URU, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Bilag 139: Henvendelse af 20. marts 2017 fra Dansk Sammenslutning af Tamilske Foreninger om nyheder og rapporteringer om forholdene for tamilerne på Sri Lanka

Udenrigsudvalget 2016-17
URU Alm.del Bilag 139
Offentligt

Putting the Wolf to Guard the Sheep:

Sri Lanka’s Witness Protection Authority

ITJPSL.COM

[email protected]

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR:

YASMIN SOOKA

Executive Summary

The new body set up in Sri Lanka to protect witnesses and victims of crimes, the

“National Authority” includes three appointments made by the Government of President

Maithripala Sirisena that give rise to grave concerns about the appropriateness of their

appointments. They include an alleged perpetrator of torture named in a UN report, as

well as the official in charge of “rehabilitation” camps post-war where detainees had no

appeal rights and describe being severely tortured. Under these circumstances no

witness or victim can rely on the state for protection if they testify against the security

forces in Sri Lanka at a Truth Commission or court of law.

Witness protection is at the heart of the accountability process Sri Lanka promised its

people. Appointing figures to a witness protection body who could one day find

themselves on trial for serious crimes like torture, is akin to putting wolves to guard the

sheep. This raises serious concerns about the good faith of the Government to deliver

on its international commitments and its promises of justice to its own people.

Moreover these appointments violate Sri Lanka’s commitments in the 2015 UN

Resolution to strengthen witness protection and vet all public officials for their human

rights record. These are not the only questionable appointments; in November 2016 the

Sri Lankan Foreign Minister approved sending the official who once run the country’s

most notorious torture site to Geneva as part of the government delegation to the UN

Committee Against Torture .

Remarks for reporting by the Minister, Chatham House, 11 January 2017 and

Sri Lanka FM has no excuse

for sending spy chief to UN (Video),

ATHULA VITHANAGE, 11 January 2017, JDS Lanka,

http://www.jdslanka.org/index.php/news-features/politics-a-current-affairs/658-sri-lanka-fm-has-no-excuse-for-

sending-spy-chief-to-un-video.

The Case Against Sisira Mendis,

15 November 2016, ITJP at http://www.itjpsl.com/assets/press/The-case-

against-Sisira-Mendis-final.pdf

URU, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Bilag 139: Henvendelse af 20. marts 2017 fra Dansk Sammenslutning af Tamilske Foreninger om nyheder og rapporteringer om forholdene for tamilerne på Sri Lanka

Background

1.1 Witness Protection

Witness protection lies at the heart of the Government’s commitment to accountability

for what the UN called “system crimes” that occurred during and after the end of the

war . The Government of Sri Lanka committed itself by way of UN Resolution 30/1 at

the Human Rights Council in Geneva to establish a Truth Commission, an Office of

Missing People and a special court to which it is envisaged victims and witnesses would

testify. Were it genuinely safe, a large number of Tamil victims of war crimes

perpetrated during and after the war would want to testify at the commission or court

against the Sri Lankan military, police and their paramilitary allies.

1.2 The Assistance to and Protection of Victims of Crime and Witnesses Act

In 2015, the Government of Sri Lanka made a commitment to the Human Rights

Council in Resolution 30/1 that it would review and strengthen its Witness Protection

legislation ; to date this has not happened. This report is not a critique of the legislation

per se, whose weaknesses have been amply documented, including in the recent

consultation process in Sri Lanka . This is instead an analysis of the recent

appointments to the National Authority – the body that purportedly is to implement

witness protection in Sri Lanka.

1.3 The National Authority for the Protection of Victims of Crime and Witnesses

The enabling legislation stipulates the establishment of a National Authority for the

Protection of Victims of Crime and Witnesses, as well as a board of management and a

Victims of Crime and Witnesses Assistance and Protection Division of the Sri Lankan

Police Department . The report of the public consultation recently conducted in Sri

Lanka concluded that none of these bodies inspired confidence in their impartiality and

that they were constructed to render “the investigation of public officials and police

officials ineffective ”. This is inspite of the stated intention of the the Act:

“to give effect

to appropriate international norms, standards and best practices relating to the

protection of victims of crimes and witnesses”.

1.4 Appointments to the National Authority

The National Authority was launched to mark the first anniversary of the Sirisena

Government in January 2016 . It is supposed to include 7 ex officio members and 5

members appointed by the President who have,

“experience in professions or fields of

professional activity associated with criminology, the criminal justice system, the

“The sheer number of allegations, their gravity and recurrence and the similarities in their modus operandi,

as well as the consistent pattern of conduct they indicate, all point to system crimes”,

30 September 2015,

Statement by UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Zeid Ra'ad Al Hussein via videolink to the Human

Rights Council,

http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=16539&LangID=E#sthash.xN75VU

ok.dpuf

Available at:

http://www.srilankalaw.lk/gazette/2015_pdf/4%20of%202015.pdf

UN resolution A A/HRC/RES/30/1 said the Human Rights Council:

“Welcomes the recent passage by the

Government of Sri Lanka of an updated witness and victim protection law and its commitment to review the

law, and encourages the Government to strengthen these essential protections by making specific

accommodations to protect effectively witnesses and victims, investigators, prosecutors and judges”.

The Draft Bill for the Assistance and Protection of Victims of Crime and Witnesses: Critique and

Recommendations,

Rosalind Sipos,

https://cpalanka.org/wp-

content/uploads/2007/10/_and_Witness_Protection_Bill.pdf

Also the

Final Report of the Consultation Task

Force on Reconciliation Mechanisms,

17 November 2016, Volume 1, page 412.

The

Division for Assisting and Protecting Victims of Crime and Witnesses was established in November

2016 according to

Sri Lanka Police establishes new division to assist and protect victims of crime and

witnesses, 4 November 2016, Colombo Page,

http://www.colombopage.com/archive_16B/Nov04_1478233087CH.php .

Final Report of the Consultation Task Force on Reconciliation Mechanisms,

17 November 2016, Volume 1,

page 413.

Police website:

http://www.police.lk/index.php/special-events-/2181-sri-lanka-police-officially-establishes-the-

division-for-assisting-and-protecting-victims-of-crime-a-witnesses-,

Launch of National Authority for Protection

of Victims, tomorrow,

News.lk,

http://www.news.lk/news/business/item/11659-launch-of-national-authority-for-

protection-of-victims-tomorrow

URU, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Bilag 139: Henvendelse af 20. marts 2017 fra Dansk Sammenslutning af Tamilske Foreninger om nyheder og rapporteringer om forholdene for tamilerne på Sri Lanka

promotion and protection of human rights or medicine”.

