Earlier, winners of the Nobel Peace Prize from three continents called on UN members to reject Sri Lanka’s candidacy for the Council. Nobel laureates Desmond Tutu of South Africa, Adolfo Pérez Esquivel of Argentina, and Jimmy Carter of the United States each published statements urging opposition.

Sri Lanka secured 101 votes at the UN’s 192-member General Assembly, but this was not enough to beat the other Asian nations competing for seats on the Council that are allotted to the region.

Sources
Sri Lanka, Spain lose UN Rights Council election, Reuters, 21 May 2008; No right to be there, The Guardian, 19 May 2008; Sri Lanka slams door on rights monitors after UN blow, AFP, 22 May 2008.

Quotations

“The systematic abuses by Sri Lankan government forces are among the most serious imaginable. Government security forces summarily remove their own citizens from their homes and families in the middle of the night, never to be heard from again. Torture and extrajudicial killings are widespread. When the human rights council was established, UN members required that states elected must themselves “uphold the highest standards” of human rights. On that count, Sri Lanka is clearly disqualified. Governments owe it to Sri Lankan human rights victims – and to victims of human rights abuses around the world – to ensure that the Sri Lankan bid fails. Defeating the Sri Lankan candidacy would be a comfort to the people of Sri Lanka. It would place international pressure on the government to respect human rights, and to accept a UN human rights monitoring mission, which it has stubbornly refused. It would help make the council a place where true human rights leaders in all regions can help lead the world towards greater respect for human life and human dignity. An outcome, in short, that would benefit those who care about human rights in the world. Any other result would be a travesty.” Desmond Tutu, winner of the Nobel Peace Prize in 1984.

“They have done a very subjective campaign, they were only putting forward one side of the story. They were not talking about the substantial progress that Sri Lanka made and, as far as we are concerned, we will continue to show.” Mahinda Samarasinghe, Sri Lanka’s Human Rights and Disaster Management Minister.

“I reiterate our position again – we don’t see a need for a foreign body to monitor us. We have the necessary laws and procedures in place to monitor cases of human rights. We don’t see the vote as a defeat, it’s not a setback. In fact 101 countries backed us, which is a show of support for our government.” Foreign Minister, Rohitha Bogollagama.

Related events
3 March 2008
29 October 2007
13 October 2007
25 September 2007
25 September 2007

The petitioners argued that evicting Tamils from Colombo is wrongful, unlawful and illegal and violates the fundamental rights of those persons who were so evicted. Subsequent to the interim order of the Supreme Court on 8 June, many of the people evicted were brought back by the police to their lodging houses.

The petition held that the evictions violate the fundamental rights of those persons who were so evicted, guaranteed by Article 11, 12 (1), 12(2), 13(1), 13(2) and 14(1)(h) of the Constitution. Article 11 provides no person shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Article 12 provides that all citizens are equal before the law and ensures that no citizen shall be discriminated against grounds specified in the Constitution. Articles 13 (1) and (2) provide protection from arbitrary arrest and detention. Article 14 (1)(h) provides for the freedom of movement and the right to choose his residence within Sri Lanka.

Source
Centre for Policy Alternatives, Press Release, 5 May 2008.

Related events
7 June 2007
26 July 2007

In its 29-page report released today, it names a local Muslim home guard and two constables as the killers of most of the group, which took place around 4.30 pm on 4 August 2006. The report details the killings, the role of senior police officials in the murders, and criticises the government’s failure in properly investigating the crime.

Sources
Report details Sri Lanka aid massacre, blames forces, Reuters, 1 April 2008; Sri Lanka defends lengthy inquiry into the massacre of 17 charity workers, The Independent, 3 April 2008.

Quotations

“The evidence shows state security forces, including police, killed the 17 aid workers and that senior police officers covered it up…The killing of civilians during time of conflict is a war crime. The perpetrators and their superiors should be brought to justice.” Rajan Hoole, University Teachers for Human Rights.

“It does more than name the names of those responsible for the brutal ACF killings. It shows the government investigations into the massacre were little more than a bad joke played out on the victims’ families and the international community.” James Ross, Senior Legal Adviser, Human Rights Watch.

“We want the truth to come out. We can’t dictate the course of justice, we can only encourage the process by facilitating its work.” Rohitha Bogollagama, Foreign Minister.

“The country has learnt to be comfortable with grave crimes going unpunished one after another, with the certainty that even graver ones would follow. The answer to the question why Sri Lanka is steeped in recurrent gross crimes, especially against the minorities, that go unchecked is not far to seek. For years, the state has gone on denying, obfuscating, abusing detractors, intimidating or killing witnesses and making matters progressively worse.” Unfinished Business of the Five Students and ACF Cases – A Time to call the Bluff, Special Report No.30, University Teachers for Human Rights (Jaffna) Sri Lanka, 1st April 2008.

