COLOMBO: In a critical comment on the existing mechanisms for monitoring human rights violations in Sri Lanka, the International Independent Group of Eminent Persons (IIGEP) constituted by President Mahinda Rajapaksa said: "In the current context of the apparent renewed systematic practice of enforced disappearance and the killings of Red Cross workers, it is critical that the Presidential Commission and IIGEP not be portrayed as a substitute for robust, effective measures, including national and international human rights monitoring."

The IIGEP, headed by Justice P.N. Bhagwati, which took birth in February, was mandated to monitor the functioning of the President's Commission of Inquiry to Investigate and Inquire into Alleged Serious Violations of Human Rights in the island nation.

The 16 cases entrusted with the Commission included the assassination of Lakshman Kadirgamar in 2005 and execution style killing of 17 aid workers of a French non-Governmental organisation in 2006.

In its first interim report shared with Mr. Rajapaksa on June 1, released to the public on Monday, the IIGEP said the Presidential Commission had so far made "hardly any noticeable progress" in investigations and inquiries since its inception in November 2006.

"Moreover, since our formation in February 2007, we have identified and raised a number of concerns with the Commission and the Government of Sri Lanka. We remain concerned that current measures taken by the Government of Sri Lanka and the Commission to address issues such as the independence of the Commission, timeliness and witness protection are not adequate and do not satisfy international norms and standards."

The IIGEP said it was concerned about the role of the Attorney-General's Department as legal counsel to the Commission as the Attorney-General's Department is the Chief Legal Adviser to the Government of Sri Lanka.

"Members of the Attorney-General's Department have been involved in the original investigations into those cases subject to further investigation by the Commission itself. As such, members of the Attorney-General's Department may find that they are investigating themselves. Furthermore, it is possible that they be called as material witnesses before the Commission. We consider these to be serious conflicts of interest, which lack transparency and compromise national and international standards of independence and impartiality that are central to the credibility and public confidence of the Commission."

The report said the IIGEP was concerned that the Commission did not begin even preliminary investigations and inquiries until May 2007, despite being constituted six months earlier in November 2006. To date, internal processes had not been transparent; no detailed work plan had been announced; essential staff had not yet been fully recruited; investigative and witness protection units were not functioning; and significantly, evidence already known to be in the possession of Governmental bodies relating to the cases had not been gathered and transmitted to the Group.

Public confidence

The IIGEP said such unnecessary delays undermined public confidence in the ability of the Commission to carry out its mandate in a timely manner while expressing concern that there were no adequate victim and witness protection provisions under Sri Lankan law.

"We are of the view that witness protection is absolutely essential to investigate serious violations of human rights that are within the Commission's mandate. Appropriate legislation that accords with international norms and standards should be enacted and implemented as soon as possible to protect victims and witnesses," it said.

The report said the Presidential Warrant limits the scope of the Commission to a retrospective and fact-finding role and the core work of the Commission is to obtain information, investigate and inquire into alleged serious violations of human rights arising since August 1, 2005, including 16 specific cases; and to examine prior investigations into these cases.

It further said, "The IIGEP does not have a mandate to conduct independent investigations and inquiries; nevertheless, we are open to all persons who wish to provide information and evidence on the cases under review by the Commission."

The IIGEP also regretted that public statements from State officials were creating the misleading impression that the Commission and the IIGEP had wide mandates and powers and the resources to address the ongoing alleged rights violations in Sri Lanka and said that was not the case.

Printer friendly page  
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail