SRI LANKA: IIGEP'S FIRST PUBLIC STATEMENT CRITICAL OF GSL

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 04 COLOMBO 000835 SIPDIS SIPDIS SENSITIVE DEPARTMENT FOR SCA/INS STATE PASS USAID FOR ANE/SAA, DCHA/DG, AND DCHA/CMM E.O. 12958:N/A TAGS: PHUM PGOV PREL CE SUBJECT: SRI LANKA: IIGEP'S FIRST PUBLIC STATEMENT CRITICAL OF GSL PERFORMANCE REF: A. COLOMBO 742 ¶B. COLOMBO 563 ¶C. COLOMBO 525 ¶D. COLOMBO 511 (AND PREVIOUS) ¶1. (U) SUMMARY: The first International Independent Group of Eminent Persons (IIGEP) public statement, released on June 10, outlines the group's key criticisms of the Commission of Inquiry's (CoI) progress to date and notes that the Government of Sri Lanka (GSL) has done little to address IIGEP's concerns. IIGEP argued, as it has since February, that the role of the Attorney General's (AG) office and the CoI's financial dependence on the Presidential Secretariat threaten the independence of the CoI. IIGEP was SIPDIS critical of the CoI's lack of progress on investigations and on establishing witness protection mechanisms. IIGEP emphasized that the CoI and IIGEP cannot substitute for comprehensive solutions, including human rights monitoring, to Sri Lanka's human rights problems. The CoI countered that setting up internal procedures and a witness protection scheme to meet international standards takes time. The AG's office also defended the CoI's slow start and objected to the IIGEP's suggestion that human rights monitoring might be appropriate for Sri Lanka. Both the CoI and AG office asked that the EPs spend more time in-country. Ambassador met on June 12 with a prominent Muslim activist and member of the CoI who commended the leadership of the Commission, but lamented the weak support of the GSL. End Summary. ¶2. (U) IIGEP's first public statement, released on June 10, outlines key criticisms of the CoI's progress to date and notes that the GSL has done little to address IIGEP's concerns. In compliance with the IIGEP terms of reference, the text of the statement was submitted to the Chairman of the Commission of Inquiry and the Attorney General for comment two weeks prior to the release. Both the CoI and the AG's office issued responses countering IIGEP's criticisms. Concerned about Role of Attorney General -------------- ¶3. (U) IIGEP argued, as it has since February 2007, that the role of the Attorney General's (AG) office as legal counsel to the CoI is a conflict of interest since the CoI may very well end up examining the AG's office performance in previous investigations. IIGEP also noted that the Presidential Secretariat's control of the CoI's finances may threaten its independence. IIGEP expressed concern that investigations and inquiries did not start until May 2007, halfway through the CoI's one-year mandate. IIGEP also raised concerns about the lack of witness protection provisions and the impact that will have on the willingness of witnesses to share information. IIGEP noted that GSL statements are creating the false impression that the CoI and IIGEP have wide mandates to address the overall human rights situation in the country, and emphasized that the CoI and IIGEP are not a substitute for "robust, effective measures including national and international human rights monitoring." CoI Denies Conflict of Interest and Foot-Dragging -------------- ¶3. (U) The CoI countered that the slow start of the Commission was necessary to allow time to establish internal procedures in keeping with international norms. CoI expressed confidence that the AG's role in the CoI does not represent a conflict of interest, arguing that the AG office provides legal advice to the Commissioners, but does not actively participate in investigations. The CoI explained that, in the absence of national legislation on witness protection, it has been working to establish its own witness protection scheme. It noted that the Investigation Unit of the CoI works daily and that it hopes the IIGEP will increase the frequency of its presence COLOMBO 00000835 002 OF 004 in-country to observe the CoI's work. AG Office Offers Additional Defense -------------- ¶4. (U) The AG's office defended the CoI's slow start by noting that the CoI could not start until after the nominations of EPs were finalized and approved in February 2007. It countered that the GSL is committed to providing adequate funding to the CoI, but did not allow for the possibility of an independent budget. The AG's office stated that it is inappropriate for the IIGEP to recommend the establishment of international human rights monitoring in Sri Lanka and suggested that IIGEP limit its comments to topics within its mandate. It echoed the CoI's request that the EPs spend more time in-country. CoI Member Laments Weak GSL Support -------------- ¶5. (SBU) Ambassador met on June 12 with Jezima Ismail, a prominent Muslim activist and a member of the CoI. Ismail commended the leadership of the CoI, commenting that solidarity within the CoI was rock solid. However, she lamented the weak support of the GSL. She noted, for example, that President Rajapaksa has not met once with the CoI despite repeated requests from the Commission. Ismail also criticized the weak financial support given the CoI by the Government. She said the Commission members have their individual reputations to uphold and are therefore determined to make progress. Ismail said she has already told her fellow Commissioners that she will go public if the Commission is not able to fulfill its mandate. ¶6. (SBU) COMMENT: The first IIGEP statement, consistent with the work of the CoI to date, dealt primarily with process issues but nonetheless marks a stern public rebuke. The statement and the GSL responses contain views that have been exchanged repeatedly between the IIGEP and the CoI over the last few months. The GSL did not acknowledge any problems with the performance of the CoI and has not offered to make any corrections based on the observations of the IIGEP. It is not the case that the Attorney General's office has merely been providing advice on request to the CoI. In the few hearings the COI has held to date, the Deputy Solicitor General has dominated the questioning of witnesses, asking leading questions that steer away from areas the GSL considers sensitive. The EPs may have little motivation to spend more time in Colombo if their concerns are flatly rejected, casting doubt on the usefulness of their role and the overall CoI process. However, as the investigations advance - particularly the one into the killing of 17 Action Contre la Faim workers in