On 9 May 2006 the United Nations General Assembly (GA) elected 47 member States to the newly created Human Rights Council. In Asia 18 countries ran for 13 slots on the Council. Of those elected, Sri Lanka, a country wracked by internal armed conflict, presents what may be the most interesting outlook on these human rights standards. 

Reading through Sri Lanka’s pledge for candidacy tends to give a skewed image of the State and its commitment, history, intentions, and current situation in the realm of human rights. In fact, as will hopefully become clear, although Sri Lanka’s self-professed “Aide Memoire” does not contain any outright lies, it does tend to have a selective sense of truth and history – leaving the reader with an unrealistic image of Sri Lanka.  

The pledge starts off by highlighting the relatively large number of international human rights treaties to which Sri Lanka has ratified, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESER), and the Convention Against Torture (CAT). In fact, among its South Asian neighbours, Sri Lanka has the best record when it comes to signing and ratifying international human rights instruments, going so far as to ratify the First Optional Protocol to the ICCPR, which allows for individual complaints against the State to the UN Human Rights Committee. 

Enforcement of these instruments, however, is clearly a problem, as the case of Nallaratnam Singarasa shows. Mr. Singarasa is currently serving a jail sentence of 35 years because of a confession he ostensibly made while under torture and in the custody of the national police. Mr. Singarasa had filed a communication to the Human Rights Committee (HRC) in accordance with the First Optional Protocol to the ICCPR. The HRC, after evaluating his case, concluded that the detention violated article 9(1) of the ICCPR and that the government of Sri Lanka should ensure that Singarasa be released or given fair trial as well as compensation. However, the government of Sri Lanka, despite it’s “commitment [to] respect and ensure rights recognized in the international human rights Covenants” made the claim that “the state does not have the legal authority to execute the decision of the Human Rights Committee to release the convict or grant a re-trial. The government of Sri Lanka cannot be expected to act in any manner, which is contrary to the [national] Constitution”. However, notwithstanding the government’s statement concerning the HRC decision, the President of Sri Lanka does, as stated under article 34(1) of the Sri Lankan Constitution, have the power to “grant a pardon, either free or subjected to lawful conditions”, to “any offender convicted of any offence in any Court within the Republic of Sri Lanka”. Also, by not acting on the advice of the HRC, Sri Lanka goes against the Vienna Convention on the Laws of Treaties, which clearly states that a state “may not invoke the provisions of its internal laws as justification for its failure to perform a treaty.”  

The Singarasa case, unfortunately, is not an anomaly in Sri Lanka’s human rights record.

Reports by Sri Lankan human rights groups, international organisations as well as UN Special Rapporteurs have documented continuing violations of human rights in Sri Lanka, committed both by armed opposition groups such as the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) as well as by the State. These “abuses” range from “politically motivated killings, torture and the recruitment of children as soldiers” by groups such as the LTTE, to random, racial, and religious acts of violence and torture by State sponsored bodies such as the national police. 

Sri Lanka’s “pledge” also refers to the country’s invitations to, and cooperation with, the UN’s special rapporteurs and independent experts who have carried out missions to the country. According to the pledge, at least nine such missions have been undertaken since 1991 documenting phenomena such as “arbitrary executions” and unaccountable and unexplained disappearances. The pledge, however, fails to give light as to the results of these reports as well as the actions, if any, the government has taken on the recommendations of these reports. Over the last 10 years the vast majority of reports coming out of Sri Lanka depict severe breaches of fundamental human rights both by armed opposition groups and by State organisations. For example, the 2005 country visit report of Philip Alston, the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial executions, documented cases of “police brutality”, “extrajudicial executions”, and “widespread use of torture”. However, nowhere in the pledge is there any mention of any of Alston’s research, nor is there any attempt to explain action taken on the report. 

The “Aide Memoire” follows this up with what may be the one truly positive statement on the pledge: “As a manifestation of the Government’s deep commitment for the promotion and protection of human rights, the President of Sri Lanka has now appointed a Cabinet Minister [Mahinda Samarasinghe,] in charge of the subject of human rights.” 

This is certainly a step in the right direction. However, the pledge fails to mention what Mr. Samarasinghe’s job entails, how much power and initiative he will have, and how he will work in conjunction with other domestic and international human rights organisations, including the Sri Lankan Human Rights Commission. 

The question as to the future validity and effectiveness of this Cabinet Minister must also addressed. As outlined by the Committee against Torture in 2005, the government seldom acts on any advice or suggestions given by such domestic bodies or positions, and has yet to give these civil groups sufficient funding, power, or space - independence which the Paris Principles deem imperative. The Committee Against Torture’s 2005 report on Sri Lanka asked the government to “strengthen the Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka so as to allow it to function effectively” as well as to give “adequate resources, notification of arrests and full cooperation” – the government has yet to do so.

Also, as the South Asian Human Rights Documentation Centre reported in 2002, the government of Sri Lanka seems to create a new domestic human rights monitoring body or position every couple of years. These organizations include, but are not limited to, the Human Rights Centre of the Sri Lankan Foundation Institute, the Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka, and the Commission for the Elimination of Discrimination and Monitoring of Fundamental Rights. At first glance, all of this may well sound like a step in the right direction, but when cast under further review, these domestic bodies are seen to possess “conflicting and overlapping mandates” which in the end do little to no good and sometimes even take away from human rights movements in Sri Lanka. For this reason it is important that the new Cabinet Minister in charge of human rights act as a binding force between the different groups, however, if there is anything to be taken from the past – it may well be another bullet point for Sri Lanka to put on its resume with little effect on human rights. 

The final section of Sri Lanka’s pledge for candidacy is a list of “activities” and goals that the government will “soon” be implementing on a national level as well as a list of tasks it hopes to accomplish if elected to the Human Rights Council. These lists are generally quite broad and for the most part do not provide any new information. Rather than promising changes and improvement, Sri Lanka sticks with a promise to continue cooperating with UN based bodies, Special Rapporteurs, and other such mechanisms. Rather than saying it will implement the recommendations of the HRC, Special Rapporteurs, and other such human rights bodies, Sri Lanka states that it will “consider” them in context. (One has to wonder whether this means considering recommendations such as those given in the Singarasa case in context with a faulty interpretation of the national Constitution.) Lastly, rather than saying it will work to ensure the complete implementation of the numerous treaties it is party to, Sri Lanka lists some of the few remaining treaties that it has not signed and promises to sign them in the future. 

Sri Lanka has made significant strides in recent decades through the signing and ratifying of international human rights agreements. In that sense, it is a pioneer in South Asia and much of Asia as a whole. However, the time has now come for Sri Lanka to back its international rhetoric with domestic policies and implementation. Key steps in this direction must include full compliance with the recommendation of UN treaty bodies, a transparent process of appointments to the Sri Lankan Human Rights Commission in accordance with Constitutional provisions, and the issuing of standing invitations to the UN’s special mechanisms on human rights. 

Sri Lanka must make the most of its two-year-long stint at the Human Rights Council. It must start by making itself worthy of that seat.

 Human Rights Features