Sri Lanka’s Head of Mission to the European Union, Ambassador Amza addressing the meeting of the European Parliament’s Delegation for Relations with the Countries in the South Asia (DSAS) on 19 February 2014, said ”Sri Lanka is concerned about the continuation of selective adoption of country-specific actions in the HRC, driven by electoral compulsions of some Member States, as these efforts can erode the credibility and impartiality of the Council. Sri Lanka categorically rejected the previous two Resolutions adopted by the Council in March 2012 and 2013, respectively, as they were a result of a politicized and ill-conceived process, that polarized the membership of the Human Rights Council. It was in contravention of the UN General Assembly Resolution 60/251, as well as the Human Right Council Resolutions 5/1 and 5/2 which call for cooperation and genuine dialogue as well as impartiality in the method and conduct of the work of the Council. However, notwithstanding our rejection of the resolutions, the Government is continuing with its genuine and credible commitment to the reconciliation process within the framework of its own mechanism, the National Plan of Action on the implementation of the recommendations of the LLRC. We believe the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) process is the best mechanism to engage with countries on all human rights issues in an equal and fair manner”.

Ambassador made the above remarks during the discussion, in EU Parliament on the subject “Sri Lanka: state of play ahead of the March 2014 session of the UN Human Rights Council”. Ambassador further said “Although it was stated that these Resolutions on Sri Lanka are to help and encourage Sri Lanka to achieve reconciliation and durable peace, it serves the exact opposite. The conflict affected every aspect of Sri Lankan life. Unfortunately, we in Sri Lanka, during the conflict, did not see relentless efforts by certain countries to “Bring the global spotlight on Sri Lanka” , through resolutions, or INGO publishing reports, or TV Channels with the sinister motives, airing documentaries episode after episode, coinciding with important events related to Sri Lanka, to help the country and encourage her. All those who are on a crusade against us were in a deep slumber then. Today, part of the international community seems to be in a rush to pronounce judgements on Sri Lanka which are preposterous. Their patience is said to be wearing out and are of the view that only intrusive measures and ultimatums would yield results”.

Ambassador criticized a section of the International Community for being prejudice stating “They have already prejudged that our own efforts are insufficient and substandard to resolve the unprecedented issues and challenges that we had to face at the end of the conflict. We have proven them wrong by resettling almost all 297,000 IDPs, clearing over 98% of areas identified for demining, rehabilitating 11,758 ex-combatants including all 594 child soldiers, providing livelihood support to the returnees and rehabilitees/beneficiaries, rebuilding the North with over US$ 3 billion worth investments, phasing out security presence and withdrawal of HSZs, holding elections even in the former theatres of conflict, establishing civilian administration and institutions, maintaining a healthy economic growth, and also, embarking on a domestic process of reconciliation just an year after ending the conflict, and the painstaking efforts taken since July 2012, to implement the recommendations. Regrettably, there is greater reluctance to acknowledge what the country has achieved with its limited resources, but with the unlimited desire and will, to do what is right for the country”.

He further said “All our proponents seem to have one element in common. They are all heavily relying on “unsubstantiated” and “unproven” allegations coming from so called “reliable and independent sources”, whose integrity are often severely compromised. Based on these misinformation, they have arrived at the sweeping conclusion that “Sri Lanka is not doing enough”. Some, despite being invited, decided not to help the domestic process, as they were prejudicial of the eminence of our Commissioners, the adequacy and independence of the mechanisms and procedures adopted within Sri Lanka”.

While commenting on the selective approach targeting Sri Lanka, the Ambassador said “we have not seen these entities and self-professed experts criticising other similar Commissions of inquiries elsewhere, and casting doubt why those Commissions still struggle, even to come out with a report, leave aside 'road maps' or 'plan of actions'. Why not tell them also “It is Time for Action”. “The stoic silence of our critiques on such matters will speak in volumes of their hypocrisy and unprofessional approaches to bully selected countries while allowing free reign to others”, the Ambassador told EU Parliament.

Full Statement of the Ambassador:

Madam Chair, Hon. Members of the Parliament Distinguish Colleagues,

Engaging with this Parliament and especially with the South Asia Delegation is always a pleasure. Thank you for giving me another opportunity to explain what is happening in post conflict Sri Lanka, since the end of 26 years of brutal conflict against terrorism. However, the focus of this discussion, “the state of play ahead of Geneva”, indicates that there are convoluted and extraneous processes leading up to the 25th Session of the HRC in Geneva. Sri Lanka is concerned about the continuation of selective adoption of country-specific actions in the HRC, driven by electoral compulsions of some Member States, as these efforts can erode the credibility and impartiality of the Council. Sri Lanka categorically rejected the previous two Resolutions adopted by the Council in March 2012 and 2013, respectively, as they were a result of a politicized and ill-conceived process, that polarized the membership of the Human Rights Council. It was in contravention of the UN General Assembly Resolution 60/251, as well as the Human Right Council Resolutions 5/1 and 5/2 which call for cooperation and genuine dialogue as well as impartiality in the method and conduct of the work of the Council. However, notwithstanding our rejection of the resolutions, the Government is continuing with its genuine and credible commitment to the reconciliation process within the framework of its own mechanism, the National Plan of Action on the implementation of the recommendations of the LLRC. We believe the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) process is the best mechanism to engage with countries on all human rights issues in an equal and fair manner.