Related events
4 August 2006
6 November 2006
5 July 2007
23 April 2007
6 March 2008

The Supreme Court directed the Inspector General of Police and the Defence Secretary to ensure a free and fair election, asking them to disarm all unlawful armed groups.

Source
Local bodies poll in Batticoloa after 14 years as plea is dismissed, The Hindu, 5 March 2008

Related events
11 May 2008
11 March 2008
24 January 2008
23 January 2008

Sources
Police arrest ‘over 900 Tamils’, BBC Sinhala, 2 December 2007; Urgent Action Needed to End Abuses in Sri Lanka, Letter to Human Rights Council from Human Rights Watch, 7 December 2007.

“The Sri Lankan police conducted mass arrests of more than 1,000 Tamils, allegedly in response to the suicide bombings carried out in Colombo on 28 November. The arrests were made on arbitrary and discriminatory grounds using sweeping powers granted by emergency regulations. According to reports, “Tamils were bundled in bus loads and taken for interrogation”. More than 400 of those arrested, including 50 women, were taken to the Boosa Camp near Galle in the south, a facility reputed to be overcrowded, and lacking proper sanitation facilities and adequate drinking water.” Amnesty International Report, 2008.

Related events

far as declining invitations when these conditions are not met. Given the high levels of insecurity, that include killings and abductions, faced by humanitarian agenices, human rights organizations and other civil society organisations we are also deeply concerned of the security implications for the actors who were invited to the meetings”.

Source
Press statement condemning military interference on Jaffna NGOs meetings with UN Under Secretary General on humanitarian affairs, Centre for Poverty Analysis, 9 August 2007;

Extracts from the Press Statement
“Our colleagues in Jaffna have also conveyed to us that on the day before Mr. Holme’s visit to Jaffna, the military commander called for a meeting at Palaly military headquarters, at which NGOs and civil society representatives were instructed not to refer to human rights issues and to restrict themselves to issues of humanitarian assistance during their meeting with Mr. Holmes. The military told the NGO and civil society representatives present that they, the military, would brief Mr. Holmes about the human rights and security situation, while the Government Agent would brief Mr. Holmes about the situation of Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs).

Humanitarian and human rights groups in Jaffna have expressed their serious reservations about this interference by the military and regret their inability to meet Mr. Holmes in a more private manner, which would have enabled them to freely share their views, perspectives and experiences with him.

We condemn this type of military interference in matters relating to civil society and NGO activity. This completely undermines existing practice in which visiting UN officials meet with civil society groups during country visits, insisting on privacy for such meetings, even going as far as declining invitations when these conditions are not met. Given the high levels of insecurity, that include killings and abductions, faced by humanitarian agencies, human rights organisations and other civil society organisations, we are also deeply concerned about the security implications for the actors who were invited to the meetings.

The steps taken by the military in Jaffna to restrict Mr. Holmes’ access to information can only reaffirm concerns in the international community that there is no transparency and accountability of the government and of the military when it comes to both human rights and humanitarian issues in the conflict-affected areas of Sri Lanka.

We trust that Mr. Holmes will reflect these concerns in his reports, on the basis that his ability to obtain an objective assessment of the situation on the ground in the country, based on perspectives of various stakeholders including humanitarian agencies, was negatively affected by this situation.”

The operation commenced in the early hours of the morning, with police and army officers visiting various lodges occupied predominantly by Tamils in Colombo and forcibly evicting them from their lodgings. It was reported that people were given less than half an hour to pack all their belongings and board buses. The evictions were directly attributed to the statement made by the IGP on 1 June 2007, claiming that Tamil people cannot remain in Colombo without a valid reason.

Sources
Ethnic cleansing claim after police move Tamils at gunpoint, The Guardian, 7 June 2007; Colombo police swoop on Tamil visitors from North-East, Hindustan Times, 7 June 2007; Sri Lankan government told to stop Tamil expulsions, Radio Netherlands, 8 June 2007.

Quotations

“Experience in the past 10 years shows that LTTE operatives use the lodges in the city to stay and plan out terrorist strikes,” Keheliya Rambukwella, Government spokesman.

“Humiliation of this magnitude ultimately points at a policy of gradual eviction of Tamils from Colombo,’ Mano Ganesan, parliamentarian and head of Civil Monitoring Commission.

“There is a sense that any Tamil can be targeted … This could escalate out of control,” Jehan Pereira, National Peace Council.

Related event
5 May 2008

“A prominent Tamil politician died in hospital after he was shot near his home in the Sri Lankan capital early Friday, a party member and a hospital official said. One of his guards was also killed. Nadaraja Raviraj, of the Tamil National Alliance was shot as he left his house in Colombo, said K. Sivajilingam, a fellow member of Parliament. Sivajilingam said that Raviraj also worked as a lawyer and was going to the court … when some people came and fired at him.” From: Tamil member of Parliament killed in Sri Lankan capital, International Herald Tribune, 10 November 2006.