According to the media, the ten

members of the National Authority are the following:

Members about whom there are concerns:

1. Suhada Gamlath (Chairperson)

2. Yasantha Kodagoda

3. Nandana Munasinghe

4. Ashoka Wijetilike

Members about whom there are no conerns:

5. Dr. M.A.D.S.J. Shiranjani Niriella – law professor

6. Dr. Nimal Fernando

7. Sanjeewa Samaranayake – former state counsel

8. Hamid Al Ghazali – a member of the Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka

9. Neel Hapuhinne, Additional Secretary to the Ministry of Law and Order

10. W.U.P. Premachandra, Senior Assistant Secretary to the Ministry of Women and

Child Affairs

The absence of Tamil members appointed to this body is striking given many of the

victims and witnesses will be Tamil. It has only one Muslim representative and is 90%

Sinhalese.

2. Allegations

Allegations regarding the three appointees to the National Authority who are of great

concern:

2.1 Nandana Munasinghe

Mr. Munasinghe is a former Terrorism Investigation Division (TID) director. He went on

to become Director and then DIG of the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) in

2009 and 2010 . CID has overall oversight for TID. By October 2016 he is a Senior

DIG of police .

From

අපරාධයක

සාක්ෂිකරුවන්

හා

වින්දිතයින්

ආරක්ෂා

කිරිමේ

ජාතික

අධිකාරිය

පිහිටුවිම

ජනවාරි

වැනිදා

අධිකරණ

ඇමති

අතින්

බත්තරමු�½්�½ේදී,

7 January 2016,

http://lankanews.online/index.php/localnews-sin/22-08

but

with new Chairperson updated from:

“NA for protecting victims and witnesses set up”, 8 January

2016, Ceylon Times, no longer available online, it says the appointments include: “Hamid Ghazali Hussain,

Additional Solicitor General, Yasantha Kodagoda, Additional Secretary to the Ministry of Law and Order, Neel

Hapuhinne, Senior Assistant Secretary to the Ministry of Women and Child Affairs, W.U.P. Premachandra and

Senior Deputy Inspector General of Police (Crimes and Motor Vehicle/Traffic) Nandana Munasinghe). The

chairperson was the retired High Court Judge Wimal Nambuwasam. Other members include Senior Lecturer

at the Department of Public and International Law at the Faculty of Law, the University of Colombo, Dr.

M.A.D.S.J. Shiranjani Niriella, Dr. Nimal Fernando, Deputy Inspector General of Police, Ashoka Wijethilake

and Attorney-at-Law Sanjeewa Samaranayake. The Chair resigned from the position within a few months of

appointment and was succeeded by Solicitor General Suhada Gamlath. It was further found that there was a

legal defect in the appointment of the members necessitating re-appointment several months after the body

was established. The negative impact on the credibility of the Authority was considerable”.

University biography: http://www.cmb.ac.lk/index.php/member/ms-m-a-d-s-j-s-niriella/

He has been a state counsel (or public prosecutor as a part of the Attorney General’s department)

according to:

Petitioner interested only in clearing name of late brother — Counsel

, Chitra Weerarathne , 1

March 2003, The Island,

http://www.island.lk/2003/03/01/news08.html

and also in 2001 according to this:

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:WcMyE8aPQVQJ:www.lawnetsl.com/wp-

content/uploads/2016/11/037-SLLR-SLLR-2001-V-3-DIAS-v.-DIRECTOR-OF-

CUSTOMS.pdf+&cd=6&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk

Sri Lanka releases arrested pro-JVP newspaper editor, 17 October 2009,

Tamilnet;

Several

High-Ranking

CID Officers Transferred,

20 April 210, The Sunday Leader,

http://www.thesundayleader.lk/2010/04/20/several-high-ranking-cid-officers-transferred/

The Police conducting special secret crime operation,

14 October 2016, Daily Ceylon,

http://english.dailyceylon.com/the-police-conducting-special-secret-crime-operation/

URU, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Bilag 139: Henvendelse af 20. marts 2017 fra Dansk Sammenslutning af Tamilske Foreninger om nyheder og rapporteringer om forholdene for tamilerne på Sri Lanka

In 2007 in Colombo, Mr. Munasinghe was the officer who received the UN Special

Rapporteur, Manfred Nowak, as Director of TID . Mr. Nowak said that detainees were

transferred to avoid meeting him on the orders of Nandana Munasinghe (paragraph 25)

and his report goes on to describe Mr. Munasinghe as one of the alleged perpetrators of

torture who merited investigation (paragraph 13, page 30) :

“The Special Rapporteur recommends that prompt and independent investigations of all

allegations of torture and ill-treatment be carried out in order to bring those responsible

to justice (i.e. the alleged perpetrators, Inspector of Police Saman, Police Constable

Perera, and the management of TID, including the Director of TID, Senior

Superintendent of Police, Nandana Munasinghe, as well as the CID officers allegedly

responsible for the ill-treatment of Nicholas Stephen) ”.

There is no information publicly available to suggest that the Government of Sri Lanka

ever held Mr. Munasinghe accountable as was recommended by the UN Special

Rapporteur. Instead he was promoted during the Rajapaksa government to the rank of

DIG and functioned as such for 10 months in 2008 and 2009. He assumed duties as

DIG (Wayamba West) in his office in Puttalam on April 27, 2010. In 2013 he was

again promoted to Senior DIG.

Accountability in Sri Lanka and indeed witness protection has been dealt a blow by his

appointment in January 2016 by President Sirisena’s Government to a newly formed

body purportedly intended to protect witnesses.

Under the Act, one of the National Authority’s duties is:

“to take measures to sensitize

public officers involved in the enforcement of the law, including officers of the Sri Lanka

Police… ”.

It is hard to see how an alleged perpetrator can do that.

In addition, Mr. Munasinghe is alleged to have threatened a prominent journalist,

Sittampalam Tissainayagam while he was in detention in his custody:

“Director TID Nandana Munasinghe, while talking to Tissainayagam, referred to his

friendship with the journalist Sivaram. Mr. Munasinghe specifically reminded of the way

that Sivaram met his death – his body was later discovered in some bushes in close

proximity to the Parliament premises. He had been alarmed at this line of questioning,

as he did not understand what was meant by it. ”

In 2009 US President Barack Obama singled out Mr. Tissainayagam's case in his World

Press Freedom Day address as an emblematic example of journalists being imprisoned

for doing their jobs .

Moreover Mr Tissainayagam and another journalist and his partner, Mr. Vettival

Jasikaran and Ms. Valarmarthi Vadivelu, who were also detained in 2008 by TID filed a

A/HRC/7/3/Add.6,

REPORT OF THE SPECIAL RAPPORTEUR ON TORTURE AND OTHER CRUEL,

INHUMAN OR DEGRADING TREATMENT OR PUNISHMENT, MANFRED NOWAK, ON HIS MISSION TO

SRI LANKA,

http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/7session/A.HRC.7.3.Add.6_ch.pdf

Ibid.

Witness testimony on file.

