thanks. what was the reason for the debarring of the confessions?

on the point of shit rolling downhill, i think that’s a universal phenomenon (which is why i pointed to My Lai and Abu Ghraib), and not just limited to the military.

David, thanks for your comments and questions.

Re your comment about the other accused, I think you’re right. There was probably insufficient evidence in respect of the other accused. We have no idea as to whether the other accused were innocent or guilty, and can only applaud a judgment that acquits persons against whom a charge has not been proved, provided the charges in fact were not proved. That’s not my problem. My problem is that despite this being a crime that was clearly committed by a group of people, evidence as to the identities and responsibility of the others wasn’t uncovered. It boggles the mind that this wasn’t done through solid investigative work, but sadly, it is all too common in our system. Some indication of this is seen in the fact that there were confessions, which were later debarred from being entered into evidence on account of a Supreme Court case. I wonder if the MP investigating the case obtained the confessions and thought their job was done. This often happens with the Police. Either way, not great investigative work.

Second, I really don’t know if there was an element of command liability here. Perhaps there was, perhaps there wasn’t. My problem is that even a conscientious investigator and a conscientious prosecutor don’t have a reason to follow that line of inquiry under existing law. It is for this reason that even in cases where there appears to be clear cover up/collusion/encouragement to commit the crime, it is often the foot soldiers who take the fall while the fat cats go scot free.

that would be included in a bad record.

”certainly has a bad record when it comes to delivering swift justice”?

In many cases there is no justice(through inaction and through refusal to proceed once started? at all for decades.

on your point about, only one accused being convicted; my understanding is that Rathnayake was the only one of the accused identified by the survivor/witness, and that while Rathnayake identified the other accused under interrogation (leading to their initial arrest), there was no actual evidence against them beyond this man’s confession. also, while Rathnayake was additionally linked to the crime by the fact that he led military police to the bodies, the other accused were not linked in this manner. i also believe that the judgement didn’t in anyway suggest that Rathnayake was solely responsible for the murders (as you insinuate), but that evidence was insufficient to convict the other accused soldiers. the tone was that the court was aware of the other accused’s guilt, but unable to find them guilty.

on your point about only junior personnel finding their way to court; was there any indication that more senior personnel were involved in the crime, either in the act itself, or any subsequent coverup? unlike cases such as the Krishanthi Kumaraswamy rape and murder, i believe there was only a period of four days between the murders and the first arrest, so was there any time for such a coverup? if not, what is the relevance of this point? even in the Kumaraswamy case, it was junior soldiers who committed the crime itself.

globally, in most cases of military atrocities, it is almost invariably the most junior that are prosecuted or convicted. two landmark cases, My Lai and Abu Ghraib, with the full force of American justice and fairness behind it, still resulted in convictions only at the most junior level. is it realistic, therefore, to expect more from SL under the circumstances?