Madam Chair,

Although it was stated that these Resolutions on Sri Lanka are to help and encourage Sri Lanka to achieve reconciliation and durable peace, it serves the exact opposite. The conflict affected every aspect of Sri Lankan life. Unfortunately, we in Sri Lanka, during the conflict, did not see relentless efforts by certain countries to “Bring the global spotlight on Sri Lanka” , through resolutions, or INGO publishing reports, or TV Channels with the sinister motives, airing documentaries episode after episode, coinciding with important events related to Sri Lanka, to help the country and encourage her. All those who are on a crusade against us were in a deep slumber then. Today, part of the international community seems to be in a rush to pronounce judgements on Sri Lanka which are preposterous. Their patience is said to be wearing out and are of the view that only intrusive measures and ultimatums would yield results. They have already prejudged that our own efforts are insufficient and substandard to resolve the unprecedented issues and challenges that we had to face at the end of the conflict.

We have proven them wrong;
by resettling almost all 297,000 IDPs,
clearing over 98% of areas identified for demining,
rehabilitating 11,758 ex-combatants including all 594 child soldiers
providing livelihood support to the returnees and rehabilitees/beneficiaries ,
rebuilding the North with over US$ 3 billion worth investments,
Phasing out security presence and withdrawal of HSZs.
holding elections even in the former theatres of conflict,
establishing civilian administration and institutions
maintaining a healthy economic growth, and also
Embarking on a domestic process of reconciliation just an year after ending the conflict, and the painstaking efforts taken since July 2012, to implement the recommendations.

Regrettably, there is greater reluctance to acknowledge what the country has achieved with its limited resources, but with the unlimited desire and will, to do what is right for the country. Resolutions 21/1 and 22/1 that failed to give due recognition to the considerable efforts by the Government, is a clear example. All our proponents seem to have one element in common. They are all heavily relying on “unsubstantiated” and “unproven” allegations coming from so called “reliable and independent sources”, whose integrity are often severely compromised. Based on these misinformation, they have arrived at the sweeping conclusion that “Sri Lanka is not doing enough”. Some, despite being invited, decided not to help the domestic process, as they were prejudicial of the eminence of our Commissioners, the adequacy and independence of the mechanisms and procedures adopted within Sri Lanka. However, we have not seen these entities and self-professed experts criticising other similar Commissions of inquiries elsewhere, and casting doubt why those Commissions still struggle, even to come out with a report, leave aside 'road maps' or 'plan of actions'. Why not tell them also “It is Time for Action”. The stoic silence of our critiques on such matters will speak in volumes of their hypocrisy and unprofessional approaches to bully selected countries while allowing free reign to others.

This is the state of play ahead of Geneva. A third resolution on Sri Lanka is in the offing and its authors are predetermined to use their position in the Council against Sri Lanka. Nevertheless, as part of our continuing engagement with the UN Human Rights Council and the international community, few weeks ago, Secretary to the President, the Chair of the National Task Force on implementing the National Plan of Action (NPoA) on the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC) briefed the Geneva based delegations. There were concerns that we only pay attention to processes and that the LLRC Action Plan has taken only some selected recommendations.

Madam Chair,

We categorically reject these unfounded assertions. The Government on its own initiative appointed the LLRC in May 2010, one year after ending the conflict. After 13 months of deliberation, the Commission submitted its report in November 2011, and the Government made it public in December 2011 by presenting it to the Parliament. The Chapter 9 of this Report carries 285 paragraphs comprising both observations and recommendations. The Cabinet appointed a Task Force headed by the Secretary to the President, in May 2012 to monitor the implementation of LLRC recommendations. Having meticulously studied the Report, a National Action Plan (NPoA) for implementing the LLRC recommendations were presented to the Cabinet of Ministers in July 2012. Budgetary allocations for the implementation were approved by the Parliament, for the 26 implementing agencies, in the national budget adopted in December 2012. In July 2013, an additional 53 recommendations were added to the initial 91 recommendations in the NPoA, hence taking in a total of 144 recommendations which are being actively pursued since 2013. The implementation of the recommendation is an evolving process. It is true that not all the recommendations move at the same speed due to the complexity of some of the issues. It is necessary to look at them very carefully in order to ensure that whatever solutions that are being provided are sustainable and acceptable to all communities in the country, and the right balance is arrived at.

