.    The same fate that befell to the several commissions of inquiry into disappearances of persons that were appointed in the past, may happen to the proposed Commission as well.   It is a well-known fact that the reports of these commissions are gathering dust in the archives of the President’s Office while  many of the perpetrators against whom the Commissions had found credible material indicative of their involvement in these disappearances, are enjoying high positions in their respective services.  The President is aware of this.

Be that as it may,  the proposed truth and reconciliation commission,  even if it is determined  to get to the bottom of all that happened during the offensive,  it will not be able to make headway without an effective witness protection law in place.  One remembers how many witnesses to the killing of 17 NGO workers in Muttur were scared to come and given evidence before the Udalagama Commission for fear of reprisals.  A medical doctor, who was an eye witness to the killing of his undergraduate son in Trincomalee where  five  students were shot dead  near the beach in the high security zone,  had to flee from the country before he could give evidence  before this Commission due to threats to his life to stop him from giving evidence.   In the circumstances the President has an uphill task  in achieving his objective of finding out what actually happened during the last days of the war  while  there is no witness protection law in place.   Whether  the aim of the President is to sincerely  find out what actually happened or  whether  the idea of appointing a Commission had been put forward for some other sinister motive, is anybody’s guess.  Further,  even if the Commission is appointed and conducts proceedings to achieve the objective of the President, what is there to prevent  the same fate that happened to the Commission  of Inquiry appointed by him in 2007 to inquire into  fifteen high profile human rights violations happening  to this Commission too.  The former Commission was disbanded before they could  complete their inquiries into even one third of the cases they were tasked to inquire. Their report  is yet to be published, and may not be made public at all.   Let the President not take the people of the country and the international community for granted. Let him not  think that they will not  realize his dubious maneuvers.  He needs to do much more to  improve the credibility of his moves, if he is to take the country forward.

Finally the President has the daunting task of improving the seriously damaged  impression of the country abroad. The repeated denials of what  is alleged to  have happened before, during and after the war  has not done any good to the  government. The international community looks at  Sri Lanka as a country  fast approaching a status similar to  pariah states such as Myanmar, Sudan, Somalia,  etc.  This was confirmed by the fact that the first  overseas visit the President made after the war,  was to Myanmar, perhaps to get the blessings of the leader of the ruling military junta General Than Shwe.  He  is known the world,  over as a ruthless dictator who was responsible for the massacre of a large number people of his country, including Buddhist Priests and suppressing democratic movements in Myanmar. He is also notorious for imprisoning  a democratically elected leader, Aung San Suu Kyi, for more than  fourteen years.   On his return visit to Sri Lanka this General  was given a grand reception much to the dismay of the Sri Lankan Buddhist clergy.  This exchanges of diplomatic courtesies  did not augur well for the good name of the country.

In the eyes of the UN,  Sri Lanka is a State that is alleged to have violated many  International  Conventions during the conflict  and the Secretary General even contemplated appointing a UN team of experts to advise him on what is actually happening in Sri Lanka  as against what the government is saying.  Sri Lanka has been doing its best to prevent  such a team being appointed. The UN Secretary General appears to have had second thoughts about it.    Visits of UN fact finding missions to Sri Lanka are looked upon with scorn. That has only made the outside world feel  that the government has many things to hide.  There is speculation whether the decision of the President to appoint a Commission to find out what happened during the last days of the war, could be a ploy to avert the UN appointing its own team for this purpose.  It is now left to our all powerful  President  to initiate measures to  restore  the good name of the country.

The newly appointed Minister of External Affairs has expressed concern about the activities of the Tamil Diaspora. The Prime Minister has also  joined in the fray and has taken umbrage against the international community for not curtailing their activities in the respective countries.  They need to realize they have  only to strengthen  the hands of the President  to  find  an amicable solution to  the ethnic problem  so that  they could easily  take the wind out of the sails  of the   instinctive machinations  of the Tamil Diaspora  to  rescue their brethren in distress.  If  the President succeeds in this effort,  it is likely that this same Diaspora could make a remarkable financial contribution to the re-building of the war ravaged infrastructure in the North.    If otherwise, the Tamil Diaspora has the potential to becoming  the bane of Sri Lanka in the years to come and sap its energies away from  the goal of  the President to  usher into the post-war  Sri Lanka,  the dawn of a golden age.  He has proved his mettle in winning the war. It is now left to him to prove his ability to win the minds of the Tamils.