DIG Nandana Munasinghe transferred again – this time to NW Range,

by SURESH PERERA, 2 May 2010,

The Island, http://www.island.lk/2010/05/02/news13.html

Police website: http://www.police.lk/index.php/special-events-/686-passing-out-of-the-police-officers-who-

were-trained-at-police-training-school--kaluthara

ASSISTANCE TO AND PROTECTION OF VICTIMS OF CRIME AND WITNESSES ACT,

No. 4 OF 2015, 7

March 2015,

http://www.srilankalaw.lk/gazette/2015_pdf/4%20of%202015.pdf

I was harassed by TID”-Tissainayagam, 10 November 2007,

T. Farook Thajudeen,

https://freemediasrilanka.wordpress.com/tag/tid/

Statement by the President in honor of World Press Freedom Day,

1 May 2009,

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press- office/statement-president-honor-world-press-freedom-day

URU, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Bilag 139: Henvendelse af 20. marts 2017 fra Dansk Sammenslutning af Tamilske Foreninger om nyheder og rapporteringer om forholdene for tamilerne på Sri Lanka

Fundamental Rights case in 2008 naming Mr. Munasinghe, among other respondents .

This is a matter of public record.

2.2 Chairperson : Solicitor General, Suhada Gamlath.

Mr. Gamlath is second in seniority only to the Attorney General himself in the

department . The Attorney General’s Department is the chief legal adviser to the

President and to all departments and ministries of government, including the State

security forces and the police. The role of the Attorney General’s staff in the protection

of witnesses testifying against the State, especially the security forces, by its very

nature places them in conflict of interest as far as any inquiry into the administration of

justice. Mr. Gamlath was also the Secretary, Ministry of Justice and Law Reforms under

the Rajapaksa Government .

(a) Commissioner General for Rehabilitation

In addition, Mr. Gamlath held the post of Commissioner General for Rehabilitation

from 12 September 2006 to 7 August 2009

;

his specific responsibility in this role was

for all surendees in the conflict, according to the UN investigation report . This means

Mr. Gamlath was in overall charge of “rehabilitation” camps all over the country when

torture was routine during interrogation of suspected former LTTE cadres. He also

allegedly oversaw a system of mass detention without trial or the right of appeal.

Though he was only in charge of “rehabilitation” until 7 August 2009, ITJP has 14

witnesses who describe systematic torture during that timeframe of inmates in these

camps, which were under Mr. Gamlath’s responsibility at the time. Some of these sites

are also named as places of torture in the UN report (OISL 2015, paragraph 547):

Nellikkulam , Omanthai Central College; Pampaimadu college, Poonthottam camp,

Rambaikulam College. The UN investigation concluded that there was, “torture in

multiple facilities, including army camps, police stations, “rehabilitation camps”, and

prisons” (paragraph 545) and said the use of torture followed “similar patterns by a

range of security forces in multiple facilities” (paragraph 1129). The report concluded

that:

“..there are reasonable grounds to believe that this torture was committed on a

widespread scale. This breaches the absolute prohibition of torture, and Sri Lanka’s

international treaty and customary obligations. If established before a court of law, these

acts of torture may, depending on the circumstances, amount to crimes against

humanity if committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack, and as war crimes

if a nexus is established with the armed conflict.” (paragraph 1130)

Tissainayagam, Jaseeharan, Valarmathi not seeking interim relief from court,

28 August 2008, Tamilnet,

https://www.tamilnet.com/art.html?catid=13&artid=26779

The initial chair is reported to have resigned after a few months, to be replaced by Mr. Suhada Gamlath.

Attorney General’s website, http://www.attorneygeneral.gov.lk/index.php/the-law-officers

From 2007 until at least 2011, according to media reports, Suhada Gamlath took up the position of

Secretary to the Justice Ministry, an appointment made by Mahinda Rajapaksa:

The confusing drama behind

AG’s appointment,

24 February 2016, http://www.sundaytimes.lk/160214/columns/the-confusing-drama-

behind-ags-appointment-182829.html

Government website of the Rehabilitation Ministry: http://www.bcgr.gov.lk/cgrs.php

According to the statement made by Mr. Suhada Gamlath, Secretary/Ministry of Justice & Commissioner

General of Rehabilitation at the Meeting of the Security Council Working Group on Children and Armed

Conflict held in New York on 1 July 2009,

“at present most child combatants have been identified and are in a

process of being sent to child rehabilitation centres...these children are being treated as victims and not as

suspects in detention for their involvement in terrorist activities.”

From

The Implementation of certain Human

Rights Conventions in Sri Lanka, Interim Report (prepared for the European Commission looking at GSP+ by

3 independent experts), 19 August 2009,

Prepared by Françoise Hampson, Leif Sevón and Roman

Wieruszewski.

OISL (paragraph 705):

“In September 2006, President Rajapaksa appointed a Commissioner General of

Rehabilitation (CGR) with specific responsibilities in relation to all “surrendees” in the conflict, including

children.”

This is also spelt Nelukkulam.

URU, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Bilag 139: Henvendelse af 20. marts 2017 fra Dansk Sammenslutning af Tamilske Foreninger om nyheder og rapporteringer om forholdene for tamilerne på Sri Lanka

(b) “Rehabilitation Camp” Victims

ITJP has substantial and credible testimony from 14 survivors

of torture in

“rehabilitation” camps during the period Mr. Gamlath was in charge.

Rambaikulam Maha Vidyalayam:

Six male witnesses testify to being tortured here in

May and June 2009. Several have ICRC certificates to prove they were held in this

camp at this time though they all say they were threatened by soldiers not to tell the

Red Cross about their mistreatment and did not do so.

The testimonies describe a series of structured interrogations in the camp with

interrogation rooms set up for torture with electrical wires, sticks, cricket wickets,

wooden batons, plastic pipes filled with sand and water barrels. Survivors describe

being stripped down to their underwear or naked and tortured by men in army uniforms

and intelligence officers in plain clothes until they passed out unconscious. Some

witnesses describe seeing people being taken away and never coming back. Others

saw fellow inmates returned by soldiers after the interrogations, badly injured, unable to

walk and moaning in pain. They also allege that they were given insufficient food and

they were indiscriminately beaten by soldiers while waiting to use the toilet or queueing

for food.

Nelukkulam Camp:

Two witnesses were tortured here between May and July 2009, a

man and a woman, in seggregated parts of the camps. The female witness described

being held with 400 women and said there was certainly not any rehabilitation offered.

She described being physically tortured to the point of being knocked out unconscious

and bleeding and also sexually abused on several occasions.

“They touched my private

parts over my clothes during interrogation and they would be laughing,”

she said of the

uniformed soldiers. A male witness says he was held with two thousand men in

Nelukkulam from late July 2009 and repeatedly taken to be tortured and on three times

sexually violated.

“I was on crutches and they beat me with them till they broke and hit

me with a rifle butt,”

he testified. In addition he was also tortured with chilli powder and

beaten with palmyrah branches and forced to drink alcohol.

Pampaimadu:

Two female witnesses described torture in this camp with other

witnesses describing their ill treatment, poor food and substandard conditions

inconsistent with promoting rehabilitation. One woman was interrogated four times by

men in civilian clothes who said they were from the CID. She was beaten with rifle butts,

burnt with cigarettes on her breast, stomach and upper hip and submerged in water

until she choked. Another describes being in a group of women locked in a room,

stipped naked and ordered to stand with their hands against the wall while they were

beaten with a stick with great force on their buttocks. She said other women inmates

received the same abuse.