Madam Chair,

There are allegations on the numbers that may have been killed, disappeared or missing. These numbers range from 7000 to over 100,000 depending on who is projecting it. It is in such circumstances that the Ministry of Public Administration and the Department of Census concluded an Island-wide enumeration on the damages and loss to property and lives that have occurred from 1982 to date, as a direct or indirect result of the internal conflicts in the country. The results, once known, will help to rest the concomitant opinions by different quarters.

Madam Chair,

The Army Court of Inquiry report on alleged incidents of shelling civilians and civilian places is being studied by the Ministry of Defence. The Second Inquiry is ongoing on the incidents highlighted by the C4 video, irrespective of its authenticity, as recommended by the LLRC through a comprehensive procedure involving interviewing all relevant Field Commanders and potential witnesses. Once the inquiry board is able to identify the persons, the evidence will be evaluated. Depending on the gravity of the crime committed, some of those found responsible will be subjected to court material. The other cases will be handed over the law enforcement authorities for further action.

There is enough evidence to prove that GOSL has not hesitated to take action on perpetrators when evidence is provided beyond reasonable doubt and that there is no culture of impunity as speculated. However, having said that, I wish to categorically emphasize that the Government vehemently rejects the alleged co-relation being portrayed with regard to the presence of the military and the vulnerability of women in the North, as well as the accusations on systematic use of sexual abuse. Sri Lanka has a zero tolerance policy on sexual abuse, and whenever prima facie evidence is made available it has followed due procedure to bring justice. A comprehensive study carried out in the North on the issue revealed that the majority of the incidents reported were committed by civilians. However, out of 107 reported cases during the period 2007 to 18 May 2009, 7 were committed by security personnel, and another 307 cases reported during the period 2009 May to 2012, 10 were committed by military personnel. More importantly, in order to address and prevent such crimes, and other gender based violence, several initiatives were put in place, such as; establishing Women and child development units in all 25 districts in the country, providing temporary shelters and safe accommodation for victims, awareness campaigns, health, security, legal counselling for victims etc. The civil society organizations, media are bringing these incidents to the attention of the public. Also, there is a very well established programme for counselling for women and children. There are single parent families development programmes, particularly focused in the North and the East, where the widows have been provided with educational opportunities, vocational training for self-employment of women. UNICEF, IOM, and many partners are involved in supporting the government initiatives, and further assistance to empower women-headed households in the country, in line with the Government priorities would be welcomed.

Madam Chair,

We have made considered efforts to improve the human rights situation, having guaranteed in the first place, the "right to life", for all Sri Lankans by putting an end to the fear of death casted by terrorism. We have consistently worked with the UN Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances (WGEID). An Inter-Ministerial Task Force since January 2012, has transmitted responses on 842 cases to the Working Group. Further, a three-member Presidential Commission of Inquiry is undertaking public sittings to inquire into disappearances in the North and the East. The Commission however has received to date 13,700 complaints from all parts of the country and from all ethnic groups. Of these, approximately 9,300 are from civilians and 4,300 are from security personnel. Every complaint is acknowledged by letter and the data on complaints are computerized with a reference number provided to the complainant if he/she wishes to inquire into the status of the complaint subsequently.

An initial report to the Commission reveals that some of those who are reported to be missing are in fact living elsewhere in the world. If EU wishes to be helpful, and constructive, please let us address this issue together, as a shared responsibility. We invite EU to take the advantage of the EU-Sri Lanka Joint Readmission Agreement Framework to share information and let us know whether the individuals claimed to be “missing” are in fact living or not, in their respective territories. We know that hundreds of thousands of Tamils and others left Sri Lanka without proper documentation and are living in this part of the world now.

Madam Chair,

Four major religions co-exist side by side, in Sri Lanka for centuries. Regrettably there is an effort to project the sporadic incidents of attacks aimed at religious places, as a sign of religious hatred and intolerance. Let me be clear, there is no State Patronage on any of those activities. Among the cases reported, most were done to loot the property, and they included 10 reported attacks on Buddhist, 14 reported attacks on Christian / Catholic, and 18 reported attacks on Muslim places of worship during the period from June 2009 to December 2013, on which complaints have been lodged with the police and action taken. Out of the 42 reported attacks, judicial inquiries are in progress with regard to 22 cases, and 13 cases have been amicably settled. The Government is in the process of bringing legislations on hate speech.