• THE CONTINUING VIOLATION OF THE SEVENTEENTH AMENDMENT: YET MORE UNCONVINCING EXCUSES
• A brief response to Dr G.L. Pieris
• “Sound is no substitute for argument”: Exclusive video of TNA MP M.A. Sumanthiran’s speech in parliament against 18th Amendment
• In conversation with Dr. Jayampathy Wickramaratne
• Impeachment of Public Officials

The Mandates of these  Commissions
It needs to be noted that the Mandates of the three Zonal Commissions authorized the COIs to inquire only into incidents of disappearances that occurred  after 1^st January, 1988. This resulted in a large number of disappearances that occurred during the period before that date being excluded from being inquired into by these COIs.

At the time the COIs were appointed. Jaffna was under the control of the LTTE and the people of that  area had no electricity or access to information. They were not able to travel freely to the South.  So many of the victims of disappearances in the North at that time did not even know there was a COI appointed to inquire into such incidents.  Consequently, the North East Zonal COI, which incidentally never had a sitting in Jaffna, received very few complaints from the Jaffna District.

In the conduct of their inquiries the COIs are exempted from the requirement to comply with the provisions of the Evidence Ordinance so they were able to come to a finding on a balance of probabilities based on the evidence of  complainant and other witnesses,   and on an examination of the relevant information books and records at the police stations. The COIs had to, inter alia, come to a  finding on whether credible material indicative of the person or persons responsible,  was available.

The COIs were also expected to  report on the whereabouts of the persons alleged to have disappeared.  This could not be done satisfactorily as they had no access to the several unauthorized detention centres about which the COIs became aware during course of the inquiries.

When the COIs had concluded their inquiries and were in the process of writing their reports, the Secretary to the President summoned the Chairmen and Secretaries of the COIs and informed them that any compensation contemplated should not be a burden to the finances of the country.   They  were  directed to fall in line with the provisions of a circular issued in 1987 with regard to compensation to victims of the riots that took place during that year.  This circular had specified a scale of compensation ranging from Rs.15,000 to a student who had been killed or disappeared to Rs.500,000 to a politician who had been killed or disappeared. The COIs had no option in this matter and had to comply  with the directive and they have added a note in their Reports  indicating their disapproval  with the grading of the disappeared persons and the  amounts  to be paid as compensation.

Procedure of recording evidence
In view of the large number of complaints that had been received by the COIs, the evidence of the complainants and the witnesses were led only up to the point where credible material indicative of the person responsible came to light.  During the trials where the court cases had been filed, the prosecution had not appraised the  courts of this fact. Consequently  the  defense counsel were able to take advantage of this deficiency and plead that  the details of the incident as given by the  witness during the trial,  were  fabrications.

Ignored Recommendations
The key recommendation with regard to the legal action  to be taken against the alleged perpetrators was that ‘an independent public prosecutor should be appointed’ to prosecute in cases of disappearances. In making this recommendation the COIs  implied  that the Attorney General may not be able to play a neutral role in these cases. Yet  these  cases were handled by the lawyers in the Missing Persons Unit of the Attorney General’s Department. They perused the evidence and  passed on the files for further investigations by the Disappearances Investigation Unit of the Criminal Investigation Department which had been set up for this purpose.  The latter  consisted of police officers. The brotherly feeling they had with the perpetrators,  some of whom had been their colleagues , superiors or subordinate officers, stood in the way of  effective investigations being carried out in all earnest.

Among the perpetrators against whom the COIs found credible material indicative of their responsibility for the disappearances  are, the names of several leading politicians, high ranking officers in the police and security forces many of whom are still in service in higher positions. The victims of the disappeared who gave evidence of their involvement in the incidents concerned,  are  helpless spectators of these persons who are now  in high positions despite their misdoings.