Sources
Sri Lankan MP killed in Colombo, BBC, 10 November 2006; Prominent Tamil politician assassinated, Associated Press, 10 November 2006.

Nadarajah Raviraj: Assassination of an activist
In the spirit of citizen’s journalism, unionblackcolombo remembers his friend Raviraj.

Quotations

“Both sides, while talking peace, are engaged in other activities. The Sri Lankan government is involved in such activities. The LTTE is also acquiring arms and strengthening themselves. This is natural and is anticipated. The issue is how can we curtail it? If we are sincere in finding a solution to the ethnic problem by way of talks, we must sit together and thrash out the matter. After all this is a small country. The Tamil people and majority of the Sinhalese people know each other and are not communal minded. I am a person who is very close to the Sinhala people. I go for TV interviews with my broken Sinhalese not to gain political mileage – none of the Tamils watch those – but I go because I need to build an understanding with the Sinhalese and to tell them the plight of the Tamil people. If we work with a peace agenda we can definitely achieve peace,” Nadarajah Raviraj, from Begin talks without conditions, Sunday Leader, 24 September 2006.

“As a parliamentarian he worked tirelessly for the Tamil nation…He shattered the false propaganda of the Sinhala state infusing his arguments with his legal expertise. He stood firm and fought injustice in the face of threats from paramilitary violence. Mr Nadaraja Raviraj is a great man. He possessed rare characteristics. He is not the one to be pushed and pulled around for personal gains. He had a deep affection for the Tamil homeland and its people. He is an exceptional politician. He understood law and justice in its true sense. He possessed a progressive spirit and a desire to follow novel approaches. He was brave and he possessed a purity of heart. His youthful energy with all of the above stole the hearts of all who came in contact with him,” Vellupillai Prabhakaran, Leader LTTE.

“[The assassination] is one more reprehensible act by those opposed to dissent and political pluralism in a democratic society,” Mahinda Rajapakse, President of Sri Lanka

“It is government forces or forces aligned to the government, there can be no question. This is an attempt to stifle… and silence those who can justifiably espouse the Tamil cause,” R. Sampanthan, leader of the Tamil National Alliance (TNA).

“Raviraj functioned as a bridge to North and South. His murder is a challenge to people who voice for peace. Raviraj who also addressed the problems faced by the people of South, participated in many demonstrations organized on their interests. He had many Sinhala friends. He joined us in advocating the release of S.B. Disanayake. We see his loss as the same as late Vijaya Kumarathunghe,” Rajitha Senaratne, United National Party MP, Kalutura district.

Related events
5 January 2000
25 December 2005
12 August 2006
6 November 2006
6 March 2008

This event was the subject of a feature: Assassination of an activist.

Sources
Sri Lankan government clashes with Tamil rebels, The Guardian, 15 August 2006; Ketheeswaran Loganathan and the Tamil Dissidents’ Dilemma, University Teachers for Human Rights (Jaffna), 15 August 2006; Ketheesh: Champion of Tamil Rights in United Lanka, D.B.S. Jeyaraj, Transcurrents, 18 August 2006.

Quotations

“Sinhala and Tamil nationalism have reached their respective cross-roads. They, now have to decide whether to part company or to map out a common cause leading to meaningful co-existence – that of diverse identities, as opposed to the hegemony of one identity over the other,” Kethesh Loganathan (1996), Sri Lanka: Lost Opportunities: Past Attempts at Resolving Ethnic Conflict.

“One more person capable of rising above hatred and insanity in present day Sri Lanka is no more. With his departure one more Tamil who wanted his people to live with equal rights in a united Lanka and champion that cause in the face of danger has been done away with. Only a few of us are left now.  … At the time of his death Ketheesh was Deputy Secretary-General of the Secretariat for coordinating the peace process (SCOPP) and Secretary of the All Party Representative Committee (APRC). This makes him appear as a pro-government “establishment” man. The eulogies heaped on him by the “government guys” reinforce this impression. This is perhaps the unkindest cut of all,” D.B.S. Jeyaraj, 18 August 2006.

“Kethesh Loganathan was a valued colleague, a former Director of the Centre for Policy Alternatives (CPA) and the first head of its Peace and Conflict Analysis Unit. He was a passionate advocate of human rights, an unflinching champion of the rights of the Tamil people and of an end to the ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka with democracy, justice and dignity for all. … Whilst Kethesh was an ardent and proud nationalist, he brought the same fervour, passion and commitment to the cause of unity in diversity, multi-culturalism and a settlement of the ethnic conflict based on meaningful power sharing. He uncompromisingly believed that the liberation of a people could not be founded on fear, the celebration of death, the negation or even suspension of basic democratic values. This made him a stringent and fearless critic of the LTTE for their insistence on being the sole representatives of the Tamil people and for their reliance on terror, repression and violence,” Dr. Pakiasothy Saravanamuthu, Center for Policy Alternatives (CPA), August 2006.

