SRI LANKA: EMINENT PERSONS FRUSTRATED, DECIDE TO

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 04 COLOMBO 001582

SIPDIS

SIPDIS

DEPARTMENT FOR SCA/INS

E.O. 12958: DECL: 11/23/2017
TAGS: PGOV PREL PTER PHUM MOPS CE
SUBJECT: SRI LANKA: EMINENT PERSONS FRUSTRATED, DECIDE TO
CALL IT QUITS IN FEBRUARY

REF: COLOMBO 1358 (AND PREVIOUS)

Classified By: Ambassador Robert O. Blake, Jr. Reasons: 1.4(b, d).


1. (C) SUMMARY: The members of the International
Independent Panel of Eminent Persons assisting the Sri Lankan
Presidential Commission of Inquiry into Human Rights Abuses
feel their efforts have been stymied and concluded they can
do little more to influence events in a positive way. A
letter from the Presidential Secretariat to the Commission
putting off limits any investigation of the Attorney
General's previous handling of the Commission's caseload was
a "show-stopper," U.S. Eminent Person Gene Dewey reported.
There is a unanimous consensus within the panel not to seek
or accept an extension of its mandate beyond the term until
February 2008. Panel members will seek to manage their
departure in such a way as to limit the government's ability
to blame them for the end of their efforts. The panel plans
to send a letter to President Rajapakasa on November 30
making its position clear. On December 17, the panel will
forward its third interim report and issue a public
statement. The panel's professional staff are preparing to
deal with an increasingly tense relationship with the
government and making plans to tighten security. Embassy
recommends that U.S. and partner countries consider issuing
strong statements on the deterioration of the human rights
environment in Sri Lanka in proximity to the December session
of the Human Rights Council in Geneva, noting the
Commission's lack of progress. End summary.

PRESIDENT EXTENDS COMMISSION'S MANDATE
BUT PLACES AG'S CONDUCT OFF LIMITS
--------------


2. (C) On November 13, the panel of Eminent Persons (IIGEP),
with eight of its eleven members present for a plenary, met
the Presidential Commission of Inquiry (CoI). The Commission
informed IIGEP officially that the President had extended the
CoI's mandate until November 2008. The COI chairman then
read the letter of extension from the Presidential
Secretariat (with a deadpan expression, according to U.S.

SIPDIS
Eminent Person Gene Dewey). The letter, signed by the
President's Chief of Staff Lalith Weeratunga, contained a
"clarification" of the CoI's original mandate. This,
although couched in soft language, amounted to a directive
- not to look into the conduct of previous criminal
investigations of the cases within the CoI's mandate,
- not to examine the role of the Attorney General's office in
those cases, and
- not to call any of the Attorney General's staff as
witnesses.
In addition, the Presidential Secretariat suggested that the
CoI continue to avail itself of the services of the Attorney
General's office as counsel to the CoI.


3. (C) In a private meeting with Ambassador, DCM and Pol
Chief, U.S. Eminent Person Gene Dewey stated there was a
strong consensus among IIGEP members that this was a
"show-stopper." He related that in a joint meeting between
the IIGEP and CoI, Indonesian IIGEP member Darusman, speaking
for the group, asked the CoI if they understood that this
probably meant the end of the IIGEP's involvement. Dewey
said at least one IIGEP member was in favor of resigning en
masse immediately. Others proposed a "moratorium," meaning
that the IIGEP members would refuse to participate in further
CoI proceedings unless the government withdraws the offending
"clarification" to the CoI mandate. Ambassador urged that if
IIGEP decided to pull out, it plan its exit strategy in a way
to limit the GSL's efforts to "blame" the international
community for the shortcomings of the CoI/IIGEP process,
which it surely would do.

