|
Introduction
The Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC) was formed by the HE the President Mahinda Rajapaksha, using the statutory powers vested with him under the Presidential Commission act.
Nevertheless, irrespective of these factors its a responsibility of a sovereign state to inquire into structural deficits, policy gaps, discriminations and other psycho-social reasons that led to thirty
years of brutal war. In that sense, although the mandate is restricted.
The LLRC Mandate
To inquire and report on the following matters that may have taken place during the period between 21st February, 2002 and 19th May, 2009, namely ;
1. The facts and circumstances which led to the failure of the ceasefire agreement operationalized on 21st February, 2002 and the sequence of events that followed thereafter up to the 19th of May, 2009.
2. Whether any person, group or institution directly or indirectly bear responsibility in this regard;
3. The lessons we would learn from those events and their attendant concern, in order to ensure that there will be no recurrence;
4. The methodology whereby restitution to any person affected by those events or their dependants or their heirs, can be affected;
5. The institutional administrative and legislative measured which need to be taken in order or prevent any recurrence of such concerns in the future, and to promote further national unity and the reconciliation among all communities, and to make any such other recommendations with reference to any of the matters that have been inquired into under the terms of the Warrant.
We believe that the LLRC process is a worthy effort to be mentioned. The Concern of His Excellency and the mandate mentioned in the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission bare this fact. But our perception is that the structure of the process and attitudes involve in this LLRC is not suffice to understand the big picture of Sri Lanka’s post war- conflicting situation and its immediate, as well as the past.
LLRC Members
The Commission comprises of eight members appointed by the President
1. Chitta Ranjan de Silva Esquire, P.C.
Former Attorney General
2. Dr. Amrith Rohan Perera Esquire, P.C.
Former Legal Advisor, Ministry of Foreign Affairs
3. Dr. Karunaratne Hangawatte Esquire,
Professor – Department of Criminal Justice, University of Nevada, Las Vegas
4. Chandirapal Chanmugam Esquire,
Former Secretary to the Treasury
5. Hewa Matara Gamage Siripala Palihakkara Esquire,
Former Secretary to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs
6. Mrs. Manohari Ramanathan,
Former Deputy Legal Draftsman, Member, Monetary Board,
Central Bank of Sri Lanka
7. Maxwell Parakrama Paranagama Esquire
Former High Court Judge,Tax Ombudsman
8. Mr. M.T.M. Bafiq
Senior Attorney at Law
The Colombo and outstation sessions
LLRC sessions were held in both Colombo, at Kadirgamer institute of International Relations, Horton place, Colombo 7, and there were several outstation sessions held around the country, including Batticaloa, Jaffna, Kilinochchi, Mullaitivu, Trincomalee, Vauniya, Boossa, Anuradhapura, Monaragala and Buttala. CHR observed almost all the outstation session, except the Anuradhapura.
As we have noted in our previous reports and statements there is a major difference between the Colombo sessions and the outstation sessions.
The outstation sessions of the LLRC are a stark contrast to those held in Colombo. In an effort to learn lessons from the past, most important aspects of such a process is how to blend the truth and justice together in a lessons learnt process. In truth gathering process, expected policy outcomes would be reconciliation, institutional decision making and as well as implementation of process changes.
Justice could be established through reparations, amnesties and apologies. While policy issues dominated the Colombo sessions, it is not sure how much these policy suggestions have come out during the testimonies heard, in order to establish much needed truth and justice, which is an essential requirement to establish, stable common future for Sri Lankan communities. Nevertheless, amongst the several testimonies it was established about the importance of tri-lingual education, for better understanding, devolution of power and best governing structure… etc, which have been suggested by various personalities who have came before the LLRC.
This is in contrast to what transpired in outstations which are empirical and responses to their immediate problems. Those who appear before the commission in Colombo comprise leaders from political, religious and various civil societies. Further their submissions as noted above, mainly dealt with policy issues which looked at long term development and reconciliation. The testimonies submitted received high media coverage and a large number of representatives from the civil society and foreign missions observed the sessions.