“Ketheeswaran was consistent in his dedication to the welfare of the Tamils in Sri Lanka. In the early 1980s which saw growing communal violence directed at Tamils it was natural for a decent left oriented Tamil with an intellectual bent to join the EPRLF, which he did. The struggle he joined was destroyed by the LTTE in 1986. After very difficult times for his people, Ketheeswaran found openings for his interests in justice and a political settlement among Colombo-based NGOs. He strongly objected to the degradation of human rights in the 2002 ceasefire agreement and on occasions was almost alone in voicing his concern over the conscription of children in the Colombo NGO fora, which Norway, the NGOs and the government wanted to downplay. Erik Solheim was quick to mark him out as an adversary. Ketheeswaran never forgot that he had been a militant. He stayed on in the EPRLF and left it only in 1994 after differences with an individual who too later left. His background enabled him to easily make the transition to activism in civil society. He was constant in his concern that other militants too should be given the means and opportunity to come out into civil and political life. He pushed for the Norwegian initiated peace process to address this cause for all militants including from the LTTE. But after the Karuna split the Norwegians pinned the label ‘paramilitary’ on all non-LTTE groups, this effort came to a standstill,” Rajan Hoole, University Teachers for Human Rights (Jaffna), 15 August 2006.

“Kethesh Loganathan’s decision to join the Rajapakse regime’s “peace” secretariat was bewildering at the time. It still is after his assassination, presumably at the hands of the LTTE. … Kethesh’s belief that he could somehow influence what is clearly a rabidly Sinhala nationalist government – work within the system – was, at best, a miserable mistake. But we all misstep, don’t we? Only, Kethesh’s – and make no mistake about it – was an error of judgment made in the interests of peace. For he wanted, as he had all his life, to make a difference. His decision to quit the Center for Policy Alternatives was spurred, in part, by his increasing isolation within the more influential sections of the peace lobby. They think hope is spelled R-a-n-i-l. They understand peace as the absence of war. To Kethesh – no mere nationalist, but a leftist, after all – things were not so simple. He argued consistently [that] peace wasn’t synonymous with appeasing the LTTE at any cost; that the process should be inclusive – of other Tamil, Muslim and Sinhala opinion; that human and democratic rights should not be exchanged merely for an LTTE promise to stop killing Sinhalese. This made him inconvenient to sections of the peace lobby, which has made a habit of excusing LTTE massacres of Sinhala and Muslim civilians, of not protesting its systematic stifling of oppositional Tamils. And, as the UTHR(J) noted, he got marked as an opponent by the Norwegians,” Qadri Ismail, Peace Without Appeasement: Honouring Kethesh.

Related events
January 1984
April 1985
8 July 1985
17 August 1985
6 November 2006
6 March 2008

This event was the subject of a feature: Assassination of an activist.

Source
Singarasa v. Sri Lanka, UN Doc. CCPR/C/91/D/1033/2001 (23 August 2004); Law & Society Trust, Volume 17 September and October Joint Issue – 227 & 228.

Extracts from the Committee’s Views
1.1 The author of the communication is Mr. Nallaratnam Singarasa, a Sri Lankan national, and a member of the Tamil community. He is currently serving a 35 year sentence at Boosa Prison, Sri Lanka. He claims to be a victim of violations of articles 14, paragraphs 1, 2, 3 (c), (f), (g), and 5, and 7, 26, and 2, paragraphs 1, and 3, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. …

Facts as submitted by the author

2.1 On 16 July 1993, at about 5am, the author was arrested by Sri Lankan security forces while sleeping at his home. 150 Tamil men were also arrested in a “round up” of his village. None of them were informed of the reasons for their arrest. They were all taken to the Komathurai Army Camp and accused of supporting the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (known as ‘the LTTE’). During his detention at the camp, the author’s hands were tied together, he was kept hanging from a mango tree and was allegedly assaulted by members of the security forces. …

2.2 He was detained pursuant to the Prevention of Terrorism Act No. 48 of 1979.

2.3 [Between July and September 1993 he was interrogated, held incommunicado, and denied legal representation and medical assistance. For two days he claims to have been tortured] which included being pushed into a water tank and held under water and then blindfolded and laid face down and assaulted. …

2.5 [During his interrogation, since] the author could not speak Sinhalese, the Police Constable interpreted between Tamil and Sinhalese. The author was then requested to sign a statement which had been translated and typed in Sinhalese by the PC. The author refused to sign as he could not understand it. He alleges that the ASP then forcibly put his thumbprint on the typed statement. The prosecution later produced this statement as evidence of the author’s alleged confession. …

2.9 On 12 January 1995, in an application to the High Court, defence counsel submitted that there were visible marks of assault on the author’s body, and moved for a medical report to be obtained. On the Court’s order, a Judicial Medical Officer then examined him. According to the author, the medical report stated that the author displayed scars on his back and a serious injury, in the form of a corneal scar on his left eye, which resulted in permanent impairment of vision. It also stated that “injuries to the lower part of the left back of the chest and eye were caused by a blunt weapon while that to the mid back of the chest was probably due to application of sharp force”.