“There was no rehabilitation conducted there,”

she

commented,

“only further mental and physical harm”.

Welikanda Rehabilitation Camp:

A male witness describes surrendering in February

2009 and being moved to a school in Vavuniya, where he was kept in a cell with 50

other captured LTTE cadres and severely tortured. He was then moved to Welikanda

“rehabilitation” camp where he was tied up, slapped and beaten while questioned.

“I

was given no sort of rehabilitation there – it was only detention. We were treated like

hard labour and they sometimes took us for road construction and repair work. We were

treated like slave labour,”

he said.

Poonthottam Maha Vidyalayam:

A male witness describes torture during interrogation

here in late May or early June 2009 and has his ICRC certificate which confirms he was

in this camp at this time. He was slapped all over his body, punched and beaten on his

It is worth noting the ITJP has interviewed many more survivors of torture from different time periods in the

“rehabilitation” process.

URU, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Bilag 139: Henvendelse af 20. marts 2017 fra Dansk Sammenslutning af Tamilske Foreninger om nyheder og rapporteringer om forholdene for tamilerne på Sri Lanka

wounds, had his head submerged in a barrel of water and was beaten severely on the

soles of his feet. He says on two occasions people came from outside the rehabilitation

camp in plain clothes introducing themselves as from CID.

Omanthai Maha Vidalayam:

A witness says he was tortured on several occasions

here by CID, TID and soldiers incuding military intelligence and has an ICRC letter to

confirm that he was held in this camp in May 2009.

Kovilkulam Maha Vidayalam:

A male witness says during his detention here he was

slapped and punched, kicked with boots and beaten with sticks, batons and plastic

pipes filled with sand. His head was submerged into water and he was beaten on the

soles of his feet. He was also seen here by officials from the ICRC in June 2009.

The Government of Sri Lanka boasted that their “rehabilitation” programme offered

skills training, meditation and education with the goal of changing the mindset of former

Tamil combatants:

“Instead of taking the beaten path of retributive justice of prosecuting the LTTE cadres,

the government invested in a strategy of restorative justice, where former LTTE cadres

were rehabilitated and released. Imbibed by a culture shaped by ‘loving-kindness’

(metta), no Sri Lankan objected to giving the former LTTE cadres a second chance in

life… ”

Also according to the Government’s proposal the plan from the outset was to have the

security forces who had just defeated the LTTE assess them:

“Four State institutions, namely the Terrorist Investigation Department (TID),

Criminal Investigation Department (CID), Military Intelligence Corps (MIC), and

Attorney General's Department (AGD) will be involved in the process of

determining the 'degree of involvement' of those identified as ex-combatants on a

case-by-case basis. The culpability or otherwise is to be determined by the AG,

finally subject to the transitional justice mechanism that will be in place .”

The structure of the rehabilitation camps was such that it lent itself to abuse. Indeed to

this date there is no comprehensive transparent list of the names of the more than 20

“rehabilitation” camps and when they operated. Nor is there clarity about the number of

people who have been through this process. In 2010 the International Commission of

Jurists described Sri Lanka as operating, “what may be the largest mass administrative

detention anywhere in the world”. It wrote in a report on the “rehabilitation”camps under

Mr. Gamlath’s purview until August 2009:

“The ICJ is concerned that the Government’s ‘surrendee’ and ‘rehabilitation’ regime fails

to adhere to international law and standards, jeopardizing the rights to liberty, due

process and fair trial. There are also allegations of torture and enforced disappearance.

Access required for reliable and accurate monitoring by international agencies,

including the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), has been denied.

Political expedience and secrecy have tended to take precedence over legality and

accountability. ”

The UN Panel of Experts in 2011 said:

Reconciliation after Terrorism: The Sri Lankan Experience,

Asanga Abeygoonasekera and Rohan

Gunaratna, http://dbsjeyaraj.com/dbsj/archives/10144

National Framework Proposal for Reintegration of Ex-combatants into Civilian Life in Sri Lanka.

Beyond Lawful Constraints: Sri Lanka’s Mass Detention of LTTE Suspects,

ICJ, September 2010.

URU, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Bilag 139: Henvendelse af 20. marts 2017 fra Dansk Sammenslutning af Tamilske Foreninger om nyheder og rapporteringer om forholdene for tamilerne på Sri Lanka

“There is virtually no information about the conditions at these separate LTTE

‘surrendee’ sites, due to a deliberate lack of transparency by the Government. The fact

that interrogations and investigations as well as “rehabilitation” activities have been

ongoing, without any external scrutiny for almost two years, rendered alleged LTTE

cadre highly vulnerable to violations such as rape, torture or disappearances, which

could be committed with impunity (paragraph 167) ”.

The “rehabilitation” process operated under Sri Lanka’s Emergency Regulations and

according to the OHCHR Investigation into Sri Lanka (OISL, 2015, paragraph 339)

these “gave broad immunity from prosecution to officials in the course of implementing

the regulations”. The Emergency Regulations were allowed to lapse in 2011 but it isn’t

clear whether those previously involved in the “rehabilitation” process still have

immunity which would make a mockery of the vetting process Sri Lanka committed to

institute for its public officials under the 2015 UN Resolution.

The same UN report (OISL, paragraph 361) explains that habeus corpus rights were

suspended in the “rehabilitation” process where “surrendees” could be detained for 12

months, which could be extended for up to two years without charge or trial. The

process of deciding who was a hard-core LTTE member and how long people should

be detained was completely arbitrary.

The UN further states that it:

“received allegations that most of these places were more like detention centres, with

few or no rehabilitation activities. Effectively, being held in the PARCs (“protective

accommodation and rehabilitation centres”) amounted to administrative detention for

the majority of ‘surrendees’”.

There was also a very troubling element of corruption associated with the

“rehabilitation” process, which has not yet been investigated despite being widely

reported. OISL said in 2015:

“In 16 cases documented by OISL and also in cases reported by others, release was

secured upon payment of a large bribe by a family member of the detainee, often

through intermediaries. The EPDP was commonly cited as one such intermediary. The

acceptance of payments to grant release of detainees appears to have been

widespread. This is in direct contradiction with the authorities’ claim that the individuals

detained constituted a threat to national security.” (paragraph 383)

(d) Call for Investigation into Allegations of Torture in “Rehabilitation”

Programme

More recently in December 2016 the UN Committee Against Torture said it was

concerned about recent allegations from credible sources of cases of torture of persons

in “rehabilitation” and reommended the programme be abolished. It also expressed

concerns about the continuing use of the “rehabilitation” programme, the lack of

transparency regarding the criteria for selection, the conditions for detention and the

judicial oversight (paragraph 25) . It recommended (paragraph 26) that Sri Lanka

establish an independent mechanism promptly, impartially and effectively to investigate

allegations of torture and sexual violence in the “rehabilitation” centres.