Although, the media exposure is essential for this kind of lessons learning process, such an exposure should be able to address and raise the social conscience in relation to guilt and accountability as well as introversion, openness and togetherness. Such an infusion of information to the society will enable reconciliation to take place at an individual and community level. It is imperative to stress that mere reporting will not help to achieve the desired goals. Hence, it is doubtful how much impact that has brought to the society though these high media coverage's.
However, this does not mean that their submissions, plans and ideas are not politically
biased. At times we find high ranking state officials' trying to influence the LLRC by
requesting the commissioner's to look into issues which they should have addressed at their official capacities and are not directly the purview of the Commission. For example, "The Island" newspaper of January 26 reported as below: ‘Testifying before the LLRC at the
Kadirgamar Institute, Presidential Advisor Sunimal Fernando proposed a series of measures to strengthen the presidential initiative for a trilingual Sri Lanka. Fernando, in a well presented testimony, highlighted the existing shortcomings caused by lack of funds, negligence and indifference on the part of the officialdom, while detailing an institutional structure, which could help achieve a trilingual society in a decade.”
We feel that it is the duty of the government to take necessary action to rectify matters if the ‘Ministry of National Languages, Social Integration, Public Administration and Education had been largely inefficient, ineffective and lag behind. Hence, it is grossly disappointing to note their contribution to the country and the people do not harness consistency for coexistence.’ This is especially in view of the self evidence expressed by the above state official, who has identified key issues as shortcomings, which could easily be corrected by implementing necessary funding and political will.
However, the concerns of thousands of men and women who testified before the Commission in the North and the East have been practical especially as they were connected directly to their day to day activities. Such as complaints on detention, abductions, land issues and requests for assistance, dominated these sessions. Media quoted LLRC officials as stated: that the Commissioners understood the gravity of the situation and the immediate needs of the people, only during the outstation sessions in the North and the East, while the report is suppose to focus strongly on addressing these immediate issues.
The LLRC completed individual submissions on January 31, 2010 and will focus on preparing the final report to be presented to the President in February 2011. Furthermore, it has been reported that
the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission’s (LLRC) final report will focus on land issues, releasing the names of all detainees in camps, language rights and restitution. LLRC sources further confirmed that the defense establishment is not ready to meet several demands of the LLRC, including the release of a detainee names list, by and large.
Positive aspects – in camara sessions, Kaytes incident
Despite numourous criticism levelled against the LLRC we belive that it has shown a tendency to listen to constructive criticism and has tried to implement, within its limits, some measures to ensure the safety of those who come to testify before the commission.
During its visit to Jaffna, a journalist from a local daily, Yaal Thinakural, who was covering the session in Kaytes Island was threatened by a man later identified as a EPDP member. The EPDP member had earlier taken photos of those who had come to testify.
After CHR and several journalists from the South wrote about the incident the LLRC decided to introduce in camera sessions at outstation so that the privacy and security of persons are assured.
CHR observations on LLRC sessions
As mentioned above little attention was given to outstation sessions by many civil society organizations and media institutions. Although representatives of several embassies, staff reporters of several Tamil dailies observed the Jaffna and Trincomalee sessions they were not
present at ‘lesser’ sessions. For example there were no other outside observers other than CHR in Ampara or Mannar sessions.
We believe that the lack of mainstream attention given to the outstation sessions given by main stream media was a main reason why the plight of the war affected population was not properly felt by the South. Although CHR attempted to bridge the gap through continuous reports on the sessions and those reports were given much publicity by media, we believe that if staff reporters from Colombo were present they could have done a better job in translating what they saw better.
Peoples concerns
After an analysis of the LLRC outstation sessions CHR believes that the main concerns of the people can be categorized as,
- Detention
- Disappearances
- Ownership of land
- Financial assistance
- Resettlement
1. Detention
From the first outstation session it was apparent that detention was the number one concern of people from affected areas. Thousands of parents/siblings/wives/children and husbands, a significantly lesser degree, appeared before the LLRC and implored commissioners to look into whether their loved once were in detention centres. They claimed that they have been traveling from one centre to another looking trying to determine whether their family member is dead or alive.
Commissioners have always stated that they believe that a list of detainees should be made public and recommended the government to do so in their interim report last year. However the defense authorities have not released a comprehensive list so far.