Madam Chair,

The statements on lack of independence of judiciary began with the impeachment of the former Chief Justice. However, what has been ignored by the critiques is that the Sri Lankan Constitution, in its article 107 stipulates clearly the provisions of removing a senior judge, and a Parliamentary Select Committee was appointed as per its standing procedures, since 117 MPs have signed an impeachment motion against the CJ, on 14 charges related to non-discloser of financial assets, miss-use of power etc. The PSC consisted MPs according to their proportion of parliament representation. There has been precedence in Sri Lanka on removing senior judges by impeachments. Independence of the judiciary has always been ensured. If anyone goes before the Supreme Court for violations of fundamental rights, he/she will be heard and decisions will be made. There are many decisions against the Government in regard to sometimes by individuals of a violation of their fundamental rights, where redress has been granted. Capacity building assistance to improve the judiciary and prosecution system has been welcomed by Sri Lanka.

Madam Chair,

There have also been unfounded accusations on changing the demography of the Northern areas by resettling people other than Tamils. Before the ethnic cleansing by LTTE, the North of Sri Lanka in the early 1980 had Muslims (over 50,000) and Sinhalese (over 35,000) living peacefully. When the conflict intensified almost all these civilians either left or were forcefully evicted. The Tamils also began to move to South and live among the rest of the communities. Hence, any effort to demarcate part of the country exclusively to be mono ethnic is not practical or sustainable. Today, 51% of population in the Colombo city being non-Sinhalese is a testimony that people can freely choose where they want to live.

Madam Chair,

One of the most complex and sensitive issue that was left by the conflict is the land issue. To date, 20,001 acres of private land and 5,740 acres of state land have been released in the North and East, which were occupied by the security forces during the conflict. A Special Circular issued in January 2013 by the Land Commissioner General facilitates the resolution of land issues faced by the people in Northern and Eastern Provinces. Complaints are received under provisions of this Circular and about 155,053 complaints have been received as of to date, and 23,245 have been resolved. Lands Ministry continues to address remaining land matters with the hope to resolve them successfully during this year. The Terms of Reference for a fourth Land Commission is being prepared, taking into consideration of the sensitivities and the complexity of the land issue. Therefore the allegations on "land grabbing", is far from the truth.

Madam Chair,

We have made considerable efforts to downsize the presence of military and other security infrastructure in the North. The brief distributed would give you details as of to date. I only want to tell you that demobilizing our armed forces will be done gradually taking account of sensitive socio-economic and security issues. We need to provide the military personnel with alternate vocations and cannot simply discharge them. It is in this context, that they are now involved in some activities like construction, service providing, etc. There is in fact a substantial reduction in the area occupied by security forces in the North and the East with the number of security barricades, road blocks and checkpoints reduced by 99 percent. Additionally, military presence in the North is reduced by 30 percent of its peak levels during conflict.

Madam Chair,

Sri Lankan people rely on elections to change the governments, and there has not been any deviation of this practice since Sri Lanka gained universal suffrage in 1931, way before it gained independence. The people in the country elected the current Government with an overwhelming majority and with a decisive mandate. The people in the North for the first time in our history had the opportunity to practically participate in a free and fair election to choose their provincial counsellors. Prescriptions to Sri Lanka’s socio-political concerns must necessarily have local resonance and acceptance by all communities. There is a vibrant debate on the full implementation of the 13th Amendment. Since it is only now that the entire country is practically implementing the Provincial Council system, the most appropriate way to resolve issues is by way of discussing them through the proposed Parliamentary Select Committee. The elected Tamil members in TNA must be encouraged to take part in this process.

Madam Chair,

Last but not least, any external support, or technical cooperation if provided, must be in consultation with and with the concurrence of Sri Lanka, so that it will be in line with the socio-economic and political priorities of the country. People of Sri Lanka need to be given the space and time to decide what is best for them. Contemporary history has enough evidence to prove that intrusive efforts has brought more chaos instead of law and order, instability and anarchy, instead of progress and good governance, when solutions are imposed on countries on the premise “we know best”.

Madam Chair,

Human rights are not less important issues for us. However, I wonder whether we pay equal attention to all human rights? We see an asymmetrical pursue on civil and political rights over the cultural and socio-economic rights. For countries that are endeavouring to stabilize and revitalize their societies especially following devastating conflicts, they need to be mindful to address human rights issues in a holistic manner. Hence, ahead of another Council Session, I wish to appeal to friends and partners, to be objective in your assessments. Please be fair and balance when passing judgments. If you are sincerely interested in engaging, do it with mutual respect and dignity, and not by naming and shaming. Sri Lanka is an open, resilient and vibrant society based on democratic values. If not, we would not have survived all these negative externalities throughout our history.

I thank you Madam Chair.