The

Government of Sri Lanka has not indicated whether it intends to do this and continues

to use the discredited “rehabilitation” process.

REPORT OF THE SECRETARY-GENERAL’S PANEL OF EXPERTS ON ACCOUNTABILITY IN SRI

LANKA,

31 March 2011, http://www.un.org/News/dh/infocus/Sri_Lanka/POE_Report_Full.pdf

Sri Lanka: ‘Bait and Switch’ on Emergency Law,

7 September 2011, Human Rights Watch,

https://www.hrw.org/news/2011/09/07/sri-lanka-bait-and-switch-emergency-law.

UNCAT Concluding Observations,

December 2016.

URU, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Bilag 139: Henvendelse af 20. marts 2017 fra Dansk Sammenslutning af Tamilske Foreninger om nyheder og rapporteringer om forholdene for tamilerne på Sri Lanka

One of the recommendations in the report on Sri Lanka by the UN Special Rapporteur

on torture, Juan Mendez, was also:

“Shut down the Poonthottam rehabilitation centre

programme and release unconditionally those who remain in the centre or any other

rehabilitation centre ”.

(e) Action Contre la Faim (ACF) Killings

Media reports say it was Mr. Gamlath as Secretary to the Ministry of Justice who

ordered in 2006 the transfer for the ACF preliminary judicial inquiry from the courts in

Kantalai near Muttur to Anuradhapura, more than a hundred kilometres away .

Anuradhapura is a Sinhalese army garrison town; travelling there was difficult for Tamil

witnesses . Some reports even cite verbatim the journal entry of the Muttur Magistrate

referencing an order from Mr Gamlath .This was described by the lawyer for the

victims’ families as blatant political interference because only the Judicial Services

Commission had the authority to transfer cases, not the secretary of the ministry.

(f) Trincomalee Five Killings

When Mr. Gamlath was Secretary to the Ministry of Justice in 2011, media reports say

he acted on behalf of President Mahinda Rajapaksa, arguing he enjoyed immunity from

prosecution, when he faced a legal challenge from the father of one of the Trincomalee

5 victims . This means Mr. Gamlath has acted on behalf of the state against victims in

an emblematic incident that the UN Investigation (OISL 2015) said, “highlights the

systematic failure of the criminal justice system” in Sri Lanka. It is also a case in which

witnesses have been threatened and forced to flee the country. The UN report

(paragraph 272) said,

“there are reasonable grounds to believe that security force

personnel, including STF personnel, killed the five students. This case demonstrates

again the challenges in pursuing accountability for such alleged crimes at the domestic

level in the context of Sri Lanka.”

(g) Conflicts of Interest

Several members of Civil Society in Colombo and Human Rights Commissioners

participated in events with the National Authority; media reports indicate they raised

issues of conflict of interest and interestingly the chair, Mr. Gamlath, seemed to

A/HRC/343/54/Add.2, Published 25 January 2017.

“On September 5, the preliminary judicial inquiry was shifted from the courts in Kantalai, near Muttur, to

Anuradhapura, more than 100 kilometres away. Justice Ministry Secretary Suhada Gamlath ordered the

transfer in breach of basic legal procedure. According to Sri Lankan law, any initial inquiry has to be

conducted in the same judicial area where the crime took place”, Sri Lankan government manipulates inquiry

into massacre of aid workers,

29 September 2006, by Nanda Wickramasinghe,

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2006/09/sril-s29.html

“The fact that the transfer was by political order (ie; Justice Secretary) shows the manner in which the court

proceedings are sought to be subverted and very blatantly at that. Anuradhapura is situated in the North

Central province (a predominantly Sinhala area) where the perception as well as the reality being that, given

the extraordinary sensitivity of this case, witnesses will be reluctant to attend as opposed to the matter being

continued in Trincomalee”, Why the State is not the LTTE and vice versa,

Kishali Pinto Jayawardena,10

September 2006, The Sunday Times Lanka, http://www.sundaytimes.lk/060910/Columns/Focus.html

“Hon. Mr. Suhada Gamlath through phone directed me to send the file to Hon. Magistrate Anuradhapura to

handle the file on the instructions of the J.S.C. I send the file to Hon. Magistrate Anuradhapura today itself

(4/9/06). Mr. Jegasothy (AAL) requested certified copy of the entire proceeding. Issue certified copy. M.

Ganesharajah, Magistrate, Muttur”, Sri Lanka: Subverting justice regarding the Muttur killings and repeating

the legacy of immunity for gross abuses of human rights,

11 September 2006, http://reliefweb.int/report/sri-

lanka/sri-lanka-subverting-justice-regarding-muttur-killings-and-repeating-legacy

Mr. President “You Have Been Served,

2011,Frederica Jansz, The Sunday Leader, says:

“Suhada

Gamlath, Secretary to the Ministry of Justice on June 18, wrote to Rick Hamilton in the USA asserting that it

would be seriously prejudicial to Sri Lanka’s sovereignty for the Central Authority to facilitate proceedings in

the Manmoharan lawsuit against President Rajapaksa. This was mainly because, as Head of State of Sri

Lanka, President Rajapaksa is absolutely immune from the jurisdiction of the courts of the United

States. Also that the claims against President Rajapaksa for actions allegedly taken under his command

responsibility as Head of State, head of Government and Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of Sri

Lanka, are in substance claims against Sri Lanka itself, for which both Sri Lanka and President Rajapaksa are

entitled to sovereign immunity from suit.”

New police division to be opened soon to protect crime victims and witnesses,

11 September 2016, Namini

Wijedasa, Sunday Times, http://www.sundaytimes.lk/160911/news/new-police-division-to-be-opened-soon-to-

protect-crime-victims-and-witnesses-208415.html

URU, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Bilag 139: Henvendelse af 20. marts 2017 fra Dansk Sammenslutning af Tamilske Foreninger om nyheder og rapporteringer om forholdene for tamilerne på Sri Lanka

acknowledge the conflicts but we can find no publicly available information that he has

taken action to remedy the problem .

Media reports also say Mr. Gamlath led the inquiry into alleged wrongdoing at the Avant

Garde private security firm that was set up by former Secretary of Defence, Gotabaya

Rajapaksa . Mr. Gamlath was accused by a minister of suppressing the investigation

Moreover media reports suggest Mr. Gamlath supports the death penalty even though

the Sri Lankan Human Rights Commission proposed abolishing it .

2.3. Yasantha Kodagoda

Mr. Kodagoda joined the Attorney General’s department in 1989 and was promoted in

2005 to Deputy Solicitor General and then again in 2015 by the Sirisena Government to

Additional Solicitor General . He’s also been a visiting lecturer at the Kotalawela

Defence University .

Concerns have been raised about the integrity and impartiality of Additional Solicitor

General Yasantha Kodagoda who is alleged to have covered up serious human rights

abuses under several different governments.

