It’s that time of the year when Sri Lanka’s human rights conundrum comes into focus. With the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) now in session, the spotlight is on the country’s human rights situation, which continues to draw international attention.
Since the NPP took power two years ago, there has been more openness in addressing past cases of human rights violations, but the measures taken so far are unlikely to appease those pushing for international investigations into human rights issues in Sri Lanka.
When it comes to domestic issues, the Government can always wash its hands of such matters by claiming they took place during the tenure of another government, but when it comes to issues such as human rights, any Government has to meet the challenges head on and reject any international investigation while promising stronger domestic mechanisms.
How human rights are viewed differs from country to country, and despite attempts to bring about some uniformity in safeguarding human rights and dealing with violators, it is almost impossible to do so.
Take the case of Serbian military officer Ratko Mladic, who died recently while serving a life sentence for genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity committed during the 1992-1995 war in Bosnia and Herzegovina. His body was returned for the final rites to his homeland, and despite widespread condemnation, Mladic was buried in a coffin wrapped in the Serbian flag, with full military honours and the participation of Government members.
This case clearly shows that though he was convicted by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia in The Hague, and sentenced to life in prison, he remained a hero for many in his country.
In Sri Lanka too, there are many who have labelled senior military officers who put their lives on the line to defeat a terrorist group responsible for the deaths of thousands of unarmed civilians as war criminals. Some have been sanctioned by western nations, but for the general population of the country, they will remain war heroes.
This week in Geneva, Sri Lanka’s Permanent Representative to the United Nations in Geneva, Ambassador Sumith Dassanayake, urged the UNHRC not to treat country-specific mandates as indefinite, stressing the need for periodic reviews based on clearly defined objectives and measurable outcomes.
Sri Lanka has repeatedly rejected the country-specific UNHRC resolution, which was extended till the end of 2027 last year. Along with it, the work of the OHCHR Sri Lanka Accountability Project (SLAP), which is an evidence-gathering mechanism, too continues despite protests from the Sri Lankan Government.
There has been no let-up in international pressure either, despite the changes in Government, and hence this is an issue the Government will have to focus on for many more years.
The Government, despite its commitment to address human rights issues, shows that it is easier said than done. While it has opened doors to visits by several human rights special rapporteurs and given them access to various locations, it’s unlikely things will go beyond such symbolic measures.
The promise to set up a special prosecutor’s office is also likely to be limited to words, given that such a move could prove alienating and be seen as bypassing the country’s judiciary. While the Government has reopened some cases of extrajudicial killings and murders, it’s unlikely that some of the more serious concerns, such as that of missing persons, will be addressed. Hence, come September 2027, when a comprehensive report on Sri Lanka is due, some of the main issues are likely to remain the same, leading to Sri Lanka remaining on the UNHRC mandate watch for years to come.