The Role of Human Rights Commissions

by Gaja Lakshmi Paramasivam

(March 24, Melbourne, Sri Lanka Guardian) I read with sadness the article ‘Innocent man illegally arrested and tortured by Panadura Police’ published yesterday in Sri Lanka Guardian. As per the article, the victim, Mr. Sugath Chandima, reported the matter to the Human Rights Commission but nothing happened. I also complained to the Australian Human Rights Commission many times and almost all of the times something did happen. That something was largely Due Process within the Commission and a procedural acknowledgment to me. On one or two occasions there was deeper inquiry by average level staff and in the case of the University of NSW, letter was written to the Vice Chancellor seeking his response.

The complaints were usually dismissed as lacking in substance, through the discretionary powers of the President who never met with me.

To my mind, it is important that we continue to use such institutions, but do so without expecting clear judgments of rights and wrongs. At the beginning, as with other relationships where the other side was above me in position, I expected them to know the Truth and deliver judgment accordingly. This expectation was made on the basis of my own investment in Equal Opportunity values. But gradually I realized that I was the one with the deepest investment even though they held the higher positions. This to me meant that they needed to become a facility rather than an administration. Hence discretionary powers of the President must not be used. They are for judgment only.

The Commission’s officer dealing with the complaint and/or the president, may or may not know the Truth that supports the complaint – but the question is whether they would actually deliver an outcome against a more powerful side opposed to the complainant. Most of them are after all in it for an income and/or status benefits and not because they are committed to Human Rights above all else. It is important that we, the users of the Commission’s facilities, are conscious of our realities. That would help us look after ourselves and this is a fundamental duty of every adult. Had this been the case with Tamil Public Administrators in Sri Lanka – the LTTE would not have had the mandate to fight and we would have prevented the war and sought other intellectual paths to get even. Instead we got mad.

Many invest in war related activities to confirm to themselves that they were not wrong but that the other side was wrong. To my mind, to the extent we do so for ourselves and for those in our circle of faith, there is everything right about it. But if we seek someone else to declare that the other side is wrong – then we need to first invest in the position of that someone – for example the UN Secretary General. When we do, and then we declare our findings – there is validity to our declaration and not until then.

Where we are not able to invest at that level – we need to seek and find their parallels in our own group – over which we have influence due to common faith. It’s faith that gives us the moral authority.

In the above case, if the Police illegally arrested Sugath and Sugath has invested in Human/Fundamental Rights more than the Commission he has access to, he is entitled to use their facilities and name to declare his own judgment. But if he has not and he goes to someone who has – for example the Asian Human Rights Commission – they have the responsibility deliver judgment. It is reported that ‘He seeks the prosecution of perpetrators for the crime of torturing him.’

With my experience in this I am not able to ‘see’ an Administrative path towards satisfying this expectation. I did succeed in taking the NSW (Australia) Police to Courts through the provisions of the Human Rights & Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986, as facilitated by the Commission. But such facilities may not be available in Sri Lanka. If they are not, the best avenue available would be community groups and sharing of experiences through such groups. Police whose families are part of these groups, would naturally be affected by such faith based power.

If on the other hand, Sugath is satisfied with the verdict delivered by Asian Human Rights Commission – then judgment has already been delivered and it requires no further action but just sharing of the experience – so other victims would do the same. That is how, the opportunity lost by the local Police and the Administrative system is an opportunity gained by the global community.