2.10 On 2 June 1995, the author’s alleged confession was the subject of a voir dire hearing by the High Court, at which the ASP, PC and author gave evidence, and the medical report was considered. The High Court concluded that the confession was admissible, pursuant to section 16(1) of the PTA, which renders admissible any statement made before a police officer not below the rank of an ASP, provided that it is not found to be irrelevant under section 24 of the Evidence Ordinance. Section 16(2) of the PTA put the burden of proof that any such statement is irrelevant on the accused. (4) The Court did not find the confession irrelevant, despite defence counsel’s motion to exclude it on the grounds that it was extracted from the author under threat. …

2.11 According to the author, the High Court gave no reasons for rejecting the medical report despite noting itself that there were “injury scars presently visible on the [author's] body” and acknowledging that these were sequels of injuries “inflicted before or after this incident.” In holding that the confession was voluntary, the High Court relied upon the author’s failure to complain to anyone at any time about the beatings.

2.12 On 29 September 1995, the High Court convicted the author on all five counts, and on 4 October 1995, sentenced him to 50 years imprisonment. The conviction was based solely on the alleged confession.

The State party’s submissions on admissibility and merits

4.8 On the claim of torture, the State party submits that the trial court and the Court of Appeal made clear and unequivocal findings that these allegations were inconsistent with the medical report adduced in evidence, and that the author had failed to make such allegations to the Magistrate or to the police, prior to the trial.

4.9 On the issue of a violation of article 14, paragraph 5, it notes that the author was afforded every opportunity to have his conviction and sentence reviewed by a tribunal according to law, and that he merely seeks to question the findings of fact made by the domestic courts before the Committee.

Issues and proceedings before the Committee

7.2 [A]s clearly appears from the court proceedings, the confession took place in the sole presence of the two investigating officers – the Assistant Superintendent of Police and the Police Constable; the latter typed the statement and provided interpretation between Tamil and Sinhalese. The Committee concludes that the author was denied a fair trial in accordance with article 14, paragraph 1, of the Covenant by solely relying on a confession obtained in such circumstances. …

7.4 On the claim of a violation of the author’s rights under article 14, paragraph 3 (g), in that he was
forced to sign a confession and subsequently had to assume the burden of proof that it was extracted under duress and was not voluntary, the Committee must consider the principles underlying the right protected in this provision…The Committee considers that it is implicit in this principle that the prosecution prove that the confession was made without duress….[T]he Committee also notes that the burden of proving whether the confession was voluntary was on the accused… Even if, as argued by the State party, the threshold of proof is “placed very low” and “a mere possibility of involuntariness” would suffice to sway the court in favour of the accused, it remains that the burden was on the author. The Committee notes in this respect that the willingness of the courts at all stages to dismiss the complaints of torture and ill-treatment on the basis of the inconclusiveness of the medical certificate (especially one obtained over a year after the interrogation and ensuing confession) suggests that this threshold was not complied with. Further, insofar as the courts were prepared to infer that the author’s allegations lacked credibility by virtue of his failing to complain of ill-treatment before its Magistrate, the Committee finds that inference to be manifestly unsustainable in the light of his expected return to police detention. Nor did this treatment of the complaint by its courts satisfactorily discharge the State party’s obligation to investigate effectively complaints of violations of article 7. …

7.6 In accordance with article 2, paragraph 3 (a), of the Covenant, the State party is under an obligation to provide the author with an effective and appropriate remedy, including release or retrial and compensation. The State party is under an obligation to avoid similar violations in the future and should ensure that the impugned sections of the PTA are made compatible with the provisions of the Covenant.

Related events
11 September 1980
3 January 1998
15 September 2006

Dr. Tiruchelvam and the TULF advocated a negotiated settlement to the ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka. He played an important part in putting together the government’s devolution package. But in one of his last speeches on the need for a “new deal” for Sri Lanka, Mr Tiruchelvam warned that even constitutional reform was not enough – instead, politics itself would need to be, in his words, “re-imagined”, away from the prevailing adversarial culture. Tiruchelvam was a regular critic of the Tamil Tigers for their repeated violations of human rights and reluctance to enter into serious negotiations. Because of this, the LTTE is believed to have been behind his assassination.

Sources
Tamil politician assassinated, BBC, 16 July 1999; A leading Sri Lankan moderate is killed, New York Times, 30 July 1999.

Quotations

“Neelan knew that he was working against tremendous odds, and he was quite aware of the risks, but he always believed one has to take risks and work toward broader goals,” Jayadeva Uyangoda, professor of political science at the University of Colombo.

