|
Last Friday four civil society members of the advisory committee set up by Human Rights Minister Mahinda Samarasinghe to address human rights concerns resigned from the panel citing differences with the government. Award winning human rights activist Sunila Abeysekera, Rohan Edirisinha, Dr. Paikiasothy Saravanamuttu and Nimalka Fernando resigned last week with the others likely to send in their resignations shortly.
In an interview with The Morning Leader Nimalka Fernando said the presence of international monitors was important as the local monitors were losing credibility. She said human rights were being violated in the north and east and the people in the south had very little knowledge of this. "The IDPs in the area stated they were forced to vacate their homes in order for the military to go ahead with its cleaning operations. Not a single LTTE cadre had been apprehended by the military. There was no fighting.
The artillery is fired from places heavily populated. People in the north surrender to the HRC due to threats to their lives. That is the situation now," she said.
Excerpts;
Q. You and three other civil society members last week resigned from the Advisory Committee to the Government on Human Rights citing differences with the government. What were the differences? What were the reasons for your resignation from the panel?
A. We were invited by the Minister to join the panel. We joined the panel in order to have constructive engagement with the government with regard to the human rights situation in the country. The human rights violations in the country are affecting the people’s day-to-day lives, as all know.
We were invited by the Minister to join the panel. We joined the panel in order to have constructive engagement with the government with regard to the human rights situation in the country. The human rights violations in the country are affecting the people’s day-to-day lives, as all know.
One reason for us to resign was, we had released requests to the Minister to compile a list of the detainees. This was not done. Actually, though we are an advisory panel, we do listen to requests of the families of those detained. This has not been given to us so far. We have to listen to the requests of the relatives and parents of those detained and act accordingly.
The other reason is the behaviour of the delegation which went to Geneva — they gave the impression that we in the advisory panel should keep our mouths shut. That was not in keeping with the agreement we reached with the government. This is the culture of impunity.
The Permanent Representative in Geneva refused to grant permission for Sunila Abeysekara to make a speech, stating that she was not educated enough. Civil society is not respected. Even if you take the police, there is no proper framework or process followed when detaining persons. They should have details such as the list of people who are detained and where they are detained. We had recommended for a witness protection protocol. Nothing has been done. We do not want to be used.
Q. You say your advise was not taken seriously. However, Human Rights Minister Mahinda Samarasinghe told media that the government had already taken initiatives to implement the recommendations put forward by the advisory committee before you resigned. Is this correct?
A. Yes. The Minister has stated about the Presidential directive. That is the only recommendation we had given and the government had agreed to do so. But, there is a huge gap in implementing it. For example, the police should have the facility for Tamils to complain in their own language. This is not happening. The people should be able to go to these places and make the complaints in their own languages.
Yes. The Minister has stated about the Presidential directive. That is the only recommendation we had given and the government had agreed to do so. But, there is a huge gap in implementing it. For example, the police should have the facility for Tamils to complain in their own language. This is not happening. The people should be able to go to these places and make the complaints in their own languages.Q: The Minister cited the example of re-issuing the Presidential directive on detention and carrying out visits to police stations to ensure they comply with police directives. Do you feel the government is facetious in its human rights efforts and is merely playing to the international gallery in terms of setting up numerous commissions including the IIGEP?
A: The Presidential directive was introduced during President Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga’s time. This was revived and gazetted during President Mahinda Rajapakse’s time. They are in consultation with the advisory panel. However, no conclusions have been reached. We want results. We have been working in the field of human rights for more than 25 years.
The Presidential directive was introduced during President Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga’s time. This was revived and gazetted during President Mahinda Rajapakse’s time. They are in consultation with the advisory panel. However, no conclusions have been reached. We want results. We have been working in the field of human rights for more than 25 years.
The situation is no different then and now. We are not going against the government. Even the President met with the Tamil diaspora to learn certain terms like ‘brother.’ We are only trying to help and not going against the government. As far as the IIGEP is concerned, it was formed to avert campaigns to build an international mission. Especially after the killings of the ACF workers.