Muttur - the IIGEP may feel obliged to issue even more pointed criticism, which inevitably will lead to greater tensions with the CoI and the GSL. ¶7. (U) Full Text of the IIGEP Public Statement: On 1 June 2007, we, the International Independent Group of Eminent Persons (IIGEP),submitted our first Interim Report to the President of Sri Lanka. The report contains our observations and concerns about the President's Commission of Inquiry to Investigate and Inquire into Alleged Serious Violations of Human Rights (the Commission). We reported to the President that the Commission has so far made hardly any noticeable progress in investigations and inquiries since its inception in November 2006. Moreover, since our formation in February 2007, we have identified and raised a number of concerns with the Commission and the Government of Sri Lanka. We remain concerned that current measures taken by the Government of Sri Lanka and the Commission to address issues such as the independence of the Commission, timeliness and witness protection are not adequate and do not satisfy international norms and standards. COLOMBO 00000835 003 OF 004 Independence: We are concerned about the role of the Attorney General's Department as legal counsel to the Commission. The Attorney General's Department is the Chief Legal Adviser to the Government of Sri Lanka. Members of the Attorney General's Department have been involved in the original investigations into those cases subject to further investigation by the Commission itself. As such, members of the Attorney General's Department may find that they are investigating themselves. Furthermore, it is possible that they be called as material witnesses before the Commission. We consider these to be serious conflicts of interest, which lack transparency and compromise national and international standards of independence and impartiality that are central to the credibility and public confidence of the Commission. We are concerned that the Commission's finances are managed by the Presidential Secretariat. The Commission does not have financial independence enabling it to exercise control of its human resources and operations. In particular, the Commission should be allocated sufficient funds to secure the permanent confidentiality, safety and integrity of its victim and witness protection scheme. Timeliness: We are concerned that the Commission did not commence even preliminary investigations and inquiries until May 2007, despite being constituted six months earlier in November 2006. To date, internal processes have not been transparent; no detailed work plan has been announced; essential staff have not yet been fully recruited; investigative and witness protection units are not functioning; and significantly, evidence already known to be in the possession of Governmental bodies relating to the cases has not been gathered and transmitted to us. Such unnecessary delays undermine public confidence in the ability of the Commission to carry out its mandate in a timely manner. Witness protection: We are concerned that there are no adequate victim and witness protection provisions under Sri Lankan law. We are of the view that witness protection is absolutely essential in order to investigate serious violations of human rights that are within the Commission's mandate. Appropriate legislation that accords with international norms and standards should be enacted and implemented as soon as possible to protect victims and witnesses. We regret that the Commission still has no functioning victim and witness protection mechanism. In the absence of appropriate legislation, an effective scheme or functioning protection unit, we fail to understand how the Commission could have invited the public, as it did as recently as 14 May 2007, to come forward and give evidence. As the Commission is operating without witness protection legislation, it is unable to guarantee the safety and security of witnesses. Summoning and examining potential victims and witnesses may create fear in their minds about safety and security, deterring them from coming forward to give evidence. Mandates: The Presidential Warrant limits the scope of the Commission to a retrospective and fact finding role. The core work of the Commission is to obtain information, investigate and inquire into alleged serious violations of human rights arising since 1 August 2005, including 16 specific cases; and to examine prior investigations into these cases. The Commission is required to make findings and report to the President on the facts and circumstances pertaining to each case; the descriptions, nature and backgrounds of the victims; the circumstances that may have led to, or resulted in, those persons suffering such deaths, injury or physical harm; the identities, descriptions and backgrounds of the persons and groups responsible for the commission of deaths and other acts; measures of reparation to be provided to the victims; and recommendations in order to prevent the occurrence of incidents in the nature of those investigated and any other recommendations considered as relevant. The IIGEP, comprising of 11 Members, has been invited by the President to observe the investigations and inquiries of the COLOMBO 00000835 004 OF 004 Commission, in order to ensure transparency and observance of international norms and standards. The IIGEP does not have a mandate to conduct independent investigations and inquiries; nevertheless, we are open to all persons who wish to provide information and evidence on the cases under review by the Commission. Although we are obliged by the Presidential Invitation to transmit third party information to the Commission, it would not be right for us to disclose any information without the consent of the third party, or which may impair the safety or security of such third parties until we are satisfied that effective, functioning and credible witness protection measures are in place. We regret that public statements from State officials are creating the misleading impression that the Commission and IIGEP have wide mandates and powers and the resources to address ongoing alleged human rights violations in Sri Lanka. This is not the case. In the current context, in particular, the apparent renewed systematic practice of enforced disappearance and the killings of Red Cross workers, it is critical that the Commission and IIGEP not be portrayed as a substitute for robust, effective measures including national and international human rights monitoring. P N Bhagwati Chairman, IIGEP [end text] BLAKE