Tissainayagam was arrested in March 2008 and detained in police custody for five months before he was charged with an offence. He and two colleagues were eventually accused of bringing the government into disrepute (a charge that was later dropped) and inciting racial and ethnic animosities through material published in a short-lived monthly magazine called the North East Herald. Tissainayagam and his co-defendants were indicted in August 2008 for alleged violations of the PTA and the Emergency Regulations.

Tissainayagam’s indictment was based on passages from two articles which expressed critical opinions about the government’s treatment of Tamil civilians affected by armed conflict. A July 2006 editorial headlined, “Providing security to Tamils now will define northeastern politics of the future” concluded that “it is fairly obvious that the government is not going to offer them any protection. In fact it is the state security forces that are the main perpetrator of the killings.” A second article published in November 2006 addressed the humanitarian situation in the eastern town of Vaharai, where warfare included attacks on civilian areas. It accused the government of starving and endangering civilians to further political and strategic military objectives.

Sources
Jail term for Sri Lankan editor, BBC, 31 August 2009; Sri Lanka jails journalist who criticised war policy, The Independent, 1 September 2009; Sri Lanka reporter gets 20 years on ‘terror’ charge, AFP, 31 August 2009; Sri Lanka jails journalist for 20 years for exercising his right to freedom of expression, Amnesty International, 1 September 2009; The price of truth, The Economist, 3 September 2009.

Quotations

“This is a travesty of justice. This is a direct attack against freedom of expression. I may be hauled up for contempt for saying this but I don’t mind because someone has to say it. I am appalled and saddened that Sri Lanka is closing its doors to international standards relating to freedom of expression,” Rights activist and lawyer, Nimalka Fernando.

“The constitution guarantees media freedom, but no one has a right to deliberately publish false reports that would lead to communal violence,” government prosecutor, Sudarshana de Silva.

“He was never a racist and he at no time tried to arouse hatred. This is a good lesson for all journalists to be cautious when writing in future. He lost his job in the 1980s when talking about labour union rights. Now, he lost his freedom when talking about Tamil rights,” Tissainayagam’s lawyer, Anil Silva.

“In every corner of the globe, there are journalists in jail or being actively harassed: from Azerbaijan to Zimbabwe, Burma to Uzbekistan, Cuba to Eritrea. Emblematic examples of this distressing reality are figures like J.S. Tissainayagam in Sri Lanka, or Shi Tao and Hu Jia in China,” President Obama in a White House issued a statement to mark Press Freedom Day.

Related documents
Tissainayagam’s written submission
High Court Judgement in English

Related events
23 May 2008
6 January 2009
8 January 2009

The eleventh Special Session of the Human Rights Council on Sri Lanka concluded after adopting a resolution on assistance to Sri Lanka in the promotion and protection of human rights in which the Council urged the Government to continue strengthening its activities to ensure that there was no discrimination against ethnic minorities in the enjoyment of the full range of human rights. The Council also commended the measures taken by the Government of Sri Lanka to address the urgent needs of the internally displaced persons.  

The resolution condemned “all attacks that the LTTE (Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam) launched on the civilian population and its practice of using civilians as human shields” and welcomed “the liberation by the government of Sri Lanka of tens of thousands of its citizens that were kept by the LTTE against their will as hostages.” It commended the “measures taken by the Government of Sri Lanka to address the urgent needs of the Internally Displaced Persons” and appealed for financial support for the country’s post-war reconstruction. 

The result of the vote was as follows:
In favour (29): Angola, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Bolivia, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, China, Cuba, Djibouti, Egypt, Ghana, India, Indonesia, Jordan, Madagascar, Malaysia, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Pakistan, Philippines, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, South Africa, Uruguay, and Zambia.

Against (12): Bosnia and Herzegovina, Canada, Chile, France, Germany, Italy, Mexico, Netherlands, Slovakia, Slovenia, Switzerland, and United Kingdom.

Abstentions (6): Argentina, Gabon, Japan, Mauritius, Republic of Korea, and Ukraine.

Full text of Sri Lanka’s resolution and breakdown of votes, UNHCHR Press release, 27 May 2009.

Sources
Sri Lanka says U.N. rights vote vindicates war victory, Reuters, 28 May 2009; UN vote on Sri Lanka attacked; Financial Times, 28 May 2009; UN rights body backs Sri Lankan resolution on war, Reuters, 27 May 2009; Sri Lanka forces West to retreat over ‘war crimes’ with victory at UN, Times, 28 May 2009; Sri Lanka wins at the UNHRC, Daily Mirror, 28 May 2009.

