TAMILNET reports that according to reports of the UN’s Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, last week over 13,000 internally displaced people have ‘disappeared’ from Sri Lanka’s internment camps for Tamil civilians.
Moreover, UN sources in Colombo are telling the media that senior UN officials above them, Sri Lankan nationals who are Sinhalese, are deliberately downplaying the 13,000 ‘missing’ IDPs, which would otherwise be of much concern given the reports of disappearances from the camps, the seizing of teenage males for detention and females for sexual abuse.
OCHA’s May 30 report states that: ‘276,785 persons crossed to the Government-controlled areas from the conflict zone.
‘This represents a decrease of 13,130 IDPs since the last report (Sitrep No.18) on 27 May 2009. The decrease is associated with double counting. Additional verification is required.’
But earlier, OCHA had praised the ‘improved, systematic registration being undertaken in the camps,’ say media reports.
Meanwhile, the Times newspaper has stated that Britain sold £13.6m worth of arms to Sri Lanka in the past three years despite Colombo’s widespread abuse of human rights.
Whilst the United States suspended arms sales in 2008, Britain, Bulgaria and Slovakia continued to arm President Mahinda Rajapakse’s ultra-nationalist government.
The sales contravened the 1998 EU Code of Conduct on Arms Exports that restricts business with countries facing internal conflicts or with poor human rights records and a history of violating international law.
The arms were sold as international ceasefire monitors, human rights groups and the Tamil Diaspora repeatedly protested against Sri Lanka’s rights abuses.
The sales were cleared despite the 1998 EU Code of Conduct on Arms Exports restrictions.
The paper also pointed out that the weapons were approved at the same time the EU called for peace talks in Sri Lanka, saying that it did not support a military solution and expressing concerns about human rights abuses after the collapse of a 2002 ceasefire.
The approval of the sales raises the question of whether EU-supplied weapons were used in the last five months during which UN officials estimate that 20,000 civilians were killed.
The answer is almost certainly yes.
Sri Lanka’s military fired repeated salvos of rockets from Multi-Barrelled Rocket Launchers (MBRLs) as well as artillery howitzers at hundreds of thousands of people crammed into narrow areas designated ‘safe zones’.
British MPs and MEPs, as well as activists against the arms trade, said that the EU should have done the same as the United States in suspending arms sales as early as 2006, when the ceasefire began to unravel.
‘The EU had an obligation not to supply these things’, said Malcolm Bruce, a Liberal Democrat MP who visited Sri Lanka last month. ‘There were too many unanswered questions. With hindsight, Britain’s sales did violate the EU code of conduct.’
The EU Code of Conduct became legally binding in December, but until then it was up to member states to decide whether the criteria applied to any given arms sale.
Interestingly, Britain had disputed Slovakia’s decision to supply rockets to Sri Lanka but approved its own arms sales at the time.
Britain approved commercial sales of more than £13.6 million of equipment including armoured vehicles, machinegun components and semiautomatic pistols, according to official records.
Slovakia provided 10,000 rockets worth £1.1 million, while Bulgaria approved sales of guns and ammunition worth £1.75 million, according to EU documents and officials.
l Following its fact-finding tour, a report by the International Bar Association Human Rights Institute (IBAHRI) says: ‘Sri Lanka’s justice system, legal profession and media are all under grave threat’ under the government of President Mahinda Rajapakse, which enjoys unprecedented popularity amongst Sinhalese. ‘Some members of Sri Lankan society, particularly those of Tamil ethnicity, are unprotected within the criminal justice system.’
The 155-page report, entitled ‘Justice in Retreat: A report on the independence of the legal profession and the rule of law in Sri Lanka’, is wide-ranging and notes the rule of law on Sri Lanka ‘had deteriorated significantly’ since the IBAHRI’s last visit in 2001.
‘Of particular concern is the widespread perception that the judiciary is not independent. This has led to a rapid decline of public confidence in judicial processes,’ it says.
The judiciary is vulnerable to two forms of political influence, from the Government and from the Chief Justice himself, the report says.
It also outlines attacks and government threats against lawyers representing defendants in terrorism trials and journalists critical of the government and the war, as well as harassment of judges involved in ‘politically sensitive’ cases.
The ‘attacks against human rights lawyers form part of a pattern of intimidation routinely expressed against members of civil society, NGOs and journalists who are perceived to be critical or challenging of the Government or its policies, particularly with respect to the conflict with the LTTE’ (Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam), the report says.
‘The judiciary has become increasingly vulnerable to political interference, and is concerned that Sri Lanka’s counter-terrorism legislation, in particular the emergency regulations, has had a detrimental impact on basic due process guarantees as well as freedom of expression,’ it says elsewhere.
Meanwhile, ‘low standards in some of the institutions providing legal education in Sri Lanka, which has led to declining standards of professionalism, as well as a lack of interest in human rights or pro bono casework.’
Whilst recommending a number of changes to the Sri Lankan constitution, the IBAHRI urged that ‘any reform of the Constitution should be accompanied by any necessary changes to accommodate a settlement of the Tamil problem.
‘Such reforms should take into account (i) an adequate balance between central and regional government, (ii) adequate autonomy, especially in the Tamil area and (iii) the defined role of central government in the fields of defence, foreign affairs, national security, taxation and any other appropriate area,’ the report stressed.
The IBAHRI delegation visited Sri Lanka between February 28 and March 6th 2009.
The report also makes the following point: ‘Although Sri Lanka’s Legal Aid Commission is primarily funded by donations from the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), it has an unwritten policy of not funding lawyers for terrorism charges brought under the Prevention of Terrorism Act and the Emergency Regulations.
‘This policy is reportedly not acknowledged publicly as it could jeopardise continued funding of the Legal Aid Commission from the United Nations.
‘Thus, legal aid in Sri Lanka does not appear to have been made available to those charged with terrorism-related offences’ the IBAHRI said.
‘This deficiency in the provision of legal aid means that some members of Sri Lankan society, particularly those of Tamil ethnicity, are unprotected within the criminal justice system.’
It adds: ‘We are alarmed by these reports, as it is precisely those individuals whose cases fall within the PTA and the ER who are most at risk of a conviction resulting from a trial process that tilts heavily in favour of the prosecution,’ the IBAHRI said.
It continues: ‘Prima facie, this practice appears to run contrary to Article 14(3)(d) of the ICCPR and principles 2, 3 and 6 of the UN Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers which provide for the right to free legal assistance for indigent persons in full equality and without discrimination.’
The report takes up many more vital legal points.
