| by B. Skanthakumar
( November 16, 2012, Colombo, Sri
Lanka Guardian)
The Sri Lankan government rejected almost half of the recommendations received
in Geneva from other UN member states during the Universal Periodic Review
(UPR) of its human rights obligations on 1 November 2012.
 |
Clearly some states reflected the dejection of many Sri Lankans that despite the end of the war over three years ago, substantive and structural improvements in the human rights of its peoples has not followed.
Among the recommendations not acceptable
to the government are[1]: right to information legislation; country visit by
the UN independent expert on freedom of opinion and expression; witness and
victim protection legislation; removing humanitarian and NGO affairs from the
Defence Ministry; publishing the names and places of detention of detainees;
reducing the military role in civilian affairs in the North; punishing those
responsible for recruitment of child soldiers; protecting labour and other
human rights of domestic workers; abolishing the death penalty; decriminalising
same-sex relationships; criminalising and punishing enforced disappearances;
regular visits by members of the UN Committee Against Torture to detention
centres; accepting jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court with respect
to crimes against humanity; and an independent investigation into the August
2006 killing of 17 humanitarian workers in Mutur.
Clearly some states reflected the
dejection of many Sri Lankans that despite the end of the war over three years
ago, substantive and structural improvements in the human rights of its peoples
has not followed.
Unsurprisingly, the government only
accepted those recommendations that were supportive of its existing plans and
strategies. For example, to implement the National Action for Protection and
Promotion of Human Rights; to implement the Action Plan on some recommendations
of the Lessons Learned and Reconciliation Commission; to strengthen the
National Human Rights Commission; to rehabilitate and reintegrate former child
soldiers; to improve the judicial system; to promote national reconciliation,
and so on.
Several reports were made by civil
society organisations within and outside of Sri Lanka, highlighting serious
failures in human rights promotion and protection. A joint submission supported
by 31 local organisations and dozens of individuals raised issues of ongoing
concern including – on the rule of law, accountability, human rights defenders,
extra-judicial killings, torture, freedom of association and assembly, freedom
of expression, internally displaced persons, humanitarian issues, sexual
orientation and gender identity rights, women’s rights, cultural and linguistic
rights, socio-economic rights, rights of migrant workers, minority rights etc.
(http://lib.ohchr.org/HRBodies/UPR/Documents/Session14/LK/JS1_UPR_LKA_S14_2012_JointSubmission1_E.pdf).
The Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka
(HRCSL) made its own submission. This report is silent on the many
recommendations from the 2008 UPR (1st cycle) expressing concern for its
independence and robustness. It also avoids the issue of accountability for
alleged war crimes. The HRCSL chooses to flatter the government before
cautiously offering observations in weak and sometimes vague language.
However, it does call on the government
to accept the right of individual complaint to the UN Committee on Economic,
Social and Cultural Rights; and for greater protection of the rights of persons
with disabilities in line with international law. Further, the national human
rights institution supports the right to information; and for affected people
to be informed, consulted and compensated in land acquisitions. The HRCSL also
urges victim and witness protection; elections to the Northern Provincial
council; and implementation of the LLRC recommendations concerning
reconciliation.
The government report focused on its
reconstruction and development drive in the conflict-affected regions.
Resettlement of almost 300,000 people displaced during the final phase of the
war; demining; and the rehabilitation and reintegration of ex-combatants
figured prominently. The report also boasted of Sri Lanka’s human development
indicators and achievements in meeting the Millennium Development Goals by
2015.
The mere fact that the government has
adopted a national human rights action plan and formulated another action plan
on some (but not all) of the LLRC recommendations was sufficient to moderate
and deflect criticism of Sri Lanka’s human rights record. Form and rhetoric
prevailed over content and reality.
In March 2013, the UN Human Rights
Council will revisit its resolution on Sri Lanka of one year before. The
government of Sri Lanka will have to explain its implementation of the
recommendations of the Lessons Learned and Reconciliation Commission, and how
it is dealing with alleged violations of international (humanitarian and human
rights) law that occurred during the war.
Will the outcome be any different from
the damp squib of the Universal Periodic Review?
[1] Sunday Times (Colombo), “Lanka
rejects 100 rights recommendations”, 11 November 2012, http://www.sundaytimes.lk/121111/news/lanka-rejects-100-rights-recommendations-20010.html.
 The Sri Lankan government rejected almost half of the recom...){kind=link}