INDEPENDENT PANEL BRIEFS DONOR COUNTRIES

COLOMBO 00001582 002 OF 004


--------------


4. (C) DCM attended a November 14 meeting of donor country
ambassadors and charges with IIGEP members. Justice Bhagwati
opened the session by noting that IIGEP had "encountered
several problems." Gene Dewey followed, remarking that IIGEP
was "at a turning point." He said there has been very little
progress in the investigations of the cases. He acknowledged
that, partly as a result of IIGEP, the CoI had begun, to some
extent, to take ownership of the process. However, he noted
deep concern about the letter from the Presidential
Secretariat to the CoI chairman, which, Dewey said, placed

SIPDIS
the Attorney General's office "above questioning" and
declared off bounds investigations undertaken prior to the
initiation of the CoI. He called the letter a "bombshell."


5. (C) All ambassadors/charges noted the importance of the
independent nature of IIGEP and the commitment of their
embassies not to impose their views on IIGEP. Canadian High
Commissioner Bogdan noted that the CoI was clearly not
operating according to international standards. She told the
group that several CoI members had expressed privately to her
that they are dissatisfied and do not want the CoI to
continue. Whatever happens with the COI, we must maintain
pressure at Geneva on the GSL for its poor human rights
performance, Bogdan concluded. A way forward for IIGEP, if
there is one, should be tied to Geneva. Canada would support
the consensus with regard to the continuation of IIGEP. She
reminded that Louise Arbour said that a one-year extension
would be "waste of time" (i.e., not enough time to make
meaningful progress).


6. (C) The Netherlands Charge d'Affaires concurred that
concerns about the COI should be raised in Geneva. He added
that the Netherlands did not expect results from the CoI and
would not continue to finance IIGEP beyond its one-year term.
The Australian High Commissioner said that one value of
IIGEP is the information that had been gleaned. Clearly, the
slow pace of investigations is of concern. At this rate, it
would take the CoI a decade to complete its work. The GOA
will not continue funding indefinitely. The UK High
Commissioner stressed the importance of consensus; a
situation in which some EPs left and some stayed on would be
unacceptable. The CoI/IIGEP had given the GSL the ability to
claim it is taking action to investigate human rights abuses.
The UK would favor a swifter rather than slower exit, he
said, but emphasized that IIGEP should reach a consensus
decision.


7. (C) The Japanese Ambassador was the only diplomatic
representative who spoke in favor of IIGEP continuing beyond
its one-year mandate. He said that in Sri Lanka "unfulfilled
commitments must be accepted." He viewed the CoI/IIGEP as
the only prospect for investigating human rights abuses and
opined that work is "progressing steadily, even if at a
slower pace than we would like."


8. (C) DCM made four points: (1) If IIGEP decided to not
seek an extension of its mandate (or to pull out short of one
year) it must carefully plan its exit strategy to avoid, to
the extent possible, giving the GSL a pretext to "blame" the
international community for the shortcomings/lack of progress
of the CoI/IIGEP mechanism. (2) We recommend that IIGEP
consider issuing a statement expressing its concerns about
the process that could be released prior to the December 10
meeting of the Human Rights Council in Geneva. (3) We
recommend that embassies weigh in with capitals in support of
a strong statement in Geneva that includes concerns about GSL
interference in the CoI and the failure of the COI to achieve
significant progress. (4) IIGEP should place on record in
written form its concerns about the Weeratunga letter.


9. (C) Bhagwati summed up, saying that the CoI/IIGEP process

COLOMBO 00001582 003 OF 004


faces several difficulties, some of which were of the GSL's
making. Many potential witnesses were not prepared to come
forward and give evidence. Still, IIGEP was trying to
fulfill its mandate. There had been three reports thus far
and a fourth was being drafted. The problems identified in
the reports must be addressed if IIGEP is to continue.
Ultimately, he said, IIGEP's work will benefit the people of
Sri Lanka by helping them people of Sri Lanka achieve greater
observance of human rights.