Interviewed for a newspaper article extolling the virtues of the new Witness Protection

legislation passed in 2015, Mr. Kodagoda emphasized that the law could be used for

victims making Fundamental Rights applications alleging torture, illegal arrest and

illegal detention, as well as to protect whistleblowers. Mr. Kodagoda went on to say that,

“the police will no doubt have to operate with great independence, free of political or any

other interference ”.

Given the thousands of pending allegations of torture and

“Mr.

Gamlath admitted that areas of possible conflict have to be addressed if the State was serious about

making the system work”.

Ibid.

AG To Retire On January 09: Wijeyadasa Pushing Suhada Gamlath As New AG

, 30 December 2015,

Asian Mirror, http://www.asianmirror.lk/news/item/13762-ag-to-retire-on-january-09-wijeyadasa-pushing-

suhada-gamlath-as-new-ag

(a)

“Rajitha once accused that the Attorney General and Suhada Gamlath were behind the move to

suppress the Avant Garde probe and allow the proprietor of Avant Garde to travel overseas. Suhada Gamlath

left the AG’s Department to take up the position of Secretary to the Justice Ministry, another appointment

made by Mahinda. It was no secret that Mahinda ignored the Justice Minister and ran the Justice Ministry via

Suhada Gamlath. During the period Yuwananjan was AG and Suhada was Acting AG, the Maithri-Ranil

Government submitted 37 cases through the FCID for necessary advice. The AG’s Department acted only on

eight cases. The fate of the remaining 29 cases is yet unknown”. Who is hiding files of Rajapaksas in AG’s

Department?, 17 February 2016,

Upul Joseph Fernando., Sri Lanka Guardian,

http://www.slguardian.org/2016/02/who-is-hiding-files-of-rajapaksas-in-ags-department/

(b)

Sri Lanka: Avant Garde Sordid Saga & the National Security,

13 October 2015, Sri Lanka Guardian. And:

“Deputy

Minister of Power Ajith P. Perera proposed that the attorney-general and the police chief are to be

summoned to Parliament and questioned on their conduct over the Avant Garde case”.

The Avant Garde

issue is not over,

9 November 2015, Daily Mirror Lanka,

http://www.dailymirror.lk/94605/the-avant-garde-

issue-is-not-over#sthash.4ShWmonc.dpuf .

President had summoned Attorney General Yuwanjana Wanasundera to attend the meeting along

with Additional Solicitor General Wasantha Navaratne Bandara. Unlike the Attorney general, his deputy

Bandara had maintained there was sufficient grounds to arrest Gotabhaya Rajapaksa and prosecute Avant

Garde, but his opinion had been overruled. Government sources said Bandara had been prevented from

attending the meeting and instead controversial Solicitor General Suhada Gamlath had been present to

answer questions about the slow pace of AG’s department work”, Sri Lanka to prosecute Avant Garde,

revokes 'agreement',

11 November 2015, Economy Next.

(d)

“At

a meeting of the committee, when Anura Kumara Dissanayake, the JVP leader and Champika

Ranawaka, the JHU leader raised questions, Solicitor General Suhada Gamlath could not keep quiet. He

disclosed that Marapana directed him not to object when an application is made to have the passport of

Senadipathi returned for him to travel to Nigeria. Gamlath said he checked with Justice Minister Rajapakshe.

He had said he was asked not to object and go slow with the case”. Justice Minister Wijeyadasa Corrupt

Since Time Of COPE Chairmanship: Photos Reveal,

10 December 2015, Colombo Telegraph,

https://www.colombotelegraph.com/index.php/justice-minister-wijeyadasa-corrupt-since-time-of-cope-

chairmanship-photos-reveal/

Sri Lanka considering death penalty again,

The Hindu, 26 July 2009,

http://asiadeathpenalty.blogspot.co.uk/2009/08/sri-lanka-considering-death-penalty.html;

Justice Ministry

Against Abolishing Death Penalty,

RaisaWickrematunge, 1 January 2012.

Additional Solicitor General and President’s Counsel,

22 February 2015, The Sunday Times Lanka,

http://www.sundaytimes.lk/150222/plus/additional-solicitor-general-and-presidents-counsel-136590.html

Ibid.

Victim and witnesses protection law finally through,

28 February 2015, Randima Attygalle, Sunday Island,

http://www.island.lk/index.php?page_cat=article-details&page=article-details&code_title=120448

Referred to by the Sri Lankan Foreign Minister, Mangala Samaraweera, in London at Chatham House,

Sri

Lanka FM has no excuse for sending spy chief to UN (Video),

16 January, ATHULA VITHANAGE, JDS Lanka

URU, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Bilag 139: Henvendelse af 20. marts 2017 fra Dansk Sammenslutning af Tamilske Foreninger om nyheder og rapporteringer om forholdene for tamilerne på Sri Lanka

decades of police abuse, the ITJP does not believe the police can or will act

independently.

(a) The All Island Commission on Disappearances of Persons (1998-2000)

This commission questioned Mr. Kodagoda, as a representative of the Attorney

General’s department, about his role in delayed and failed investigations into cases

referred to the Missing Persons Unit of the AG’s Department, as well the release of

security force officials alleged to have been involved in the killing of Tamils.

Significantly there have been very few convictions from the 1998-2000 commissions

though they identified thousands of alleged perpetrators:

“The Zonal Commissions identified several thousand suspected perpetrators in more

than 1,000 cases. In addition, the “All Island” Commission identified several hundred

individuals allegedly responsible for disappearances… In 1994, the Sri Lankan Human

Rights Commission started processing the 16,305 complaints referred to it by the “All

Island” Commission and eventually identified 2,127 cases to be investigated further.

However, in July 2006, the Human Rights Commission decided not to pursue the

analysis of these cases “unless special directions are received from the

Government…Of the several thousand suspected perpetrators that the commissions

identified, less than 500 were indicted and even fewer were convicted. ”

It is worth noting the All Island Commission on Disappearances of Persons operated

under the Government of former President Chandrika Kumaratunga who is currently

chairperson of the Office for National Unity Reconciliation in the Sirisena Government .

(b) Udalagama Commission of Inquiry/IIGEP 2007-8

The Udalagama Commission was mandated to investigate 16 cases of serious

violations of human rights, among which were the ACF killings and the Trincomalee

Five Killings (see above section 2.2, paragraphs (e) and (f), regarding these cases and

another member of the National Authority, Mr Suhada Gamalath).

The Asian Human Rights Commission raised concerns in a public letter to the Sirisena

Government in September 2016 about Mr. Kodagoda, saying:

“His public role before the Udalagama Commission of Inquiry is well known given that

Mr. Kodagoda was specifically and negatively named by members of the International

Independent Group of Eminent Persons (IIGEP) monitoring that Commission. Mr.

Kodagoda was the Lead Counsel for the Attorney General at the Commission even

though the Commission was inquiring into actions of state officers in regard to failure to

properly investigate and prosecute certain cases of gross human rights abuses in

regard to which he had been himself involved at the preliminary stage of advising on the

investigations. This represented a clear conflict of interest. In addition, while the role of

the Attorney General’s Department’s officers was to assist the Commission, Mr.