Quotations

“The earlier resolution had various adverse ingredients, much to the detriment of Sri Lanka’s profile, its reputation, and in terms of its future agenda, including an investigative element they brought in. We were able to defeat that,” Sri Lankan Foreign Minister Rohitha Bogollagama.

“The decisive victory at this crucial time, just 10 days after the end of the war, sends a very positive message, as it shows the endorsement of the international community of Sri Lanka’s efforts to resolve the humanitarian challenges in the aftermath of the conflict,” Mahinda Samarasinghe, Disaster Management and Human Rights Minister.

“This expanded resolution fails to call on the government of Sri Lanka to have an effective and independent inquiry into the violation of human rights and international humanitarian laws, nor does it address the problems faced by human rights defenders and journalists due to the lack of freedom of expression. It does not address the need for unhindered access to humanitarian agencies to the displaced and does not include a follow-up by the Council or a mechanism for the UN High Commissioner’s office for Human Rights to independently monitor the human rights situation in Sri Lanka,” German envoy to the UNHRC, speaking on behalf of the EU members. 

“The Human Rights Council did not even express its concern for the hundreds of thousands of people facing indefinite detention in government camps. The council ignored urgent needs and wasted an important chance to promote human rights. It is deeply disappointing that a majority of the Human Rights Council decided to focus on praising a government whose forces have been responsible for the repeated indiscriminate shelling of civilians,” Juliette de Rivero, Geneva advocacy director at Human Rights Watch, May 27, 2009.

“This resolution is not a hurrah for Sri Lanka, it is a sober document. It is a bridge between Sri Lanka and the world, and between Sri Lanka’s present and its future. It sought to represent the maximum possible consensus. We have sought to make this the highest common denominator of the concerns of the Council with regard to Sri Lanka,” Dayan Jayathilaka, the Sri Lankan Ambassador to the UN.

Related events
Tamil Tigers are formed
Sri Lanka fails to keep its seat on the UN Human Rights Council
Sri Lankan military forces recapture the final foothold of the Tamil Tigers
Prabhakaran and other Tiger leaders killed

Related feature
Feature: Historical roots of conflict in Sri Lanka

UN and human rights organisations reported substantial civilian casualties and large-scale displacement, describing the situation as an “unfolding humanitarian catastrophe”. Sri Lanka also came under severe criticism for not allowing international media to report from the conflict zone.
 
Quotations
“Today we finished the work handed to us by the president to liberate the country from the LTTE,” General Sarath Fonseka, state television broadcast, 18 May 2009.

“This battle has reached its bitter end. We have decided to silence our guns,”  Selvarasa Pathmanathan, LTTE spokesman, 17 May, 2009.

“Our forces have recorded another historic victory. That is the complete dislodging of the Tigers from Elephant Pass and the security forces establishing their authority there. … I need not explain to you that the A-9 route is symbolic of the unity that exists between the north and the south of our country. The LTTE obtained several million rupees from the fraudulent taxes they imposed,” President Rajapakse.

“The fundamental problem is these people have to be allowed to leave. It’s very important that the continuation of the fighting not be allowed to cause an escalation of the suffering for the Tamil people of that region,” Richard Boucher, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State.

“Certain actions being undertaken by the Sri Lankan military and by the [Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam] may constitute violations of international human rights and humanitarian law,” Navi Pillay, United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights.

Sources of humanitarian and human rights situation
A Profile of Human Rights and Humanitarian Issues in the Vanni and Vavuniya, Centre for Policy Alternatives, 20 March 2009; ’500 killed’ due to medicine shortage, BBC Sinhala, 17 March 2009; Sri Lanka: Urgently Evacuate Civilians, Human Rights Watch, 4 March 2009; Grim scenes at Sri Lankan camps, Channel 4, 5 May 2009.

Sources
Army ‘takes key Sri Lanka pass’, BBC, 9 January 2009; Lankan forces capture strategic Elephant pass from LTTE, The Hindu, 9 January 2009; Sri Lankan troops seize key Elephant Pass, Reuters, 9 January 2009; Lankan army capture key junction town near Kilinochchi, The Times of India, 12 December 2008; Many dead in Sri Lanka, says UN, BBC, 6 March 2009.