The President called for a special  report from the Central Zone COI  on the killing  of a candidate contesting a leading politician on the request by the influential wife of the deceased.  In compliance with this request, the Commission did a thorough investigation and  submitted a special report. The  passports of the security officers of this politician who were complicit in the killing, were impounded.  Yet no action was taken against this politician despite there being enough evidence of his involvement in the killing.  Subsequently the wife of the deceased, who had complained to the COI and caused a special report to be submitted, was made a Minister following which  the  Special Report was swept under the carpet.

The COIs drew the attention of the government to the information on the existence of  about ten mass graves and several torture chambers in various parts of the country. It was recommended that these be investigated into, yet, successive  governments  did not take any action with regard to this recommendation even though the location of these places and the names of the persons who were responsible for them were made available in the   statements of the relevant witnesses who gave evidence before the COIs.

Interim Report VII of the Central Zone COI refers to an officer in charge of a police station in the North Western Province who was alleged to have  threatened  a complainant and his family for having given evidence against him before the COI. This  matter was  brought to the notice of the President with a recommendation that this officer be interdicted forthwith and disciplinary action taken against him.  But this recommendation was ignored. Subsequently this police officer was promoted to the level of an Assistant Superintendent of Police, despite this case and  his involvement in several disappearances in the area where he served.

No disciplinary action against errant police officers
Though it was recommended that disciplinary action should be taken against all police officers who were found by the Commissions to have violated departmental rules and procedures, no such action had been taken against any of them.  Given below  are some instances of such violations found by the COIs -

• In spite of a circular by the IGP directing that all Information Books relating  to the period of the COIs  should be preserved until the COIs had completed their task, it was found that many OIC’s had destroyed these books.
• Where complains of disappearances had been accepted by the police,  such complaints had been recorded in  the Minor Offences Register. This indicates that whoever recorded such a  complaint considered the disappearance of a person to be a ‘minor offence’. Yet no action has been  taken against the officers concerned for this serious lapse.
• There were instances where the list of detainees at a police station on a given day, did not contain the  names of some individuals who had in fact been detained as was evident from such names appearing in  Diet Register for that particular day which was maintained by another officer.  This non-entering of the name of the persons in the detainees register is indicative of the intention of the OIC of that station. Many such persons had disappeared. Yet no action had been taken against such police officers.
• There had been evidence of female complainants having been raped by police officers either at the police  station when they came to make complaints or at other places  during  search operations. No action had been taken  against  any such officer even though evidence of such instances had been recorded.

Miscellaneous
The copies of the Reports of the COIs  that were  printed and made public by the Presidential Secretariat  do not contain all the contents of the reports that were handed to the President.  While sections  of the Reports had been omitted in some reports,  parts of the reports in others had been completely left out. Thereby  some important information which  the original reports contained had not been made public.

The mandate of the All Island Commission on Disappearances was identical to those of the Zonal Commissions  except that it was authorized only to inquire into the 10136  complaints that had been received by the Zonal Commissions and left un-inquired. In other words  it was precluded from inquiring into  any new complaints.  Yet   while  the Commission was functioning it  received  12,000 new complaints of disappearances which it was not authorized to inquire into. These complaints have been listed and  included in the Report of the COI with a recommendation that the President should take action to inquire into  them at a future date.

At the time the  All Island Commission was appointed in 1998  Jaffna had been regained from the LTTE and had come under government control.  About 600  of the new complaints received by this Commission were  in respect of  disappearances from the Jaffna District which occurred following the takeover of Jaffna by the government. The Citizens Committee of Batticaloa handed a list of 7000 disappearances with a note that these were not filed before the COIs appointed in 1994 as the persons who were alleged to be responsible for the incidents  were  still in service at the respective stations in the East. So the complainants were afraid to complain against them at that time.

Of the 600 alleged to have disappeared from Jaffna, 341 complaints  had been filed at the  National Human Rights Commission. This Commission  appointed a Committee to which it  delegated its  powers  to inquire into these 341 complaints. The Report of this Committee states that  in an overwhelming number of  those cases  there was clear evidence that the army in Jaffna had taken the persons concerned into custody and that there is no evidence whatsoever as to what happened to them thereafter.