PANEL DECIDES TO WORK UNTIL MANDATE EXPIRES
--------------


10. (C) IIGEP met President Rajapaksa on November 16 to make
clear their concerns. According to members of the IIGEP
Secretariat who briefed DCM and Pol Chief on November 23, the

SIPDIS
President and his advisors said they would prepare a letter
to IIGEP explaining their previous "clarification" putting an
investigation of the Attorney General's prior handling of the
CoI cases off-limits. According to our interlocutors, IIGEP
expressed little interest in receiving such a letter, since
the harm done by the original "clarification" could not be
made good. Rather, they remarked, it had become abundantly
clear that the government did not intend for the CoI
inquiries to produce results.


11. (C) In a meeting later on November 23, IIGEP members
resolved not to seek an extension, but to try to wind up work
on schedule in February 2008. IIGEP plans to send a letter
to the President on November 30 stating that nearly a year's
effort had produced very little of value. IIGEP's concerns
had largely been ignored; their suggestions for remedying the
deficiencies of the CoI had had little impact. The letter
would state that the IIGEP saw no point in continuing its
work beyond the February 2008 expiration of its mandate.
IIGEP would simultaneously release a letter to the donor
countries explaining its position.

WITNESS PROTECTION LEGISLATION IN LIMBO
--------------


12. (C) The IIGEP assistants told us that they had no idea
how the CoI could proceed to hold planned public hearings in
December, with none of the necessary groundwork in place.
The necessary amendment to the 1948 Act establishing
Commissions of Inquiry would not be ready. This meant that,
without the power to compel law enforcement, security
officials, and others with relevant information to appear,
any such public sessions would be -- like the six months of
in-camera "investigations" the CoI had conducted to date --
"a waste of time." IIGEP staff noted that the Cabinet had
reportedly passed the new Witness Protection Law but was
keeping it secret. The Supreme Court would rule in advance
on its constitutionality before the law goes to Parliament.
However, there was reason to fear that the Attorney General's
staff had gutted the law of provisions that would protect
witnesses effectively, they observed.

PANEL PREPARES TO WIND UP WORK; SECURITY CONCERNS
-------------- --------------


13. (C) The IIGEP staff said that it would not be possible
to complete drafting of the next IIGEP public statement and
release it prior to the December session of the Human Rights
Council because of the need to clear it with all IIGEP
members and submit the statement to the GSL two weeks in
advance. IIGEP therefore planned to send its third interim
report to President Rajapaksa on December 17 and release a
public statement at the same time. IIGEP's tentative
schedule was to meet for the last time in the second half of
February, approve its final report to the President, and
craft a public statement to be released two weeks later. In
addition, IIGEP is planning a separate "legacy report" which

COLOMBO 00001582 004 OF 004


would either be made public, or given to the donor countries
and international human rights organizations on a
confidential basis. (We noted that in the latter case, the

SIPDIS
report would almost certainly leak.)


14. (C) COMMENT: It is perhaps unfortunate that IIGEP will
not release its next statement before the December 10 meeting
of the Human Rights Council in Geneva. On the other hand,
this will avoid a repetition of charges that the IIGEP was
timing its announcements to influence the HRC, which could
complicate Louse Arbour's efforts to negotiate terms for an
enhanced presence of her office in Sri Lanka. Embassy
recommends that the U.S. and like-minded countries consider
issuing strong statements on the human rights situation in
Sri Lanka around the time of the HRC, possibly in Geneva,
noting that the CoI has made little progress. The only way
IIGEP will be able to counter the government's likely
propaganda barrage at the release of its final report
effectively is to detail the efforts IIGEP has made to point
out and correct the CoI's deficiencies, and the government's
repeated refusal to entertain them. The atmosphere will
probably become increasingly confrontational after IIGEP
sends its letter to the President on November 30, and even
more so after release of its next public statement December

17. IIGEP secretariat members are preparing to take
additional measures to safeguard their own security and that
of the confidential information they have accumulated over
the last several months.
BLAKE