Related events
Capture of Thoppigala
First elections in East for 14 years
Killinochchi recaptured
Prabhakaran and other Tiger leaders killed
Sri Lanka succeeds in Human Rights Council resolution

Related feature
Feature: Historical roots of conflict in Sri Lanka

Sources
Top Sri Lankan editor shot dead, BBC, 8 January  2009; Grievous blow to Sri Lankan media, BBC, 8 January 2009; Sri Lankan newspaper editor shot dead, The Guardian, 8 January 2009; ‘We know who is behind my death’: Sri Lankan editor continues fight from grave, The Guardian, 13 January 2009.

Quotations

“We find ourselves in the midst of a civil war ruthlessly prosecuted by protagonists whose bloodlust knows no bounds. Terror, whether perpetrated by terrorists or the state, has become the order of the day. Indeed, murder has become the primary tool whereby the state seeks to control the organs of liberty. Today it is the journalists, tomorrow it will be the judges. For neither group have the risks ever been higher or the stakes lower,” Lasantha Wickrematunge.

“The LTTE is among the most ruthless and bloodthirsty organisations to have infested the planet. There is no gainsaying that it must be eradicated. But to do so by violating the rights of Tamil citizens, bombing and shooting mercilessly, is not only wrong but shames the Sinhalese, whose claim to be custodians of the dhamma is for ever called into question by this savagery – much of it unknown to the public because of censorship,” Lasantha Wickrematunge.

“I believe it is my duty not to accept anything the government tells us at face value and it is especially our duty not to allow the press in Sri Lanka to be brow-beaten or censored. We need to tell the outside world about the horrific nature of the war in which we are currently involved,” Lasantha Wickrematunge.

“When finally I am killed, it will be the government that kills me. In the wake of my death I know you will make all the usual sanctimonious noises and call upon the police to hold a swift and thorough inquiry. But like all the inquiries you have ordered in the past, nothing will come of this one, too. For truth be told, we both know who will be behind my death,” Lasantha Wickrematunge.

“My government and I most vehemently and unequivocally condemn the murder of Lasantha Wickrematunge, editor of the Sunday Leader, which took place yesterday. I am both grieved and shocked by his tragic death as Mr. Wickrematunge was a close friend of mine who I have known for many years as a courageous journalist. This heinous crime points to the grave dangers faced by the democratic social order of our country, and the existence of forces that will go to the furthest extremes in using terror and criminality to damage our social fabric and bring disrepute to the country. It is significant that such an attack was carried out at a time when the country is gaining repeated victories over the forces of terrorism, in our efforts to establish freedom and democracy throughout the country,” statement made by President Rajapakse.

“Sri Lanka has lost one of its more talented, courageous and iconoclastic journalists. President Mahinda Rajapaksa, his associates and the government media are directly to blame because they incited hatred against him and allowed an outrageous level of impunity to develop as regards violence against the press. Sri Lanka’s image is badly sullied by this murder, which is an absolute scandal and must not go unpunished,” Reporters Without Borders.

Opinion
The murder of Lasantha Wickrematunge and Sri Lanka’s future, groundviews, 8 January 2009; And then they came for me, Sunday Leader, 11 January 2009.

Over the weekend, the BBC’s World Service asked the actor Bill Nighy to read Lasantha Wickrematunge’s final editorial for its Newshour programme.

“You will have no choice but to protect my killers”, Newshour, BBC World Service

Related events
29 April 2005
2 July 2006
9 January 2007
23 May 2008
2 January 2009
6 January 2009

Other features
Feature: Historical roots of conflict in Sri Lanka
Feature: Assassination of an activist
Feature: LTTE expels northern Muslims, 1990
Feature: “Black July”, 1983

Sources
Gunmen raid Sri Lanka TV station, BBC, 6 January 2009; Private TV station attacked in Sri Lanka: police, AFP, 6 January 2009; Armed attack on MTV, Daily Mirror, 6 January 2009

Quotations

“We strongly condemned the attack on the MTV offices and we urge the authorities to speedily investigate and bring the perpetrators to justice,” said the president of the Working Journalists’ Association, Sanath Balasuriya.

“It’s either that the citizens of Sri Lanka are able to drive around attacking institutions armed with weapons and grenades, or there is a hand behind it,” Chevaan Daniel, MTV.

Related events
29 April 2005
2 July 2006
9 January 2007
23 May 2008
2 January 2009

Karuna will fill the vacancy created by the resignation of H.M. Wasantha Samarasinghe of the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP). In response the the appointment, the JVP filed a Fundamental Rights petition, calling the appointment “immoral”.

