Targeted sanctions against Sri Lanka?

By P.K.Balachandran



  • Former UN top brass and experts back UN Rights Commissioner’s recommendation in a joint statement

  • The statement based on unverified sources, has major lacunae






A number top-notch former UN officials and independent experts have called on the international community to take “immediate steps” towards justice and accountability “to end Sri Lanka’s cycles of violence.”

They have supported the UN Human Rights Commissioner Michelle Bachelet’s call to the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) to consider taking Sri Lanka to the International Criminal Court (ICC) and instituting targeted sanctions against Sri Lankan personnel who had allegedly committed “war crimes” in the armed conflict with the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE).

However, the joint statement entitled “Sowing the seeds of conflict” has major lacunae. Like Bachelet’s report, it is based on unverified and unsubstantiated information from shadowy sources. It does not mention the LTTE’s depredations, senseless bombings of civilian targets, massacres, and assassinations of Sri Lankan leaders of all communities including its own Tamil community.

The statement in full:     

The recently released report on Sri Lanka by UN High Commissioner for Human Rights underlines, yet again, the country’s lack of progress on justice and accountability. Based largely on an analysis of emerging trends, it makes a compelling case for decisive international action to ensure justice and accountability for mass human rights violations and atrocities in Sri Lanka as a central element of the search for sustained reconciliation and the prevention of the recurrence of rights abuses and conflict.

The High Commissioner’s report raises the alarm regarding, specifically: the militarization of civilian government functions (including the appointment and promotion of senior military officials identified in earlier UN reports as perpetrators of alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity during the final years of the conflict); the reversal of constitutional safeguards (which undermine, among other things the independence of the judiciary and key oversight commissions on the police and human rights); new sources of political obstruction of accountability for crimes and human rights violations (including by new Commissions of Inquiry that have intervened in ongoing cases); an increase in majoritarian rhetoric and exclusionary policies targeting Tamil and Muslim communities; unceasing surveillance and intimidation of civil society and shrinking democratic space (including the continued use of the draconian Prevention of Terrorism Act, despite years of commitment to its repeal and replacement by an Act complying with international standards). All of these give rise to new and exacerbated human rights concerns, that are already reflected in reports of ongoing harassment, intimidation, torture, abductions and sexual violence.

The High Commissioner’s report is to be praised for its preventive focus. In 2009 the international community failed Sri Lanka. We must not fail again. Since then, much has been learned about prevention. A consensus has emerged on the need to broaden and to upstream prevention work. Agreement has been reached that the brunt of prevention work is borne by national institutions. But it has been stressed that this presupposes sincere and effective commitment to addressing the root causes of violations and conflict, including through the implementation of transitional justice measures of the sort that the Sri Lankan Government had committed itself to establishing as long ago as 2015 under Human Rights Council Resolution 30/1.

The previous government lacked the ability or the will to achieve sustainable progress in the implementation of these commitments. Despite limited progress in some areas, especially the establishment of the Office of Missing Persons, and the Office of Reparations, the promised truth commission and special court for international crimes were never established.

The current government has explicitly rejected these commitments, arguing the Sri Lankan state committed no crimes in need of acknowledgement or accounting. Instead of completing ongoing investigations into human rights violations, the president, just weeks before the Human Rights Council meets to consider the High Commissioner’s report, appointed yet another ad hoc commission, this time tasked with examining the findings and recommendations on human rights violations of the plethora of previous commissions. This

is an exercise of ‘meta investigation’ that drives Sri Lankan reliance on ad hoc commissions to a point that would be laughable were it not for the seriousness of what is at stake, the long-delayed respect for the rights of victims. Meanwhile, the Presidential Commission of Inquiry into Political Victimization, after actively obstructing investigations into serious cases of abduction, disappearance and assassination, has recommended not just that the charges against every accused in the emblematic cases highlighted by the UN should be dismissed and that those that were accused be given compensation, but that charges should be filed against complainants, investigators, and prosecutors.

The Commission also recommended the establishment of a further, and rarely used, Special Presidential Commission of Inquiry, with the power to punish ministers in the previous government, and allied parliamentarians, who devised new mechanisms for the investigation and prosecution of corruption and backed police inquiries into some of Sri Lanka’s most notable political killings and abductions. Those targeted, who now form the core of the political opposition, face the prospect of being banned from holding public office for up to 7 years.

Under these circumstances, and despite the conviction that redress and prevention are the primary responsibility of individual states, the fact is that Sri Lanka has made its justice institutions unavailable to its own victims. We therefore echo the High Commissioner’s recommendation to member states to work with victims and their representatives to pursue justice through universal or extraterritorial jurisdiction. Existing international avenues for accountability such as the International Criminal Court should be considered, in the face of Sri Lanka’s opposition to ending impunity. We also support the High Commissioner’s suggestion of imposing targeted sanctions against credibly alleged perpetrators of international crimes and strengthened monitoring and reporting by a dedicated Special Rapporteur. Finally, we join the High Commissioner in her call to establish a dedicated mechanism to collect and preserve evidence and to initiate an independent study of international accountability options.

And of course, we reiterate the calls made to the Government of Sri Lanka to pull back from its current aggressive policies towards Muslims and Tamils, to desist from using the Prevention of Terrorism Act as if it were a basic public order law, to refrain from instrumentalizing the justice sector, and to cease the threats and harassment of opposition politicians and human rights and civil society groups – these are the triggers or vehicles for future violent conflict and rights abuses.

Sri Lanka has known not only inter, but intra-communal violence for decades, with victims in every community. This violence has been the main obstacle to the country’s achieving levels of development that reflect the island’s impressive human and natural resources. Sri Lanka had the opportunity to demonstrate to the region and the world that settling a conflict is not simply a matter of achieving a military victory, but of satisfying claims to justice. Instead, it is taking a road that, in reaffirming exclusion and marginalization, weakening the rule of law and hollowing out independent institutions, harassing and persecuting those who seek justice, is sowing the seeds of conflict.

Whether Sri Lanka continues on its trajectory towards renewed violence or finally breaks with its tragic history and firmly embarks on the path of sustainable development hinges on international action now. Given the continued reluctance of the Sri Lankan Government to meaningfully uphold the human rights of all, only decisive, international action to ensure justice and accountability can interrupt Sri Lanka’s periodic cycles of violence.

The Signatories are: Juan Manuel Santos, Mary Robinson, Jan Eliasson, Louise Arbour,  Adama Dieng, Navanethem Pillay, Charles Petrie, Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein,       Philip Alston, Christof Heyns, Pablo de Greiff, Ben Emmerson,                      Gay MacDougall, Manfred Nowak, Juan E. Mendez, Marzuki Darusman,     Yasmin Sooka, and Steven Ratner.


Stay Updated

Get The Recent Popular Stories Stright Into Your Inbox