Geneva’s new challenge: UN’s Committee on Enforced Disappearances

Photo courtesy of Kumanan

Geneva is where human rights record of Sri Lanka has come under regular and heavy scrutiny. Reports of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights and discussions at the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) have generated local and international media coverage and heated debates in Sri Lanka. These have also led to resolutions on Sri Lanka at the Council, and there is another draft resolution tabled at the ongoing 60th session of the Council.

But there’s something lesser known but very important also happening in Geneva on September 26  – the review of Sri Lanka by the UN’s Committee on Enforced Disappearances (CED).

What’s it about?

There are nine core human rights treaties (also referred to as Covenants, Conventions). States voluntarily decide to become a party to each one separately and Sri Lanka is a party to all nine. Parties to each treaty (states) nominate and elect a group of independent experts to monitor, review and issue Concluding Observations about how each state that’s party to the treaty implements it. The Committees also have other roles, which vary from Committee to Committee, such as accepting individual complaints and communicating them to states, country visits and issuing general comments.

One of the nine human rights treaties is the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearances. Sri Lanka became a party to this in 2016. The independent expert committee monitoring and reviewing the implementation of this treaty is the Committee on Enforced Disappearances (CED). During its 29th session, CED will review how Sri Lanka has implemented the Convention. The review is a dialogue between the CED and Sri Lankan government representatives. Below are some key sources of information for this review.

• International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearances
• The report submitted by the government to the CED in August 2023, known as the State Report
• Questions sent to the government by the CED in October 2023 known as the List of Issues
• Government’s response of July 31, 2025 to the List of Issues
• Written and oral submissions to the CED by Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka (HRCSL), families of disappeared (individually and collectively) and NGOs

At the end of the review, the CED will issue Concluding Observations, which includes recommendations.

Engagement with the CED

Sri Lanka’s report to the CED was due in 2018 but was only submitted in 2023. Responses to List of Issues sent by the CED in October 2023 were only submitted in July 2025. Both reports are only in English and thus inaccessible to majority of families of disappeared and Sri Lankans in general. I am not aware of attempts by the present or previous governments to consult families of disappeared and other concerned persons and groups in the preparation of the reports and the dialogue with the CED.

In April 2024, the CED had submitted an urgent action in relation to disappearance of a person in March 2024. It’s not clear if the government had responded. After much efforts by the mother, activists, lawyers and media publicity, along with strong interventions of the Human Rights Commission, the person was found to be in police custody and the CED discontinued the case in June 2024.

Article 31 and 32 of the Enforced Disappearance Convention requires a declaration of consent from the state for the CED to receive and consider communications by individuals and other states about violations of the Convention. Sri Lanka has not consented to this and has not responded to CED’s question about intension to make a declaration of consent.

Data relating to enforced disappearances

The government’s 51 page report has a section called Data Relating to Enforced Disappearances spanning more than five pages but there is no data on number of disappeared in Sri Lanka. The section is more a list of mechanisms to address the issue of missing persons and enforced disappearances, through several national commissions to receive complaints and recommend action. It refers to 10 Commissions of Inquiry and a Committee but doesn’t refer to any data in relation number of complaints received, persons found dead, persons found alive, persons whose fate and whereabouts was not determined. Neither does it refer to number of persons prosecuted or convicted as a follow up to findings. The Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka’s submission refers to some of these Commissions and provides limited data. It says that the three 1994 Zonal Commissions received 27,526 complaints of which 16,800 cases were established as involving enforced or involuntary disappearance and that the 1998 All Island Commission considered 10,136 cases of which 4,473 were established as involving enforced or involuntary disappearance.

There is a lot of reference to the Office on Missing Persons (OMP) but I could not find any publicly available submission by the OMP to the CED. The OMP’s websites claims it has received 21,374 complaints and that the number of active complaints is 14,988 after deducting 6,386 cases of cases with missing military personnel/cases with double entries. There are differences in numbers attributed to the OMP by the government and the Human Rights Commission.

There is no clear response to CED’s request to provide disaggregated data on the search and investigations carried out and their results, including the profile of the perpetrators, the proportion of proceedings launched that resulted in convictions and the sanctions imposed on the perpetrators.

In 2016, the then government stated that “since 1994 alone, the Government Commissions have received over 65,000 complaints of missing persons”. A submission by the then Catholic Bishop of Mannar to the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission appointed by President Mahinda Rajapaksa asked to clarify fate and whereabouts of 146,679 persons unaccounted during the last eight months of war in 2008-2009, based on government statistics.

I believe actual numbers are likely to be more than a hundred thousand.

Every statistic of disappeared and missing person is a son, daughter, father, mother, brother, sister, husband or wife. The government’s inability or unwillingness to present clear statistics is by itself, an indicator of unwillingness or inability to acknowledge all disappeared persons individually by name.