Sources
Breakaway Tiger leader sworn into Sri Lanka parliament, Reuters, 7 October 2008; ‘Col’ Karuna nominated as MP, The Hindu, 7 October 2008; MP Karuna: ‘travesty of justice’, BBC Sinhala, 7 October 2008.

Quotations

“Tamil people can now have the faith of solving their own problems through parliamentary democracy. We should forget the bitter past experiences and work to win the trust of the Tamils,” Vinayagamoorthi Muralidaran, addressing Parliament.

Related events
11 March 2008
21 December 2007
2 November 2007
6 May 2007
13 November 2007
March 2007

Source
NA. V. The United Kingdom, Press release, European Court of Human Rights, 17 July 2008.

Extracts
The applicant was born in 1975 in Sri Lanka. He currently lives in London. He is an ethnic Tamil. He entered the United Kingdom clandestinely on 17 August 1999 and claimed asylum the next day on the grounds that he feared ill-treatment in Sri Lanka by the Sri Lankan army and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE). … He explained that he had been arrested and detained by the army on six occasions between 1990 and 1997 on suspicion of involvement with the Tigers. … He feared the Tigers because his father had done some work for the army. They had also tried to recruit him on two occasions in 1997 and 1998. …

The risk to Tamils returning to Sri Lanka
It was accepted by the parties to the case that there had been a deterioration in the security situation in Sri Lanka. However, the United Kingdom authorities, while recognising this deterioration and the corresponding increase in human rights violations, had not concluded that this created a general risk to all Tamils returning to Sri Lanka. Nor had the applicant in the present case sought to challenge that conclusion in his submissions. The Court saw no reason to reach a different conclusion.

Moreover the Court also found that the United Kingdom authorities had given serious and anxious consideration to the risk to Tamils returning to Sri Lanka. They had examined all the relevant objective evidence and, just as importantly, considered the appropriate weight to be given to it.

In the Court’s view, both the assessment of the risk to Tamils of certain profiles and the assessment of whether individual acts of harassment cumulatively amounted to a serious violation of human rights could only be done on an individual basis.

It was moreover in principle legitimate, when assessing the individual risk to returnees, to carry out that assessment on the basis of the list of “risk factors”, which the United Kingdom authorities, with the benefit of direct access to objective information and expert evidence, had drawn up.

The assessment of whether there was a real risk had to be made on the basis of all relevant factors which might increase the risk of ill-treatment. It was also possible that a number of individual factors which when they were considered separately did not constitute a real risk might, when taken cumulatively and when considered in a situation of general violence and heightened security, give rise to such a real risk.

The Court found that the information before it pointed to the systematic torture and ill-treatment by the Sri Lankan authorities of Tamils who would be of interest to them in their efforts to combat the Tamil Tigers.
In respect of returns to Sri Lanka through Colombo, the Court also found that there was a greater risk of detention and interrogation at the airport than in Colombo city. Hence the Court’s assessment of whether a returnee was at real risk of ill-treatment might turn on whether that person would be likely to be detained and interrogated at Colombo airport as someone of interest to the authorities. As regards the procedures followed at Columbo airport, the Court considered that at the very least the Sri Lankan authorities had the technological means and procedures in place to identify at the airport failed asylum seekers and those who were wanted by the authorities.

The risk to the applicant
As regards the alleged risk to the applicant from the Tamil Tigers, the Court accepted the domestic authorities’ assessment that while there might be a risk to Tamils in Colombo from Tamil Tigers, this would be only to Tamils with a high profile as opposition activists, or those seen as renegades or traitors. The applicant would therefore not be at real risk of ill-treatment contrary to Article 3 by the Tigers if returned to Colombo.

In assessing the applicant’s position in relation to the Sri Lankan authorities, the Court examined the strength of the applicant’s claim to be at real risk as a result of an accumulation of the risk factors identified by the domestic authorities. However, compared with the last factual assessment made by the national authorities, it did so in the light of more recent developments and in particular having due regard to the deterioration of the security situation in Sri Lanka and the corresponding increase in general violence and heightened security. In addition it took a cumulative approach to all possible risk factors identified by the applicant as applicable to his case. …

In conclusion, the Court took note of the current climate of general violence in Sri Lanka and considered cumulatively the factors present in the applicant’s case. In the light of its finding that those considered by the authorities to be of interest in their efforts to combat the Tigers were systematically exposed to torture and ill-treatment, it took the view that there was a real risk that the authorities at Colombo airport would be able to access the records relating to the applicant’s detention. If they did so, when taken cumulatively with the other risk factors identified by the applicant, it was likely that he would be detained and strip-searched. This in turn would lead to the discovery of his scars. On this basis, the Court found that there were substantial grounds for finding that the applicant would be of interest to the Sri Lankan authorities in their efforts to combat the Tigers. In those circumstances, the Court found that at the present time there would be a violation of Article 3 if the applicant were to be returned.