The National Human Rights Commission launched on a project to process the 12,000 complaints  left un-inquired by the All Island Commission and to compile a computerized data base of all the  information  on the disappearances that had been inquired into up to that date  by the COIs.  Unfortunately, this project was aborted with the change of government and the new set of members taking over the Human Rights Commission by-passing  the provisions of the 17th Amendment to the Constitution.

As stated earlier in this document,  the role of the Attorney-General in prosecuting disappearances cases was discussed  by the COIs in their reports and they have  recommended the appointment of an Independent Public Prosecutor with constitutional safeguards.  This was cited by the International Independent Group of Eminent Persons who too contended that the Attorney General was not an independent person and should not lead evidence  at the COI appointed in 2007  to inquire into serious human rights violations.

Conclusion
Successive governments continued to ignore the recommendations of the Commissions with  regard to the perpetrators  and the steps that need to be taken to  prevent the re-occurence of such incidents in the future. This promoted the culture of impunity which had by then  pervaded the police and  security forces personnel.  It has been said in a lighter vein that the COIs have helped the successive  governments to identify those in the  police and army who could be used to cause  disappearances  effectively. By this time causing the disappearance of a person  had by then become a useful weapon  in the hands of whichever government that came to power.  Even the current incidents of disappearances could be by such persons who  have  by now become adept in the technique.

The three major parties in Sri Lanka - the UNP , the SLFP and the JVP are not interested in dealing with perpetrators of disappearances.  They have not pressed for the implementation of the recommendations of the COIs in this regard  perhaps  because, at some time or the other, each of these parties have themselves  used this weapon  on those who  had become  thorns on their backs. In the circumstances  the victims of disappearances who are waiting for justice have no hope whatsoever  of getting  justice meted out to them  in the near future.

###

This is an edited version of a presentation made by the writer at a panel discussion organized by the International Commission of Jurists at the UN in Geneva on 18th March, 2010, on the occasion of the launching of the book “Rule of Law, The Criminal Justice System and Commissions of Inquiry since 1977” written by Kishali Pinto Jayawardena.

The author was formerly Secretary to two Commissions of Inquiry into Disappearances in Sri Lanka.

• THE LLRC AND COMPLAINTS OF DISAPPEARANCES OF PERSONS
• The latest Commission of Inquiry in Sri Lanka: Another Exercise in Deception
• Mass Graves: Nothing new to Sri Lanka
• Disappearances of Persons in Sri Lanka
• Dealing with law and order as an issue of the Presidential elections

1. Introduction

In the aftermath of the defeat of the LTTE in Sri Lanka, many expected the government to put forward the promised political solution to the problems of the Tamils which led to the war. Those who expected this were disappointed when the President said at a recent interview with the ‘Hindu’ newspaper that the solution would be put forward only after the next Presidential elections. Almost soon after this statement, the Indian High Commissioner in Sri Lanka is reported to have said that the Indian government is putting pressure on the President to put forward the solution as soon as possible. Whether such pressure would bring the expected results is to be seen.

India and many others have been suggesting that only a full implementation of the provisions of the 13^th Amendment to the Constitution with additional measures to make the devolution more effective, was the most feasible way of meeting the aspirations of the Tamils. While the Tamil National Alliance (TNA) which has a majority of representatives in the Parliament has turned down this suggestion as being no where near their expectations, the Jathika Hela Urumiya and the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna on the other hand have strongly come out against the implementation of the 13^th Amendment, as they fear that would pave the way for a separation of the country. If that be so, the TNA seems to be so foolish as to reject out right, accepting the 13^th Amendment. Much has been written on this subject in various journals and discussed extensively at seminars and workshop both locally and internationally. In spite of that there are many more who have not yet understood the true implications of the various provisions of the 13^th Amendment which have been so skillfully introduced into it and the Provincial Councils Act (PCA) by its creators to make it appear that power has in fact been devolved to the Provincial Councils. This situation is aptly described by Dayan Jayatilleke, the Representative of the Sri Lanka Government at the United Nations as follows:

“The Sinhalese oppose the 13^th Amendment precisely because there is something of substance in it. That’s precisely why the Tamil democrats must support it. The Tamil ultras (Prabaharan) opposed and still oppose the 13^th Amendment as it does not amount to nor is it a fast track to separation, and indeed undercuts the separatist goal. That’s is precisely why the Sinhala centrists, moderates and progressives, and indeed, enlightened Sinhala nationalists should support it.”