The Human Rights Commission sums up the situation in relation to data as “There is no consensus on the total number of enforced disappearances in Sri Lanka”.

Legal and institutional framework 

The government’s 51 page report and subsequent 13 page report in response to List of Issues is filled with references to legal and institutional framework in place to prevent and respond to enforced disappearances.

The disappeared families’ stories show how the legal and institutional framework have spectacularly failed to prevent tens of thousands disappearing or determining the fate and whereabouts of those disappeared. The stories also indicate utter failure in prosecutions and convictions of those responsible.

Among the blatant examples of such failures is the failure in investigations into more than 30 mass graves found across Sri Lanka. Not a single prosecution or conviction has happened in relation to any of the mass graves. Mass graves have simply become part of the mass cover ups of enforced disappearances. CED’s review will be happening amidst excavations into two mass graves in Jaffna (Chemmani) and Colombo (Port City) and imminent excavation of another one near Batticaloa (Kurukkalmadam). The government’s commitment to the CED to use a recently developed anti-mortem data form translated into all three languages in upcoming mass grave investigations is positive but it is left to be seen if results will be different to previous excavations.

The Human Rights Commission’s submission to the CED acknowledges that the widespread or systematic practice of enforced disappearance constitutes a crime against humanity but stops short of acknowledging the politically explosive but likely reality that this has happened in Sri Lanka. The Commission also acknowledges that Sri Lanka’s Enforced Disappearance Act does not include a specific offence relating to the widespread or systematic practice of enforced disappearance and that HRCSL is of the view that such an offence should be included as an aggravated offence in the Act.

Investigations

In response to the CED’s question on how the authorities responsible for receiving complaints and investigating cases of alleged enforced disappearance divide their functions, the government has stated that the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) of the police has a dedicated unit for investigating cases of disappearances and that they initiate investigations only based on a formal complaint or credible information from a reliable informant, and that they also apply criteria like the seriousness of the incident and the level of public or legal controversy involved. The government reply also states that after an inquiry by the OMP, “provisional support offered includes, but is not limited to, provision of legal documents such as Certificates of Absence (COAs), revival payments, land or housing assistance, and other psycho-social assistance”. There is no reference to OMP’s foremost objective as per Article 2 (a) of the OMP Act for searching and tracing of missing persons, clarifying the circumstances in which they went missing and their fate. Neither is there a reference to powers the OMP has as per Article 12 (i) to report incidents to relevant law enforcement or prosecuting authority when it appears that an offence has been committed within meaning of any law (which included Enforced Disappearances Act) that warrants investigation. There is no information about how many persons fate and whereabouts have been traced by the OMP or how many persons cases they have reported to law enforcement or prosecuting authority.

In February 2024, the Vavuniya High Court is reported to have ordered the Army to produce a man who was disappeared at a checkpoint in 2006 in relation to a case filed in 2006. In December 2022 and February 2023, the same court is reported to have ordered the Army to produce four persons who were handed over and surrendered to the armed forces at the end of the war in 2009 in relation to cases filed in 2013. These cases indicate alarming delays in matters of life and death but, more alarmingly, that even in exceptionally rare cases of judiciary ordering the production of disappeared persons, the military doesn’t comply and there are no consequences.

Attorney General 

The role of the Attorney General is also likely to come under scrutiny during the review. The Human Rights Commission has informed the CED that they had written to the Attorney General on May 14, 2024 stating that there were reasonable grounds to believe that the elements of the offence of enforced disappearance under section 3(1) of the Enforced Disappearance Act had been satisfied, warranting an independent and impartial criminal investigation into an incident that happened in March 2024. The commission had recommended the initiation of proceedings before the High Court. The commission has informed the CED that the apparent lack of progress in investigations into this case highlights the challenge of impunity with respect to enforced disappearance. To the best my knowledge, no proceedings have been initiated by the Attorney General before the High Court in this significant case of 2024.

The state report acknowledges that “where a person is continuously deprived of liberty, such as through detention or some other form of confinement without such person’s consent, the offence of enforced disappearance shall be of a continuing nature, so long as there is refusal to acknowledge such deprivation of liberty”. But it has not been translated into practice by the Attorney General prosecuting even one enforced disappearance that happened before Sri Lanka’s 2018 Enforced Disappearances Act and remains unresolved to date.