Related events
8 August 2007
29 October 2007

Sri Lankan journalists and civil society protest against the incident and call for an immediate investigation.

Sources
Defence Reporter Abducted and Severely Beaten In Sri Lanka, International Federation of Journalists, 23 May 2008; Noyahr’s nightmare, Daily Mirror, 24 May 2008; Condemnation from all quarters, Sunday Times, 25 May 2008.

Quotations

“The Free Media Movement expresses shock and outrage that Keith Noyahr, Deputy Editor and Defence Analyst of the English weekly The Nation was abducted late evening yesterday returned home early this morning, after enduring severe physical harm. This is not just a violation of the freedom of expression and another significant blow to media freedom. It proves, as if more proof was needed, that Sri Lanka is very far from a country that protects fundamental rights and is governed by the rule of law,” Free Media Movement, Sri Lanka.

“We believe that the reason for this attack is Noyahr’s independent writing and analysis of the country’s civil war,” Poddala Jayantha, secretary of Sri Lanka Working Journalists’ Association.

“The way he was beaten is unprecedented. If the government can’t [bring the perpetrators to justice] we hold the government responsible for this abduction and attack,” Sunanda Deshapriya of the Free Media Movement.

Extracts from ‘Victory day not far off’, an interview with Army Commander Lt. Gen. Sarath Fonseka, 23 July 2008
Q: But it is reported that the army is behind the attack on Keith Noyahr of The Nation newspaper who had written a military story criticising the military few weeks before the attack. What do you have to say about this allegation?

A: How many other journalists write political or military columns? Why should the army attack only on Keith Noyahr. I have never seen anywhere that Keith Noyahr had said that the army had attacked him. Some people are trying to put us against him. He has never accused that the army had assaulted him. And I think perhaps he is guilty that he has done something wrong by writing against the military.

Q: Is he tight-lipped because he is supposed to be in fear of reprisals?

A: If he has not done anything wrong, he does not have to live in fear. If he has done some damage to our organisation or to a person, especially when he has done something which he is not suppose to do, then it is natural he must be living in fear. If they think that they have done something of that nature the best thing for them is to correct themselves and rectify the mistake.

Q: What is the role you expect the media to play during the time of war?

A: War or no war, the media should write in the interest of the country and not to please their favourites. The media is supposed to play a neutral role to educate people. They are not supposed to create situations where they groom people and make heroes out of them. I do not think that certain media in this country is doing their duty with a sense of responsibility. Media freedom is there for you to do the right thing and to be fair by everybody. Nobody has given freedom for anybody to drive their own agendas. We know very well about those media people who take bribes, write and voice their opinion for some personal gains. That Keith Noyahr who was assaulted was returning from a restaurant with his friends and they were drunk. We do not know that somebody in the restaurant had got annoyed with them, followed him and assaulted.

Related events
29 April 2005
12 August 2005
24 January 2006
2 July 2006
9 January 2007

External links
An army is not its commander’s private fiefdom, The Nation, 11 May 2008; Sri Lanka’s defence ministry lashes out at war reporting, AFP, 5 June 2008

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

Sources
If Sri Lanka does not want our help what can we do? Daily Mirror, 29 March 2008; International experts pull out but government backs human rights inquiry, IRIN News, 4 April 2008.