Does not this clearly show, that while both parties to the conflict have misgivings about the provisions of the 13^th Amendment, Dayan is urging the ‘Sinhala centrists, moderates and progressives and indeed the enlightened Sinhala nationalists’ to support it not because it devolves power to the Provincial Councils but precisely because there is nothing in it that takes away any of the powers the President has over the Provincial Councils as provided for in the Constitution.

Dr. S. Narapalasingham, has this to say in his article “Why 13^th Amendment per se is inadequate?”

“…..the Thirteenth Amendment per se which was drafted in bad faith, is no where near what is really needed to make all Sri Lankans to feel they are equal stakeholders. ……sadly even after half a century playing with words and doing little by way of worthwhile deeds, has brought the country to the present tragic state. The thinking that complex problems could be wished away, still prevails.”

Let us therefore take a critical look at some of the provisions of the said Amendment and the PCA to see if the devolution of powers they appear to provide for, is a fact or a fiction.

2. Executive Power of the Provincial Council

Each Provincial Council has a Governor appointed at the sole discretion of the President to be the executive head of the provincial administration. But he exercises such power through the Chief Minister and the four Provincial Ministers who are appointed by him. Since the Governor holds office at the pleasure of the President he has to always do what pleases the President. If he does otherwise he can be dismissed. Thus one could see that the Governor is a mere figurehead who is subject to the control and directions of the President. Thereby the provincial councils to which power is said to be devolved do not have any control over the Governor who exercises the powers of the President over the province. Let us now see how the Governor exercises the executive power he is supposed to have.

The 13^th Amendment goes on to say that the Governor shall exercise such executive power ‘either directly or through the Ministers of the Board of Ministers, or through officers subordinate to him’. The term ‘officers subordinate to him refers’ to the members of the Provincial Public Service which has been created under the provisions of the Provincial Councils Act. The relevant section provides that a Provincial Public Service shall be established and that the power of appointment, transfer, dismissal and disciplinary control of the officers of this service shall be vested in the Governor. Thus it can be seen the Provincial Council does not even have any power over its public officers who are expected to implement the decisions of the Council. They are obliged to comply with directives of the Governor and shall be loyal to him only.

Let us now look at the powers of the Provincial Ministers through whom the Governor is expected to exercise his executive power. The 13^th Amendment provides that the function of the Chief Minister and the Board of Ministers is ‘to aid and advice’ the Provincial Governor in the exercise of his functions. So it is clear that the Ministers of the Province do not have any discretionary power in the administration of the province. It is further provided that the Chief Minister has a duty to communicate to the Governor all decisions taken at the meetings of the Board of Ministers. Therefore the Provincial Ministers cannot do anything behind the back of the Governor without risking having to face the consequences, such as dismissal from office. The Ministers are also obliged to provide whatever information the Governor requires pertaining to the relevant functions of the Ministry which again have been assigned to such Ministry by the Governor himself.

The only instance where the Governor is obliged to act on the advice provided by the Chief Minister in on matters relating to the ceremonial opening of the sessions of the council, the choice of Ministers from among the elected members, proroguing the sessions of the Council and such other formal matters.

3. Legislative Powers

As for legislative powers, the Ninth Schedule to the 13^th Amendment sets out three lists of subjects and functions – the Reserved List (RL), the Provincial Council List (PCL) and the Concurrent List (CL). The Reserved List contains powers that are exclusively reserved to the Central Government. Similarly the Provincial Councils can pass statutes on matters specified in PCL and when a statute is so passed the pre 1987 law passed by the Parliament on that subject becomes inoperative in the province, if the statute states in its long title that the statute is inconsistent with such law. However the legislative power of the PC in regard to a subject that is in the PC list is not exclusive. In other words, while the RL contains exclusive powers of the Centre , the PCL contains powers of the PC but are not their exclusive powers. The Constitution only requires that a Parliamentary bill on a subject in the PCL must be referred to all the PCs for the expression of their views, if all agree the bill can be passed with a simple majority. If one or more of the PCs do not agree, it can be passed with a simple majority but is only applicable to those PCs that agreed. But if such bill is passed by a two third majority, it is applicable to all PCs, whether they agreed to it or not.