Kodagoda aggressively cross examined the witnesses who came before the

Commission, in a vigorous attempt to protect state agents against whom these

http://www.jdslanka.org/index.php/news-features/politics-a-current-affairs/658-sri-lanka-fm-has-no-excuse-for-

sending-spy-chief-to-un-video

and by the UN Special Rapporteur, Juan Mendez who referenced thousands of

Fundamental Rights cases.

“On December 9, 1994, President Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga issued three Presidential

Proclamations, appointing three different Commissions of Inquiry to look into the “Involuntary Removal or

Disappearance of Persons” over the course of the conflict. The three Zonal Commissions were each

responsible for the following provinces: i) the Central, North West, North Central and Uva Provinces; ii) the

Northern and the Eastern Provinces; iii) the Western, Southern, and Sabaragamuwa Provinces. In 1998, the

work of these three commissions was complemented by an “All Island” Commission, which was tasked to

investigate cases that the Zonal Commissions were not able to address”,

Commissions

of Inquiry: Sri Lanka,

http://www.usip.org/publications/commissions-of-inquiry-sri-lanka

Ibid.

ONUR website: http://onur.gov.lk/index.php/en/about-onur

URU, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Bilag 139: Henvendelse af 20. marts 2017 fra Dansk Sammenslutning af Tamilske Foreninger om nyheder og rapporteringer om forholdene for tamilerne på Sri Lanka

witnesses were giving evidence. We are also aware that, regarding the detention of

Tamil prisoners at Boosa camp , he prevented discussions on the arrest and detention

of Tamil prisoners without grounds for reasonable suspicion ”.

Similar concerns were raised by the International Independent Group of Eminent

Persons (IIGEP) who observed the Udalagama Commission . The international experts

examined evidence in several of the cases under investigation, including the killing of

five youths and the wounding of others in Trincomalee in January 2006 and the killing of

the seventeen Action Contre la Faim (ACF) aid workers in Muttur in August 2006.

A confidential report to donors who funded the IGEP process outlines how at the public

and also the closed hearings on 14 May 2007 into the ACF killings, Mr. Kodagoda tried

to pin the killings on the LTTE by arguing whoever was in control of Muttur Town centre

on that day would likely be responsible . This report alleges that there were many

pieces of evidence, including a government press release, known to Mr. Kodagoda that

established that it was in fact government commandos and other security forces that

controlled Muttur at the relevant time . The later UN report corroborated this based on

information from the Scandinavian ceasefire monitors, SLMM and clearly concluded,

“there are reasonable grounds to believe that members of the security forces committed

the extrajudicial executions of the ACF staff”(paragraph

238).

There were serious conflicts of interest in the way the Commission was established.

The warrant for the Commission of Inquiry was drafted by Yasantha Kodagoda, who

previously had been an Attorney General’s advisor to the original and ongoing police

investigators, in at least the ACF Case, and subsequently, became the lead counsel for

the Commission, and the Government’s drafter of the amendments to the Commissions

of Inquiry Act and the draft witness protection bill. IIGEP’s confidential report, which

ITJP has a copy of, says none of the investigations into these cases came close to

meeting international norms and standards. The 2015 UN Investigation (paragraph

236) said,

“This case was not effectively investigated, illustrating the entrenched

impunity enjoyed by perpetrators and the challenges met in furthering accountability at

the domestic level in Sri Lanka…The Executive interfered with the inquest and shifted

the case to a jurisdiction in a Sinhalese area where Tamils had difficulty attending the

proceedings. The magistrate initially assigned the case was threatened.”

In their confidential report, the IIGEP experts say a senior Government minister and

high-ranking officers of the security forces threatened, intimidated or attempted to

influence witnesses into silence, or providing false testimony or fleeing the country. The

UN Investigation later corroborated this saying:

“Shortly after the events, the families of the killed students started receiving threats

including in writing; stones were thrown at their house; electricity was turned off in their

home at night-time and they were harassed by security forces at checkpoints and other

public locations.

…One

family member who refused to be silenced received a call from

These prisoners would have been held by TID where fellow National Authority member Mr. Nandana

Munasinghe worked.

SRI LANKA: AHRC writes to the Ministers of Foreign Affairs and Justice on the Torture Committee under

the National Human Rights Action Plan,

13 September 2016, Asian Human Rights Centre,

http://www.humanrights.asia/news/ahrc-news/AHRC-STM-141-2016/?searchterm=yasantha

Ibid.

“With regard to the ACF killings these claims caused controversy. The Daily News of 4 morning quoted

cabinet spokesman Keheliya Rambukwelle claiming (on the 3 night) that ‘Muttur town is under the total

control of the Security Forces’. But the same spokesman after the SLMM statement pointed to the security

forces as the party most likely behind the ACF killings, maintained that the crime, committed around the 4

morning according to post mortem reports, was the work of the LTTE”,

according to University Teachers for

Human Rights (Jaffna) Sri Lanka, Special Report No.30, 1 April 2008,

http://www.uthr.org/SpecialReports/Spreport30.htm

In addition cabinet spokesman Keheliya Rambukwelle told the BBC Sinhala Service that Muttur was under

Government control on 3 night.

Paragraph 235, OISL 2015 says,“there

cannot be any other armed groups than the security forces who

could have been behind the act”.

URU, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Bilag 139: Henvendelse af 20. marts 2017 fra Dansk Sammenslutning af Tamilske Foreninger om nyheder og rapporteringer om forholdene for tamilerne på Sri Lanka

a Government Minister who offered him financial rewards if he stopped talking about the

case. Families of the killed students were forced to relocate and eventually left the

country” (paragraph

1238).

The Commission, with the assistance of the IIGEP, arranged for testimonies of key

witnesses overseas to be obtained by video-link from abroad. However the Chair of the

Commission prevented the use of the video-link statements, upon the advice of the

Attorney-General. Finally in June 2008 the Sri Lankan Government not only refused

funding for video conferencing but ordered the Commission not to receive evidence

from witnesses located abroad.

IIGEP experts believed the only reasonable inference was that the Government knew,

through the Mr Kodagoda being on the Commission’s Panel of Counsel, that the

proposed evidence was harmful to the security forces. The Commission was ordered

not to receive the video evidence ironically on the grounds that it was necessary to

enact ‘protecting legislation’ to protect witnesses first. The fallacy of this is that the

Commission and the Government, including Mr. Kodagoda, knew that these victims and

witnesses were safe abroad.

IIGEP experts say it was Mr. Kodagoda who amended the draft witness protection

legislation to say that a government representative approved of by the Attorney General

must be present in the foreign land with the witness when he or she testifies long

distance. No witness testifying against the security forces will agree to their location

being known so this became a way to protect perpetrators not witnesses.

This provision remains a huge problem for the future Truth Commission and special

judicial mechanism planned in Sri Lanka given thousands of mainly Tamil witnesses

and victims who could give important testimony against the security forces are now in

exile abroad .