Quotations

“If we stayed on, business would go on as usual. By withdrawing we are creating a situation where Sri Lankan authorities have to clearly take up the responsibility in protecting human rights. Most of the suggestions that were made by the IIGEP have been ignored or rejected. So we no longer see how we can contribute further to the protection and enhancement of human rights in Sri Lanka. … A two pronged response is needed to safeguard the perception of validity and legitimacy of the commission. The first is a national response. It is up to the government to ensure that the CoI is effectively independent. The government must now show that it has a political will which it hasn’t shown up to now to allow the commission to do its job. Secondly, the international community must get involved with the whole issue of human rights protection and the prosecution of violators. … There is a real problem of witness protection in this country which goes far beyond legislation and this is something that we have tried to address in our modest level. The burden of the question lies clearly with the government to address the climate of fear and find ways of ensuring that witnesses are protected. … After a certain time we were just repeating ourselves. I understand the constraints of the government, but we have to say that this is a lack of political will. … Generally successful procedures have been developed after the conflict or with a change of administration. But now you have an ongoing war and an ongoing administration. I do understand the difficulties in such a context. Once again Sri Lanka has to decide what it wants.” Jean-Pierre Cot, Emeritus Professor of the University of Paris and Judge, an eminent person in the IIGEP.

“We didn’t ask the IIGEP to leave. They had their reasons for going to which the COI and the attorney general’s department have put forward their own positions. We still have confidence the COI will produce results. I’m as desperate as anyone else to show results, especially when I have to go before international forums.” Mahinda Samarasinghe, Minister of Human Rights and Disaster Management.

“President Mahinda Rajapaksa, once a rights advocate, has now led his government to become one of the world’s worst perpetrators of forced disappearances. The end of the ceasefire means this crisis will continue until the government starts taking serious measures.” Elaine Pearson, Human Rights Watch Deputy Asia Director.

Extracts from Human Rights Watch report

“In the great majority of cases documented by Human Rights Watch and Sri Lankan groups, evidence indicates the involvement of government security forces – army, navy, or police. …

“Relatives frequently described uniformed policemen, especially members of the Criminal Investigation Department (CID), taking their relatives into custody before they “disappeared.” The police claimed that these individuals were needed for questioning, yet did not say where they were being taken and did not produce the required “arrest receipt.” After these arrests, the families did not manage to obtain any information on the detainees’ fate or whereabouts. …

“Most of the victims are ethnic Tamils, although Muslims and Sinhalese have also been targeted. In many cases, the security forces “disappeared” individuals because of their alleged affiliation with the LTTE. Clergy, educators, humanitarian aid workers, and journalists also were targeted – not only to remove them from the civil sphere, but also to warn others to avoid such activities. …

“Vairamuththu Varatharasan, a 40-year-old truck driver and father of five, was abducted from his home in Colombo on January 7, 2007, and has not been seen since. His wife told Human Rights Watch:

“A group of about 20 men – some in police uniforms, some in civilian clothes surrounded the house. One policeman came inside and asked for our identity card. I went into one of the rooms to get the identity card. By the time I came out of the room, my husband was not there; neither was the policeman. I ran out and spotted a van parked in a dark place on the road. I ran to the road, but by the time I got there, the van started and left.”

Related events
6 November 2006
11 June 2007
25 June 2007

Related links
The President’s Commission of Inquiry to Investigate and Inquire into Alleged Serious Violations of Human Rights website; Recurring Nightmare: State Responsibility for “Disappearances” and Abductions in Sri Lanka, Human Rights Watch, 6 March 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

Related events
21 December 2007
6 May 2007
March 2007
24 January 2007

Source
UN human rights expert reports allegations of torture in Sri Lanka, UN News Centre, 29 October 2007.

Quotation

“The high number of indictments for torture filed by the Attorney General’s Office, the number of successful fundamental rights cases decided by the Supreme Court of Sri Lanka, as well as the high number of complaints that the National Human Rights Commission continues to receive on an almost daily basis indicates that torture is widely practiced in Sri Lanka.” Manfred Nowak, Special rapporteur on torture for the U.N. Human Rights Council.

The Asylum and Immigration Tribunal has ruled that Tamil asylum seekers could be at risk of torture if deported to Sri Lanka. The ruling is to be used as a test case for future examination of cases from Tamil asylum seekers even if all claims will still be evaluated on an individual basis. The ruling was based on a 2006 report by the UNHCR claiming that individuals suspected of having Tamil Tiger affiliations, including relatives, were at risk of human rights violations by authorities or government-sponsored paramilitary groups. Previous rulings had found that only individuals who had been actively involved with the Tamil Tigers risked being subject to human rights abuses by the authorities.

The Sri Lankan authorities have denied allegations of human rights abuses by the security forces in a recent Human Rights Watch report.

Sources
UK in landmark Sri Lanka ruling, BBC, 8 August 2007; European Council on Refugees and Exiles, Weekly Update, 15 September 2007,