”He believed in those things enough to take those risks. I don’t think he would be angry about what has happened. He would be sad,” Mithran Tiruchelvam.

Extracts from A Sharp Mind and Full of Convictions, obituary published in The Times, London
“Neelan Tiruchelvam was a tireless activist in the sphere of human rights and on behalf of ethnic minorities, not least in his native Sri Lanka. …

Highly regarded around the world both as a legal scholar and as an advocate for a peaceful resolution to inter-ethnic strife, in his native country Tiruchelvam represented the moderate Tamil United Liberation Front (TULF) as a ‘national list’ Member of Parliament. He was dedicated to peaceful change and to seeking a solution to his country’s ethnic conflict that would accommodate both communities, and he was much involved at the time of his death with the Sri Lankan Government on plans to introduce a significant measure of constitutional reform and devolution.

Neelan Tiruchelvam was the son of a TULF politician and former Local Government Minister. Educated at the University of Ceylon and at Harvard Law School, he was a Fulbright Fellow in 1969-71 and went on to hold academic appointments in Sri Lanka and at the University of Harvard and Yale.

He soon built an international reputation both as a scholar and as a campaigner for social justice.

As a result he was invited to join missions of experts and observers sent in the 1980s and 1990s to Pakistan, Chile, Kazakhastan, Ethiopia, South Africa and Nigeria.

He performed similar work in Sri Lanka as a member of the Presidential Law Commission and the Presidential Commission on Democratic Decentralisation and Devolution, and held a number of other legal and constitutional appointments.

When Sri Lanka’s first woman President, Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga, came to power with her People’s Alliance Government in 1994, there were hopes that the island’s protracted and bloody inter-ethnic hostilities might be settled by negotiation and compromise. Working with Tiruchelvam, President Kumaratunga devised a plan to transform Sri Lanka into a federation of eight regions.

Although the proposals for reform and devolution were supported by Tiruchelvam and other Tamil parliamentarians when they were presented in 1995, inter-party negotiations were impeded by renewed and intensified violence. Nevertheless, several chapters of the proposed new constitution were released after two years, and the political debate continued, even though it proved difficult to attract the support of the necessary two-thirds of Parliamentarians for these far-reaching proposals. The measures were due to be presented to Parliament over the next two months.

The most dangerous opposition came from outside Parliament, however. The Tamil Tigers – who have been waging a war for a separate homeland for the mostly Hindu Tamils against the Buddhist Sinhalese since 1983 – rejected the proposed compromises and continued to wage a guerilla war against the Government for total independence. Atrocities were continuing and a climate of violence remained the norm in parts of Sri Lanka.

Tiruchelvam was a senior partner in the law firm Tiruchelvam Associates and director of the highly respected, non-governmental International Centre for Ethnic Studies in Colombo. He was also closely associated with the Law and Society Trust.

In 1994 he found a new outlet for his commitment when he became a member of the International Council of the London-based human rights organisation, Minority Rights Group International. When the group published its report on the Sri Lankan conflict in 1996, it was Tiruchelvam who presented the report’s recommendation to the Sri Lankan Parliament. In April this year he succeeded Sir John Thomson as chairman of MRO’s council.

Slight and unassuming in appearance, with a quiet, thoughtful manner, Tiruchelvam had sharp and firm convictions. His commitment to reconciliation and to radical but peaceful change set him at odds with those whose positions were more entrenched.

He was in constant personal danger in his own country, and had for some years been under police protection after repeated threats from the Tamil Tigers.

Tiruchelvam had close links with the Faculty of Law at Cambridge University, and had shared experiences and insights on conflict resolution with scholars and practitioners from Northern Ireland. He had a deep affection for Britain, where his sons completed their university education. At the time of his death he had recently taken up a one-month Rockefeller fellowship in Bellaggio, Italy, and was looking forward to a visiting professorship at Harvard. He is survived by his wife Sithie, herself an attorney, and his two sons.”

Related events
17 May 1998
3 August 1995
12 August 2006

This event was the subject of a feature: Assassination of an activist.

At the time of his abduction, de Zoysa was the head of the Colombo office of the International Press Service. On 18 February 1990, an armed group broke into his mother’s house, and forcibly removed de Zoysa. The next day, de Zoysa’s body was found in the sea at Moratuwa, some 12 miles south of Colombo. He had been shot in the head and the throat, and his jaw had been broken. His body was identified by his journalist friend Taraki Sivaram, who was assassinated in 2006.

In 2005, two police officers were indicted for de Zoysa’s murder, but all were acquitted on 9 November 2005 by the Colombo High Court, ruling that the evidence presented by the prosecution was “contradictory and not credible”.

Richard de Zoysa was posthumously awarded the International Press Service Award in 1990. This award was established in 1985 to honour outstanding accomplishments in international journalism, promoting democracy and human rights.