(d) National Human Rights Action Plan 2016

Given his past, it was suprising that the government also put Mr. Kodagoda in charge of

the sub-committee looking at torture when drafting the new National Human Rights

Action Plan for the next 5 years. This appointment was questioned in the media to no

avail .

(e) War Crimes Denial

Furthermore in public events Mr. Kodagoda has said that the Sri Lankan military

recaptured the East of Sri Lanka with “near zero civilian casualties”, which was

contradicted by the reports of the UN and independent human rights groups .

2.4. Ashoka Wijethilake

Press release: Exiled Victims Cannot Testify in Sri Lankan Embassies,

8 July 2016, ITJP,

http://www.itjpsl.com/assets/press/8-july-2016-ITJP-press-release.pdf

One article said,

“he has played a negative role in the prevention of torture” and added that “In addition,

while the role of the Attorney General’s Department’s officers was to assist the Commission, Mr. Kodagoda

aggressively cross examined the witnesses who came before the Commission, in a vigorous attempt to

protect state agents against whom these witnesses were giving evidence. We are also aware that, regarding

the detention of Tamil prisoners at Boosa camp, he prevented discussions on the arrest and detention of

Tamil prisoners without grounds for reasonable suspicion,”

AHRC said.

Govt. Asked To Review Appointment

Of Deputy Solicitor General Yasantha Kodagoda As Head Of ‘Torture Prevention’ Committee,

14 September

2016, Colombo Telegraph,

https://www.colombotelegraph.com/index.php/govt-asked-to-review-appointment-

of-deputy-solicitor-general-yasantha-kodagoda-as-head-of-torture-prevention-committee/

and original article

at SRI LANKA: AHRC writes to the Ministers of Foreign Affairs and Justice on the Torture Committee under

the National Human Rights Action Plan, 13 September 2016, AHRC, http://www.humanrights.asia/news/ahrc-

news/AHRC-STM-141-2016/?searchterm=kodagoda

Us State Department report is an extraordinary rendition of events in Sri Lanka,

15 March 2008,

http://federalidea.com/focus/archives/381

URU, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Bilag 139: Henvendelse af 20. marts 2017 fra Dansk Sammenslutning af Tamilske Foreninger om nyheder og rapporteringer om forholdene for tamilerne på Sri Lanka

Mr. Wijethilake is a very senior police official who reached the rank of Senior Deputy

Inspector General . In 2007 he was the Deputy Inspector General of the police's

foreign intelligence department and the following year became DIG International Affairs.

He’s also headed the Special Unit of the police in 2006 investigating corruption .

Mr. Wijethilake was promoted to Director of CID in 2006 from SSP rank in 2002 , and

has spent many years in the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) . There are no

specific allegations against Mr. Wijethilake but given the prevalence of torture in sites

run by CID during and after the war, there is concern about whether this sort of senior

ex CID official should be in charge of protecting witnesses. Rather the Authority should

be an autonomous entity, independent of the police hierarchy and security

establishment with its members carefully and fully vetted.

3. Conclusions

All members of the National Authority should have been subjected to a scrupulous

independent vetting process, which would have resulted in at least three of the

members being excluded. The nature of these appointments raise the question of

whether the Government of Sri Lanka has the political commitment to building the rule

of law and is serious about protecting witnesses.

The UN Committee Against Torture has said Sri Lanka should immediately begin a

vetting process to remove from office those military and security force personnel and

any other public officials about whom there were reasonable grounds to believe they

were involved in human rights violations. It also specifically said the witness protection

division should be an autonomous entity, independent of the police hierarchy and that

its members should be fully vetted (paragraphs 17,18) . The international community

should make monitoring progress on this issue a high priority.

4. Recommendations

Government of Sri Lanka

Immediately remove Mr. Yasantha Kodagoda, Mr. Suhada Gamlath and Mr.

Nandana Munasinghe from the National Authority and establish an independent vetting

process to vet all remaining members of the National Authority in order to ensure that

those appointed have a credible human rights record and are not named or implicated

in any way in serious crimes including abductions and torure and that those who may

have a conflict of interest are removed.

Revise the Witness Protection legislation, including provisions for witnesses

and victims abroad to testify safely through video links without a government official

being present in the room with them.

Ensure that appointments are made to the implementing bodies through a

credible indpendent process so that genuinely impartial members of civil society with a

Nalanda College website,

https://www.nalanda.sch.lk/alumni/police-officers

and Sri Lanka Police website:

http://www.police.lk/index.php/special-events-/508-entrust-lanka-to-assist-police-rugby-team.

A 2014 writ

petition cites him and Mr. Sisira Mendis (who was controversially sent by the Sirisena Government to Geneva

as part of their 2016 delegation to the UN Committee Against Torture) as respondents.

SRI LANKA ANTICORRUPTION PROGRAM, FINAL PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT,

December

2007,

http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/Pdack636.pdf,

page 5.

Attack on Uthayan Newspaper,

2 May 2006, D B S Jeyaraj, Sangam.org,

http://www.sangam.org/taraki/articles/2006/05-06_Uthayan_Attack.php?print=sangam

Ratwattes use courts against the law,

The Sunday Leader, 2002

http://www.thesundayleader.lk/archive/20020106/news.htm

Nalanda College website as above.

Concluding Observations on the fifth periodic report of Sri Lanka, UNCAT, December 2016, Available

online at

http://www.itjpsl.com/assets/Concluding-observations-englishUNCAT-59.pdf

Ibid.

URU, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Bilag 139: Henvendelse af 20. marts 2017 fra Dansk Sammenslutning af Tamilske Foreninger om nyheder og rapporteringer om forholdene for tamilerne på Sri Lanka

credible track record in protecting human rights can be appointed and safeguard

witnesses and victims.

Suspend Mr. Nandana Munasinghe from all official positions in connection with

allegations of torture as recommended by the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture in

2007. Ensure an impartial body independent from the police force promptly investigates

him.

Implement all the recommendations of UNCAT59 including the one that calls for

the Government of Sri Lanka to establish an independent, impartial, prompt

investigation into allegations for torture in the rehabilitation camps. This should include

investigation of Mr. Gamlath’s role as the Commissioner General for Rehabilitation.

Appoint Tamils and more women to the National Authority so that it is more

respresentative.

Other Governments

Vet Sri Lankan security and public officials, including elected officials, before

they become beneficiaries of publicly funded training, employment or other

programmes. Be transparent in reporting on this activity and ensure the parameters are

clearly established from the outset and there is no reliance on the local bodies to self-

screen.

Make vetting and screening by Sri Lanka of its security and public officials a key

performance indicator for measuring adherence to UN Resolution 30/1 and for ongoing

monitoring of human rights as well as in relation to trade concessions such as GSP+.

Vetting does not require the full implementation of the entire transitional justice

programme of activities or legislative reform; it should commence straight away.

URU, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Bilag 139: Henvendelse af 20. marts 2017 fra Dansk Sammenslutning af Tamilske Foreninger om nyheder og rapporteringer om forholdene for tamilerne på Sri Lanka