With regard to the subjects in the CL both the Parliament and the PCs can legislate on them but only in consultation with each other. Here the word used is in ‘consultation with’ and not with the ‘concurrence of’. In the event of inconsistency the Parliamentary law will prevail.

It needs to be noted that the RL makes provisions for the Parliament to set out the national policy on all subjects and functions. This is a provision that has been consistently abused by successive governments. It provides that the Parliament can lay down National Policy by a simple majority which means the PCs cannot pass any legislation that contravenes the national policy on the subject. It means that the National Policy on matters set out in the PCL and the CL would be the framework to which the laws of the PCs should conform to. For instance, provision of road transport services is in the PL. In terms of this Mr. Mahinda Samarasinghe, the current Minister of Disaster Management and Human Rights who was then the Minister of Transport in the first Western Provincial Council, brought in a statute to run a transport service in the Western Province and had even purchased three buses from China and inaugurated the transport service. Within weeks of the service being inaugurated, the Central Government declared that running such a service was in conflict with the National Policy on Transport and the statute was declared invalid and the Minister was removed from office by the then President. In other words, even though the 13^th Amendment stipulates that National Policy could only be laid down by an act of Parliament, successive government have been laying down national policy through cabinet directives and Ministry circulars.

In 1995 a Committee called the Gunawardena Committee was appointed to study the operation of the Provincial Councils and its report speaks of Ministries of the Central Government interpreting National Policy in operational terms and had been extending their authority over the Provincial Ministries by administrative action on subjects that are in the PCL. A case in point is that the while the relevant provisions of the Provincial Councils Act confers various powers to the Governor over the members of the Provincial Public Service, the Ministry of Public Administration continues to issue directives and circulars on matters relating to the members of the Provincial Public Service.

As regards the statutes that the PCs can pass with regard to the subjects in the PCL, in 1988 when the PCs started functioning it was found that there were about 300 laws already in force pertaining to subjects in the PCL and the CL. All these referred to the functions and powers of the Ministers and officials in the Central Government. The PCs had to make the necessary changes in these laws to transfer such powers and functions to the Ministers and officials of the Provincial Councils. Because the PCs do not have a legal draftsman or the necessary capacity to draft its laws, many of the earlier laws still remain in force and the Centre still exercises its powers and functions of these subjects which should now be exercised by the PCs. To rectify this matter the Provincial Councils (Consequential Provisions) Act No. 12 of 1989 was passed providing that all reference to officials under the Central Government in subjects that are now in the PCL should be construed as reference to the corresponding provincial authority. Yet there are about 200 laws in respect of matters in the CL which are not covered by this Act. This is because the PCs still do not have the resources needed to go into these enactments and make the necessary changes. Consequently they are unable to still exercise executive power over these subjects. The Centre continues to exercise authority in such matters.

4. Financial Control

Besides executive and legislative power, a governing body needs finances to carry on its policies and administration. The 13^th Amendment provides for a Finance Commission to be established with the sole function of recommending to the Central Government the amount of funds that should be allocated to meet the requirements of the Provincial Council. The members of this Commission are appointed by the President. They shall be the Governor of the Central Bank, the Secretary to the Treasury and three other members to represent each of the three major communities of Sri Lanka. However, the President is not obliged to comply with the recommendation of this Commission and can on his own determine how much should be provided for each Province. All monies allocated to each Province shall be deposited in a Provincial Fund into which all revenue collected from the Province by way of taxes etc and all loans provided to the province from the Consolidated Fund shall be deposited. The Provincial Council however cannot withdraw any monies from the Provincial Fund without the sanction of the Governor. Besides, the Provincial Council cannot pass any statute which would involve expenditure from the Provincial Fund without the recommendation of the Governor.. The Provincial Council cannot also pass any statute imposing or abolishing any taxes without the consent of the Governor. The Governor is obliged to make rules regulating the use of funds of the Provincial Council. Even the Chief Minister cannot authorize the withdrawal of funds unless a Provincial Statute has been passed authorizing the used of such sum during a given financial year. Every statute passed by a Provincial Council shall become operative only after the Governor has given his assent.