Q: How do you assess the Louise Arbour visit to Sri Lanka?
A: Madame Arbour came to Sri Lanka on the invitation of President Mahinda Rajapakse. The invitation was extended by the President when the two met in Geneva. Some media reports stated that she had visited the country with other motives. It is not so.
Madame Arbour came to Sri Lanka on the invitation of President Mahinda Rajapakse. The invitation was extended by the President when the two met in Geneva. Some media reports stated that she had visited the country with other motives. It is not so.
They should realise it was the government that invited Madame Arbour to check on the human rights issues in the country. There were allegations that the violations in Iraq were ignored by Madame Arbour. Why do they make these allegations if they have nothing to hide? The government could discuss certain issues and later take action to overcome these issues. The HR violations in Iraq have been exposed. Likewise, the violations here should also be exposed.
Q: There is a growing call by international human rights organisations and the international community for an international human rights monitoring mission. How necessary and practical is such a mission given the fact Arbour assured the JVP that no such mission will be set up unless the government invites it?
A: There are several organisations and missions monitoring the human rights violations and the situation in the country. Even the government has appointed commissions to look into this issue. For example, the statistics with regard to the number of disappearances vary according to each commission. It is better to have an international commission to investigate into the human rights violations.
There are several organisations and missions monitoring the human rights violations and the situation in the country. Even the government has appointed commissions to look into this issue. For example, the statistics with regard to the number of disappearances vary according to each commission. It is better to have an international commission to investigate into the human rights violations.
The Human Rights Commission was instituted to look into the abductions and disappearances in the ’80s. However, today, even the HRC has lost its credibility as it has failed to investigate into the human rights violations. However, the government has to give permission for international monitors. And we hope that the government would think rationally on this issue.
Q. In your view as a human rights activist and from the reports you have received, how serious is the human rights situation in Sri Lanka?
A. I was in Mannar recently. The IDPs in the area stated they were forced to vacate their homes in order for the military to go ahead with its clearing operations. Not a single LTTE cadre had been apprehended by the military. There was no fighting. The artillery is fired from places heavily populated.
I was in Mannar recently. The IDPs in the area stated they were forced to vacate their homes in order for the military to go ahead with its clearing operations. Not a single LTTE cadre had been apprehended by the military. There was no fighting. The artillery is fired from places heavily populated.
People in the north surrender to the HRC due to threats to their lives. That is the situation in the country now. There are abductions and disappearances in the north and east. The people in the south are not affected that much. But, they also should know what is going on in the north and east.
Q: There are several attempts by the European Union (EU) to move a resolution against Sri Lanka at the UN Human Rights Commission. But the government was able to overcome the challenges with the perception the EU would have lost if it went to a vote. Is human rights only a Western concern?
A. It was not against Sri Lanka. It was a resolution in order to help find a negotiated settlement to the ethnic issue. Today most of the votes are with the Asian and Non-Aligned countries. Therefore, they would defeat the Western votes. Sri Lanka will get the support of countries like Sudan and Burma. It is a pity. Even the UN was formed following World War II, against war.
It was not against Sri Lanka. It was a resolution in order to help find a negotiated settlement to the ethnic issue. Today most of the votes are with the Asian and Non-Aligned countries. Therefore, they would defeat the Western votes. Sri Lanka will get the support of countries like Sudan and Burma. It is a pity. Even the UN was formed following World War II, against war.Q. Louise Arbour says there is a need for a field presence. The government is opposing Arbour’s statements. What is the point of such visits by HR officials if the government is to act with impunity?
A. This issue has opened up. Madame Arbour will raise it up at the international forum. If Sri Lanka is to depend on home grown principles, then it should be clear as to how it is going to go about it. They should explain whether the abductions, disappearances and HR violations are a part of the war against terrorism.
This issue has opened up. Madame Arbour will raise it up at the international forum. If Sri Lanka is to depend on home grown principles, then it should be clear as to how it is going to go about it. They should explain whether the abductions, disappearances and HR violations are a part of the war against terrorism.
The Morning Leader
|
Subscribe to this comment's feed