2. Disappearances
These include disappearances during and after the war. In some occasions these incidents have taken place in the mid 1980s, however despite the obvious fact that they are no longer among the living government authorities had not provided death certificates for these individuals.
The absence of a death certificate causes a lot of complications, without a death certificates the dependants cannot obtain the aid/pensions given by the government, neither can the husband or wife marry another individual until seven years of the disappearances.
3. Ownership of land
A large number of people in the East, and to a lesser degree in the North, claim to have loss their property rights during the war. During the session in Trincomalee, where this issue is at its worse with thousands losing land for Sampur HSZ and reservation of many coastal property for tourism projects. During the session in Kuchchaweli a large number of people, including the Chairman of Kuchchaweli Pradeesheeya Sabha, A. Thoufeek complained that people are prevented from going back to their lands by government authorities who have reserved large areas of lands for religious premises and hotel projects.
The fact that the Chairman of Kuchchaweli Pradeesheeya Sabha declared that the government is allocating land for tourism projects without any regard for the sentiments and livelihood of the local residents is a clear indication that people of the area are not so keen to embrace the vision of development advocated by the government.
The state of emergency has been lifted from the end of August, 2011 which in theory should mean that there should be no HSZs. Although the Army has stated that it will move out of the HSZ in the North, it has not made any mention of the Sampur HSZ.
4. Financial assistance
During the outstation sessions it was revealed that the overwhelming majority of these affected by the war live in abject poverty and that they have not benefited from government’s evelopment drives including Uthuru Wasanthaya or Negenahira Navodaya.
The majority of the submissions to the LLRC, around 90%, were made by women. Most of them told the LLRC that they have lost the bread winners of their families and that they are going through extreme economic hardships. For CHR economic rights are important a civil and political rights therefore we have requested the commission to look into their livelihood issues and include suitable recommendations in their final report which is to be presented to president Rajapaksa by Mid November, 2011.
5. Resettlement
Resettlement has been a sensitive issue in the North after the end of the war. In May 2009 over 300 000 residents of the North lived in IDP camps and although a large number have been resettled by late been resettled in alien lands and have no access to any essential service.
Channel 4 video and LLRC’s response
On the June, 14 British Channel 4 released ‘Sri Lanka’s Killing Fields’ and there has been an overwhelming international reaction to the alleged footage of war crimes committed by the Sri Lankan army. Although the government hitherto ignored such evidence before, the LLRC stated that they will examine the Channel 4 documentary on Sri as part of the commission’s proceedings.
“We have already examined videos as well as pictorial evidence including Unmanned Aerial Photography (UAV) and sought expert opinions to study the formerly aired video on Channel 4. Therefore the examination of this video will also be carried out as matter of course by the commission, independently,” LLRC Spokesman Mr. Lakshman Wickramasinghe stated speaking to media a few days after the documentary was aired.
Dr. Chathura De Silva, Senior Lecturer of the Department of Computer Science and Engineering of University of Moratuwa provided his submission in camera and has so far refused to declare to the public what he told the commission.
Conclusion
The main purpose of Center for Human Rights, Sri Lanka is to safeguard Human Rights and the fight against the deteriorating human rights situation in the country. We believe that as a collection of Sri Lankan citizens we have a duty to demand the government to enforce the Section III of constitution which guarantees certain Fundamental Rights, which are considered inviolable in theory, to the people.
We have observed all the outstation LLRC sessions, the only independent civil society group to do
so, since we believed that the people who were directly affected by the war should be heard and the voice disseminated in the mainstream society.
Initially we believed that our role ends there. However it has occurred to us that no matter what the LLRC report says it will lead to two extreme responses, like everything about Ealam War IV. On one hand the government and its affiliates would justify the report and its recommendations despite any weakness, on the other hand anti government/pro LTTE elements would discard the report despite any merit.
Therefore we plan to conduct a critical analysis of the final report submitted by the LLRC and an Alternative Report based on the findings and evidences submitted at LLRC’s truth finding settings in an attempt to provide an independent unbiased point of view that we believe will fill an important vacuum.
Rajith Keethi Tennakoon
Executive Director/
Center for Human Rights (CHR - Sri Lanka)
CHR – Sri Lanka 05.09.2011
chrsrilanka.com
|