Thus it is patently clear that the Provincial Council has no discretionary power on matters relating to the finances of the Council. Here again the concept of devolution of power is nullified by the restrictions imposed on expenditure.

5. Other Powers of the President over the Provincial Councils

From time to time the President can give directions to any Provincial Council. If it fails to comply with any such a directive, the President can hold that the provincial administration is not being carried out according to the Constitution and make a declaration that the Parliament is taking over the functions of that Council and the President can assume the functions of the Provincial Ministers by issuing a proclamation as provided for.

So long as the Chief Minister is from the President’s political party and carries out the plans of the President and his party for the Province, there will be absolute co-operation between the Centre and the Province. In such a situation the Chief Minister and the Board of Ministers will not have any qualms over the devolved powers they enjoy without any interference from the Governor of the Province. Problems will arise only when the Chief Minister of the Province is not from the party of the President and he has his own plans for the development of the Province. This is exactly what is happening in the Eastern Provincial Council where the Chief Minister of the Province and the Minister of Health who is the spokesman of the PC, are reported to have publicly expressed displeasure at the Governor of the Province not allowing them “even to appoint a labourer of the Minister’s choice ” to the provincial hospital. It is only in such a situation that the Provincial Council will realize that they do not exercise any discretionary power to either by-pass or ignore directions of the Governor who is, as said before, is the representative of the President in the Province.

6. Miscellaneous matters

What we have seen all this while are some of the main provisions that nullify the belief that the implementation of the 13^th Amendment would devolve power to the Provincial Councils and pave the way for a separate state. They fall far short of the aspirations of the Tamils. The problems that led to the war will continue even after this amendment is implemented either in full or in part. Two other matters have often been highlighted in this connection, that is the question of the establishment of a Provincial Police Force and the devolution of powers over land. Even if these powers are granted in full, the other provisions relating to the Governor’s powers will nullify any devolution in these matters. Besides, the centre can always declare its national policy on any of these matters and take away with the left hand what it gives with the right.

In short, the executive and legislative powers of the Provincial Council continues to be with the President and exercised by the Governor whom he appoints while the Governor exercises such powers with the assistance and advice of the Chief Minister, the members of the Board of Ministers and through the members of the Provincial Public Service. The Chief Minister and the members of the Board of Ministers just cannot defy the Governors authority.

7. Conclusion

The 13^th Amendment was adopted by the Parliament with an overwhelming majority – above the constitutionally mandated majority after debate, and is very much part of our Constitution. The President is obliged under his oath of office to perform his functions in accordance with the Constitution. The defeat of the LTTE has provided President Rajapakse a golden opportunity to settle the problems of the Tamils once and for all. His current popularity among the Sinhalese could make them accept whatever solution he puts forward to the problem saying that it is the need of the hour to bring about lasting peace and prosperity to the country. He could achieve this expectation only by putting forward a solution that would ensure a devolution of powers to the Provinces which would in fact be a true devolution and not a fictitious one. One that leaves no room for any community to feel discriminated or treated as second class citizens. He now has a historic duty to rise to the occasion, act according to the need of the hour and become a statesman. If he misses this opportunity, the problems of the Tamil will remain a festering wound in the body politic of this country and would necessitate the maintenance of an oversized military force which the country can hardly afford, due to fears of the defeated forces rising from their graves, persisting.

This cost will eventually become unbearable and be a stumbling block to the forward march of the nation, as it had been all these years.