Sources
‘Assassinated Journalists’, Free Media Sri Lanka; Insurrectionary Violence in Sri Lanka: The Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna Insurgencies of 1971 and 1987-1989, Tisaranee Gunasekara, Ethnic Studies Report, ICES, Vol. XVII, No. 1, January 1999;

Quotations

“In A Lost Generation, Prins Gunasekara has a very interesting story to tell—that when he met de Zoysa’s mother, Dr Manorani Saravanamuttu, she did not believe that Premadasa had anything to do with her son’s murder. On the contrary she had believed that it “was the handywork of some jealous persons in the Premadasa administration, like Ranjan Wijeratne, acting independently of President Premadasa. It may even be some old school feud carried too far. At least that is what Manorani Saravanamuttu told me… I told her it was alright telling me about her disbelief in Premadasa’s involvement but she should not voice such naïve statements elsewhere, as her own credibility would be doubted,” Insurrectionary Violence in Sri Lanka: The Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna Insurgencies of 1971 and 1987-1989, Tisaranee Gunasekara.

“Had he lived, Richard de Zoysa would have been fifty on March 13th this year. He died eighteen years ago, almost the last victim of a period of abductions and killings about which there were hardly any protests at the time, except from a relatively small group of political activists opposed to the government. … The government of the time was after all the chosen instrument of the elite, that still makes decisions, that still constitutes the lens through which much of the West looks at us, and they had had no great problem with President Premadasa’s suppression of the JVP. … But Richard was himself a member of that elite, the scion of two long established families, one Sinhala, the other Tamil. Even though there were crude attempts to justify the killing – leaks about him belonging to the JVP, readings in Parliament from his diary in an attempt to suggest that his sexual proclivities had something to do with the death – in the end it was crystal clear that the government had gone too far. Certainly, it was almost immediately after his death that, his mother would say, Ranjan Wijeratne called the death squads together and told them, at a party at the BMICH she claimed, that their impunity was now over, they would have immunity for anything they had thus far done, but for the future they were on their own. My own view, which I have expressed elsewhere, and most recently in ‘The Limits of Love’, albeit fictionally, is that President Premadasa took advantage of the murder to call a halt to the killings that he had begun to feel were unnecessary now. In that sense, Richard’s murder was not in vain,” Dr. Rajiva Wijesinha, Daily Mirror, 13 March 2008.

Related events
13 November 1989
21 September 1989
August 1987

This event was the subject of a feature: Assassination of an activist.

At the time of her assassination, Rajani was head of the Department of Anatomy at the University of Jaffna. There, she and some of her colleagues founded the Jaffna branch of the University Teachers for Human Rights (UTHR), which documented the human rights violations committed by the LTTE, the Indian Peace Keeping Force (IPKF) and the Sri Lankan government forces on the Tamil civilian population in Jaffna. Rajani co-authored the seminal book, The Broken Palmyra, which documents the violence in Jaffna during the 1980s. Weeks after its publication, Rajini was shot dead in front of her house in at Thirunelvely, Jaffna while cycling back from work.

Sources
Dr. Rajani Thiranagama: Her contribution to the University Teachers for Human Rights (U.T.H.R.), Rajan Hoole, 2 October 1989; No More Tears Sister: An Anatomy of Hope and Betrayal, directed by Helen Klodawsky, produced by the National Film Board of Canada (2005).

In her own words: excerpts from Dr. Rajani Thiranagama’s writing

“Men in battle garb, whether they come with swords or guns, on a horse or in armored cars, the price of conquest seems heightened by the violation of women.”

“They came to interrogate me in the Dean’s Office. They said that they had come to have a conversation with an intellectual — that I had been extremely hostile. I think that they will try to irritate me. I can handle it pretty well. Some were complaining of my sharp tongue — maybe it’s my sharp tongue that will save me.”

“I would feel so depressed if in my young age — I had not stood with my people especially in this hour of immense suffering — that I had lied to my spirit, to the spirit of my people, to the millions of oppressed people. Maybe it looks grandiose — the betrayed — but that’s how I would feel — that I have chosen comfort and love, the fulfillment of my own desires — to that of their suffering.”

Related events
30 November 1984
14 May 1985
29 July 1987
18 September 1989
1 April 2008

This event was the subject of a feature: Assassination of an activist.

Vijaya started his political life in the Lanka Sama Samaja Party. He later joined the Sri Lanka Freedom Party. Later, he was jailed under the emergency regulations by J.R. Jayawardena for allegedly being a ‘Naxalite’, but  was never charged. He later founded the Sri Lanka Mahajana Party (SLMP) which argued for peace in the war in Sri Lanka.

At the time of his assassination, negotiations were taking place to form a broader alliance of five leftist parties, including Vijaya’s Mahajana Party. At the funeral ceremony at Independence Square, attended by over half a million people, the leaders of the five parties signed an agreement to form the United Socialist Alliance and took oaths swearing their allegiance to it.

