by Neville Ladduwahetty

During the 57^th Session of the UNHRC, Sri Lanka restated its opposition to HRC Resolution 51/1; a carryover of Resolution 46/1. These Resolutions were “consistently rejected” on grounds that the evidence gathering mechanism within the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) “is an unprecedented and ad hoc expansion of the Council’s mandate and contradicts its founding principles of impartiality, objectivity and non-selectivity”.

The OHCHR’s mandate under Resolution HRC 46/1 states: “In March 2021, the United Nations Human Rights Council, through its resolution 46/1, recognized the importance of preserving and analyzing evidence relating violations and abuses of human rights and related crimes in Sri Lanka with a view to advancing accountability…” (OHCHR, Frequently Asked Questions). This document states that its scope addresses “four specific tasks”. The first task is to: “collect, consolidate, preserve and analyze information and evidence of violations and abuses of human rights and related crimes committed in Sri Lanka”.

FACTORS AFFECTING EVIDENCE ANALYSIS

Since the focus is only on the first specific task, the comments below are based on the following parameters: 1 Armed Conflict and 2 Declaration of Emergency

1 ARMED CONFLICT

During the period February 2002 to May 2009 the conflict in Sri Lanka was categorised as an Armed Conflict by none other than the OHCHR in their report of 2015. Thus, as an Armed Conflict, the report states that the applicable law is Common Article 3 to the four Geneva Conventions, which means that any violations or abuses committed during the armed conflict must be judged under provisions of International Humanitarian Law and to derogated Human Rights Law during an Emergency.

Consequently, evidence gathering and its analysis should take into account provisions of Humanitarian Law as provided in Additional Protocol II of June 1977 relating to Non-International Armed Conflict as part of Customary Law.

“Article 6 of Additional Protocol II of 1977 – Penal prosecutions”

1. “This Article applies to the prosecution and punishment of criminal offences related to the armed conflict”.

2. “No sentence shall be passed and no penalty shall be executed on a person found guilty of an offence except pursuant to a conviction pronounced by a court offering the essential guarantees of independence and impartiality. In particular:

(a) The procedure shall provide for an accused to be informed without delay of the particulars of the offence alleged against him and shall afford the accused before and during his trial all necessary rights and means of defence;

(b) No one shall be convicted of an offence except on the basis of individual penal responsibility;

(c) No one shall be held guilty of any criminal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a criminal offence, under the law, at the time when it was committed; nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than that which was applicable at the time when the criminal offence was committed; if, after the commission of the offence, provision is made by law for the imposition of a lighter penalty, the offender shall benefit thereby;

(d) Anyone charged with an offence is presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law;

(e)Anyone charged with an offence shall have the right to be tried in his presence; (f) No one shall be compelled to testify against himself or to confess guilt”.

3. “A convicted person shall be advised on conviction of his judicial and other remedies and of the time-limits within which they may be exercised”.

4. “The death penalty shall not be pronounced on persons who were under the age of eighteen years at the time of the offence and shall not be carried out on pregnant women or mothers of young children”.

5. At the end of hostilities, the authorities in power shall endeavour to grant the broadest possible amnesty to persons who have participated in the armed conflict, or those deprived of their liberty for reasons related to the armed conflict, whether they are interned or detained”.

2 DECLARATION of an EMERGENCY

Since an emergency operated from May 2000 to June 2010 throughout Sri Lanka, Human Rights are derogated during this period as declared by Article 4 of ICCPR.

Article 4 of ICCPR states: “In times of public emergency which threatens the life of the nation and the existence of which is officially proclaimed, the State Parties to the present Covenant to the extent strictly required by the exigencies of the situation, provided that such measures are not inconsistent with their other obligations under international law…”.

Derogated Human Rights under emergency rules as permitted by ICCPR provisions stated in OISL Report are:

Articles 9 (2); 9 (3); 12 (1); 12 (2); 14 (3); 17 (1); 19 (2); 21 and 22 of the ICCPR.

Article 9 (2): “Anyone who is arrested shall be informed, at the time of arrest the reason for the arrest…”.

Article 9 (3): “Anyone arrested or detained on a criminal charge shall be brought before a judge….”.

Article 12 (1): “Everyone lawfully within the territory of State shall have the right to liberty of movement…”.

Article 12 (2): “Everyone shall be free to leave any country, including his own”.