• THE DISSOLUTION OF THE NORTH CENTRAL AND SABARAGAMUWA PROVINCIAL COUNCILS: THE CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES
• The Full Implementation of the Thirteenth Amendment: What Can Be Done?
• An exclusive interview with Eastern Province Chief Minister Pillayan after the TMVP’s arms decommissioning
• The 13th Amendment as a political solution
• Aftermath of the Victory: whither Sri Lanka?

The modus operandi of the widespread abductions and disappearances we witness in Sri Lanka today is similar to what we saw in the late 1980s and early 1990s. President Rajapakse, who was a Member of Parliament then, was in the forefront of the struggle against these incidents. Now his regime has become one of the world’s worst perpetrators of enforced disappearances. Members of the security forces, police and pro-government groups are alleged to be involved in these incidents.

The government has demonstrated an utter lack of resolve to inquire and investigate into these incidents. It downplays the problem, denying the scale of the incidents and blaming unknown persons for them. It is being said that since the government is in the midst of a war, it did not want to demoralize the soldiers by investigating into incidents of this nature. Consequently these incidents continue with impunity often at, near or between security check points, or during curfew hours in the North, leaving no doubt as to who the perpetrators are. Some persons so abducted had been later found in detention centres or in police custody. Others remain disappeared.

Lawyers and other human rights defenders who assist victims are branded as traitors or otherwise penalised. Even UN officials and Parliamentarians who espouse their cause have been named as supporters of the LTTE.

Sri Lanka is unique in that virtually all the major parties represented in parliament, have at some stage or the other, been collaborators or perpetrators of disappearances. None of these parties seriously want to deal with the perpetrators or put an end to this sordid practice. Successive governments appear to have found causing the disappearances of individuals who oppose them or who could pose a threat to the government in power, a convenient tool in their hands. It is therefore no wonder that none of these political parties are serious in putting an end to disappearances or punishing perpetrators. Consequently, the families of the victims of disappearances have no one to look up to.

In the circumstances there is an urgent need to take immediate measures to ensure that speedy and effective remedial action is taken against those who commit these acts with impunity. Despite recommendations from all the previous Presidential Commissions of Inquiry into Disappearances, the causing of a disappearance of a person is still not an offence in the Penal Code. Besides, no steps have been taken to ratify the Convention on Disappearances of Persons though Sri Lanka was one of the countries that proposed such a Convention, initially.

The primary responsibility of any state is to maintain law and order in the country. But the government in Sri Lanka is a dumb witness to widespread abductions, torture, extra-judicial killings and disappearances of persons taking place systematically. The judiciary is unable to play its role in checking the occurrence of these incidents. The Emergency Regulations provide legitimacy to some of the incidents through allowing the disposal of bodies without inquiry and so on. The National Human Rights Commission is not in a position to check these incidents due to inherent flaws in the Law that created it and the political nature of the appointment of its members. The government has not taken any meaningful steps to deal with the perpetrators of disappearances in the past identified by previous Presidential Commissions of Inquiry into Disappearances. These led to Sri Lanka being ousted from membership of the UN Human Rights Council last year. Yet these incidents continue. The wide call for an international monitoring mission to curb such incidents has been staunchly resisted by the Government, confirming its lack of commitment to stop this scourge. In fact the International Independent Group of Eminent Persons invited by the Government in 2007 to observe the proceedings of a Presidential Commission of Inquiry into Serious Human Rights Violations, aborted their activities in 2008 stating, inter alia, because the government lacks the will and the desire to follow human rights norms during the inquiries.

All that is left now is for the international community to do is to take cognizance of all these factors and treat Sri Lanka as a failing state as many allege it to be; unable or unwilling to stop disappearances. That may perhaps make the government take steps to improve the human rights situation and end disappearances of persons in the country.

(This is a copy of a submission by M.C.M.Iqbal, a Sri Lankan Human Rights Activist living in The Netherlands at the UNHRC on 9^th March, 2009)

• THE LLRC AND COMPLAINTS OF DISAPPEARANCES OF PERSONS
• Still waiting for justice in Sri Lanka
• The latest Commission of Inquiry in Sri Lanka: Another Exercise in Deception
• Mass Graves: Nothing new to Sri Lanka
• Don’t mix up war crimes investigations with political issues in Sri Lanka