US resolution, Pillay’s report inflict harm on reconciliation – GoSL March 5, 2014, 9:48 pm

US resolution, Pillay’s report inflict harm on reconciliation – GoSL

March 5, 2014, 9:48 pm 

Prof. G.L. Peiris addressing UNHRC session in Geneva

Sri Lanka yesterday rejected a US-led resolution meant to pave the way for an international investigation into accountability issues in Sri Lanka.

The resolution jointly tabled by the UK, Montenegro, Macedonia and Mauritius welcomed UNHRC Chief Navi Pillay’s recommendations and conclusions on the need for an independent and credible international investigation in the absence of a credible national process with tangible results.

 External Affairs Minister, Prof. G. L. Peiris yesterday told the 25th Session of the Geneva-based body that the government of Sri Lanka rejected the resolution as well as the UNHRC Chief’s report in its entirety as they were fundamentally flawed.

Minister Peiris said: "These initiatives disregard the substantial progress made by the Government during the five years which have elapsed since the end of the thirty year war against terrorism. They also pay scant regard to the complexities and local nuances of a sensitive reconciliation process, while eroding confidence of the people of Sri Lanka by the constant changing of unjustifiable demands. Moreover, they persist in an attitude which is clearly disproportionate to the circumstances and inconsistent with the treatment of comparable situations. It is much to be regretted that the High Commissioner’s Report and those who exalt its virtues only seek to inflict harm on the reconciliation process by bringing about a polarisation of the Sri Lankan society."Prof. Peiris reiterated Sri Lanka’s continued cooperation and engagement with the UNHRC.

The resolution, which is to be voted at the end of this month, will be the third in as many year since the conclusion of the conflict.

 The resolution also recommends the establishment of a truth seeking mechanism, a national reparations policy, to hold individuals responsible accountable for violations of international human rights law, investigate all attacks against religious minorities, journalists, human rights defenders and civil society.

 The resolution seeks meaningful devolution of powers in terms of the 13th amendment to the constitution and to empower the Tamil chief minister in the north with necessary resources and authority.

Minister Peiris told the UNHRC: "The High Commissioner’s Report has exceeded its mandate by making reference to and recommendations on numerous issues extraneous to the resolution. Additionally, the recommendations contained in the Report are arbitrary, intrusive and of a political nature, and are not placed within the ambit of the LLRC, as demonstrated by the call to establish an international inquiry mechanism. Further, this recommendation is in contravention of her mandate granted by GA Resolution 48/141, particularly Articles 3(a) and 4(g). In the Government’s detailed "Comments" on the Report, it has also regretted that the High Commissioner has raised concerns regarding a range of issues based on information of questionable veracity and conclusions arrived at in a selective and arbitrary manner. Sri Lanka’s Comments have attempted to address some of the errors and misperceptions contained in the Report."

In an obvious reference to UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon welcoming of Pillay’s report, Prof. Peiris said: "The references made in the Council welcoming the High Commissioner’s Report on Sri Lanka, even at the highest level of the UN are regrettable, particularly considering that it is based on questionable and baseless material including what has been processed outside the UN framework. The Council may recall in this regard that the Panel of Experts Report which was the culmination of a private consultation that the Secretary General sought for his own advice, and is not the product of any intergovernmental process, has been extensively resorted to by the High Commissioner in her Report to the Council, in a bid to legitimise it within the UN framework despite the lack of mandate in this regard."

"It is universally accepted that the High Commissioner and the OHCHR must remain transparent, objective and be guided solely by the mandate given by the UN. However, if the initiatives taken on Sri Lanka at this juncture by the OHCHR is to be the basis on which the country is to be judged, it will clearly be a travesty of justice.

It is in this context that we greatly value the sentiments expressed in the Council by countries which have similar experiences with regard to reconciliation, that Sri Lanka be provided with the requisite time and space to address their own process domestically in a comprehensive manner as opposed to those who continue to pay disproportionate attention to Sri Lanka, based on agendas driven by political motives."

Prof. Peiris said that in spite of the government of Sri Lanka cooperating with the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), there had been a series of actions, in particular the introduction of country specific action on Sri Lanka in this Council. Such actions was evidence of lack of sensitivity in dealing with delicate situations and exposed the unfair and biased manner in which issues pertaining to Sri Lanka have been addressed.

The minister said: "Detailing of two of the most recent examples suffice.

In September 2013, in contravention of HRC resolution 5/1, specifically Rule 14 (47) and Paragraph 117 which casts a duty on the OHCHR that acts as the Secretariat of the Council to prepare and circulate documents for consideration by the Council in a timely manner, the text of the Oral Update of the High Commissioner was made available to Sri Lanka for response as the state concerned, with less than 20 hours remaining for its consideration in the Council."

"In February 2014, the non-adherance by the OHCHR to the request by Sri Lanka to publish the Comments by the State on the Report of the High Commissioner (A/HRC/25/23) as an Addendum to the Report in the current session in spite of existence of clear precedent in this regard and no rule to the contrary governing Addenda and submission of comments by the State on HC / SG Country Reports, is again in contravention of the Methods of Work of the Council which clearly state at Paragraph 110 of the IB package that "The methods of work, pursuant to General Assembly resolution 60/251 should be transparent, impartial, equitable, fair, pragmatic; lead to clarity, predictability, and  inclusiveness. They may also be updated and adjusted over time."

"These are examples of patent bias demonstrated by the OHCHR in addressing issues in relation to Sri Lanka. The OHCHR’s most recent act of placing the Comments of the Government of Sri Lanka on the Report A/HRC/25/23 under ‘Communications from Governments’, has seriously impeded the visibility and integrity of between the Report and the Comments by the State. It not only reflects a lack of transparency, but also clearly denies Sri Lanka a level playing field to present its point of view. The unequal treatment meted out to Sri Lanka by the OHCHR in the above instance defeats the very principles upheld by the Council.

The procedural concerns that Sri Lanka has raised with the President of the Council with regard to the above anomalies have wider relevance to member and observer states of the Council. They also raise serious questions on politicization and collusion of interests against Sri Lanka."