14 (3): “In the determination of any charge, everyone shall be entitled to the following guarantees: to be informed promptly; time to prepare defence; tried without delay; tried in his presence; to examine witnesses against him; access to an interpreter; not to testify against him”.

Article 17 (1): “No one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence nor to unlawfully attack his honour…”.

Article 19 (2): “Right to freedom of expression …”.

Article 21: “…right to peaceful assembly…”.

Article 22: “…right to freedom of association…”.

The OISL report concludes the list of derogated human rights during the period of the Armed Conflict by stating: “Measures taken pursuant to derogation are lawful to the extent they comply with the conditions set out in international human rights law as provided in Article 4 of ICCPR. In keeping with this provision, successive Sri Lankan Governments have derogated over a period of 10 years, 9 Articles out of a total of 19 Articles in Part II of the ICCPR that the OISL has declared as being lawful.

CONSOLIDATE, PRESERVE AND ANALYSE INFORMATION AND EVIDENCE

“The OHCHR Sri Lanka accountability project will collect information and evidence from all sources willing to provide it, including Government authorities, other Member States, victims, witnesses, civil society stakeholders and any other sources. Various UN bodies have already gathered extensive documentation of serious violations and abuses of human rights and violations of humanitarian law committed in Sri Lanka, particularly during and after the conflict, which ended in 2009. Information and evidence collected will be reviewed and analyzed by OHCHR Sri Lanka accountability project…” (Frequently Asked Questions from OHCHR).

Therefore, by OHCHR’s own admission, the sources that gave information and evidence will fade into oblivion and the information and evidence that would be left would only be the “reviewed and analyzed version formulated by OHCHR”.

This in essence amounts to a tampered version of what the witnesses and other source furnished; a procedure that not only trivialises the sanctity of evidence but also denies access to witnesses; a fundamental right called for by Article 14 (3) of the ICCPR. Furthermore, the witnesses and sources that furnished information and evidence are NOT in a position to verify whether the evidence furnished by them accurately reflects the “analyzed” version of the evidence in the possession of the OHCHR. Thus the procedure adopted by the evidence gathering mechanism violates natural justice as understood by the community of nations.

Consequently, those responsible for alleged violations and abuses are denied the opportunity to challenge the authenticity of the evidence presented, because the procedure does not provide “for an accused before and during his trial all necessary rights and means of defence” as called for by 2 (a) of Part 6 of Additional Protocol II of 1977 that today is accepted as Customary Law. Furthermore, the procedure does not permit whether the evidence presented guarantees that alleged violations assure that no one is “convicted of an offence except on the basis of individual penal responsibility” as stated in 2 (b) of Part 6 of Protocol II. Under the circumstances, the fact that UNHRC Resolution 46/1 followed by Resolution 51/1 was endorsed by the HR Council and the Co-Chairs is not only beyond belief, but has also become jointly a party to what amounts to UNHRC’s Brand of warped justice because it violates International Law.

CONCLUSION

As stated by the OHCHR “the information and evidence collected will be reviewed and analyzed by OHCHR Sri Lanka accountability project ….” However, what is not disclosed is the extent and scope of the analysis undertaken by the OHCHR. For instance, what is not disclosed is whether the information and evidence under the evidence gathering mechanism takes into account the special circumstances associated with the Armed Conflict and the fact that certain Human Rights are derogated during the Emergency that operated from May 2000 to June 2010.

Consequently, the evidence analysed by the OHCHR would drastically differ from the evidence furnished by witnesses and other sources in the event the OHCHR took into account the special circumstances of the Armed Conflict and the imposed Emergency. On the other hand, if the evidence gathered is the raw evidence furnished by witnesses and other sources, the need for the OHCHR to “analyze” the evidence does NOT ARISE.

Therefore, the outcome of the analysis is to tamper with the raw evidence presented; a task that not only far exceeds the mandate under which the UNHRC is authorized to operate but also trivializes the sanctity of evidence on which Justice depends. This makes the evidence gathering mechanism initiated by the UNHRC justified grounds for rejection; a fact that Sri Lanka should bring to the attention of the Member State of the HR Council and take joint action for the benefit of all. Furthermore, co-sponsoring such an exercise casts a deep shadow on the brand of justice that is being attempted jointly by the UNHRC and its sponsors at a time when the credibility, competence and relevance of the UN and its Institutions are in serious question.