Lionel Ranasinghe alias Gamini, later confessed to Vijaya’s murder upon being questioned by the Criminal Investigation Department (CID). Ranasinghe, in a 141 page statement, confessed that he was merely carrying out orders given to him by the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP).

Sources
Devolution only solution – CBK, BBC, 19 February 2008; Remembering Vijaya Kumaratunga, Tamil Week, 8 October 2006; Confessions of Vijaya’s killer, Frederica Jansz.

Quotations

“It wasn’t only the southern community who noticed Vijaya’s leadership qualities; even the Tamil leadership acknowledged his capabilities and proven courage. In 1986, at the height of the ethnic conflict, when 6 policemen were taken hostage by the LTTE, it was Vijaya Kumaratunga who went to Jaffna to intervene and secure their release. Another remarkable facet of Vijaya was his valiant struggle to restore peace in the country. He was one of the few people who actively promoted the Indo Lanka Agreement, the arrival of the Indian Peace Keeping Force in 1987 when a vociferous minority took to the streets to demonstrate against what was then termed as a ‘sell out to India’. … An ardent proponent of the provincial council system, he firmly believed that devolution of power to the periphery was the fairest way of resolving the ethnic crisis and the issues of historical inequalities suffered by the minorities. As a result of this act, he earned the wrath of the JVP, who were vehemently against the Indian intervention and as it later conspired, it was this act that led to his assassination one year later. Before his death Vijaya was vilified by the JVP and Front organisations such as the Protection of the Mother Land as a traitor, as an agent of the LTTE seeking to divide the country. To date, he remains one of the few Sinhalese leaders who defied government pressure and death threats in order to have direct negotiations with all the Tamil leaders including the LTTE supremo Velupillai Prabhakaran.” Kumar Rupesinghe, Remembering Vijaya Kumaratunga.

“Jayantha told Herath and myself that we will be assigned a special task. He said Vijaya Kumaratunga has to be removed. Jayantha further said Vijaya Kumaratunga supports the Indian Peace Accord; he supports the provincial councils; he is holding meetings island-wide explaining things to people. Because of his popularity youth are going for his meetings. Because of this the bankrupt Left parties have formed a front with him. … Vijaya Kumaratunga’s front is being trained by the EPRLF and PLOTE. They will be used against us to protect Vijaya Kumaratunga’s front. Jayantha said Vijaya Kumaratunga has been warned by letter. He is working disregarding those [warnings]. He has even been sent a final warning. Therefore he has to be removed,”  Lionel Ranasinghe alias ‘Gamini’, Confession statement.

Related events
August 1987
10 November 2006

This event was the subject of a feature: Assassination of an activist.

Sources
For the estimated 150 deaths: B.H. Farmer (1963): A Divided Nation, London Institute of Race Relations, OUP; Witness to History: A Journalist’s Memoirs (1930- 2004), S. Sivanayagam, 2005.

Opinion
“While making Tamils virtually illiterate overnight in the transaction of public business, the bill proved to be a millstone round the neck of the country as well, dragging it into ultimate tragedy and ruination. … The Tamil Federal Party under the leadership of that gentle Christian, Samuel James Velupillai Chelvanayakam believed in the philosophy of non-violent action as a way of protest against injustice. Tamils had traditionally come under the influence of the Indian Gandhian movement for independence from the time of he Jaffna Youth Congress of the 1920s and 30s. The value of the concept of satyagraha was, unlike in the case of the Sinhalese, ingrained in the Tamil mind. It is this that led them to organise what they believed was a peaceful satyagraha at the parliament end of the Galle Face Green (but disallowed) on that momentous day.” S. Sivanayagam, 2005.

“The moment the volunteers and leaders reassembled at the hotel end, a waiting mob of more than a thousand Sinhalese toughs ell on them like a pack of wolves in a most inhuman and cowardly attack. [The satyagrahis] were thrashed at felled prostrate on the ground. Their placards were seized and the wooden poles used as clubs. Some were trampled upon, kicked, beaten and spat upon. Not a single satyagrahi raised his hand in retaliation, except Dr. Naganathan. Five ruffians singled him out and chased him to the end of the promenade. He turned and met them alone with his fists and legs, satyagraha or not. Naganathan by nature was one who would never brook an insult to his manhood. … The police stopped the satyagrahis at the northern end of the Galle Face Green and blocked their way to the precincts of Parliament House. The volunteers sat down peacefully where they were stopped and remained there for the rest of the day. A prominent Sinhalese lawyer of Colombo, Mr Paranavitane of the law firm of De Silva and Mendis, and a Roman Catholic pries, Father Xavier Thani Nayagam, the famous Tamil scholar, emerged out of the crowds and sat down with the satyagrahis . The gesture did not pass unnoticed by the press.” V. Navaratnam, then Member of Parliament for Kayts, Rise and Fall of the Tamil Nation, 1995.

Related events
15 June 1956
25 July 1957
9 April 1958
May 1958
24 March 1965