Speaking at a side event at the Human Rights Council in Geneva yesterday, Ms. Jennifer Weerasinghe whose only son was abducted in 2008, said the Attorney General has indicted former Navy Commander Wasantha Karannagoda and later withdrawn it. She also claimed to have heard from reliable sources that former Navy Commander and Chief of Staff of Armed Forces, Ravindra Wijegunaratne, has been removed as a suspect from a related case, where he is alleged to have helped suspects in abduction case of her son and ten others to leave Sri Lanka. She also highlighted that the Attorney General who is responsible for filing indictments in criminal cases related to enforced disappearances has defended alleged perpetrators in habeas corpus cases. Speaking at the same event, Sandya Ekneligoda, whose husband has disappeared, welcomed the proposal to establish and independent prosecutors office but questioned the possible appointment of Supreme Court judge Yasantha Kodagoda to head the office, given his past roles in the Attorney General’s department defending alleged perpetrators of enforced disappearances.

Reparations

In response to CED’s questions on number of cases in which reparations and compensation has been awarded to victims, the government report states that as of June 2025, 4,197 families have been granted a revival payment. The Human Rights Commission’s submission indicates that compensation for each family has been Rs. 200,000. There is no response to CED’s question on proportion of cases where reparations and compensation has been provided but statistics quoted indicates less than 30% of OMP’s active cases have received payments.

Arrests and detention 

The government report claims that every trial under the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA) is to be held on a day to day basis except in exceptional circumstances. But in many PTA cases that I have observed, including ones that are ongoing, trials are not held on a day to day basis. The government report also states that the Court of Appeal may release on bail a person remanded/detained under the Act if the trial has not commenced after the expiration of 12 months from the date of arrest and that the High Court is also empowered to release such persons on bail. But in reality, this rarely happens. Yesterday, I received a call from a lawyer of a PTA detainee saying his client has been in administrative detention (not remand) for more than two years.

The government report claims persons in detention are guaranteed prompt and confidential access to a lawyer but I recall that I was not allowed access to a lawyer while I was in detention under the PTA, even though several teams of lawyers had visited me and tried to gain access. The complaint to the Human Rights Commission in relation to this is still pending after more than 11 years.

The government response insists that those arrested during protests in 2022 were produced in courts in 2022. But Anurudda Banadara, a prominent protester who was arrested, has denied this claim through a detailed submission to the CED. He has stated he was subjected to an enforced disappearance through the refusal to acknowledge the deprivation of his liberty to his family and legal representatives. He has alleged that he was repeatedly moved from one police station to another, deliberately concealing his whereabouts, and that it was public pressure and interventions of the Human Rights Commission that led to his deprivation of liberty being acknowledged and him surviving. He has also stated that no one has been held accountable and that a Fundamental Rights petition he has filed is still pending.

Threats, intimidation and harassments of families of disappeared

Many families of disappeared, especially Tamils in North and East, face reprisals by state intelligence agents, police and military due to their participation in protests, campaigns and advocacy, including this year. These include regular phone calls inquiring about whereabouts and warning not to participate in protests. In 2023, when then President Ranil Wickremesinghe visited Batticaloa, a group of female relatives of disappeared went to meet him to submit their grievances. During this attempt, they were pushed against a wall and kicked with boots and physically assaulted by the police. For many years, including this year, police has been obtaining court orders prohibiting families of disappeared from participating in protests. Officers have visited homes and even threatened children, warning them that if their mother didn’t stop her activism, action would be taken against them as well. These incidents have caused significant emotional distress to families of disappeared, including children. Some children and relatives have pleaded with family members active in searching for truth and justice to stop their activism and some face uncomfortable and hostile environment in their villages.

The Human Rights Commission in its submission has stated that a major concern brought to its attention is the prevalence of threats and intimidation targeting families and activists who speak out on enforced disappearances. The government has given a lame response to the CED that it remains committed to investigating complaints regarding alleged attacks against human rights defenders and civil society, particularly concerning the intimidation or harassment of relatives of disappeared persons and that multiple mechanisms are available to receive and investigate such complaints. But it has not given information about redress offered by any such institution and significantly doesn’t commit to stop such reprisals even in the future.

Disconnect between government and families of disappeared

There is much more to be questioned and critiqued in the two government reports and practice of successive governments in relation to enforced disappearances.

According to the tradition of the CED, it will listen to and dialogue with several families of disappeared and other concerned non state parties before the dialogue with the government. It will also be well informed by written submissions from some families of disappeared, human rights defenders and the Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka. Judging by the detailed questionnaire (List of Issues) sent to the government, the CED is likely to be well prepared and hard to fool.

There has been massive disconnect between government rhetoric and lived realities, grievances, struggles and aspirations of families of disappeared. This is likely to be exposed again during the CED’s review on Friday.

But the CED’s review provides an opportunity for the relatively new government, whose cadres have also been victimised by enforced disappearances, to commit to change course from previous government’s defensive rhetoric and adopt a humane approach to addressing enforced disappearances in line with national and international human rights standards. The approach will need to acknowledge that every enforced disappearance is a deeply personal tragedy, that it is illegal in all circumstances with no exceptions and the ethnic and political dimensions that have led to this happening on such a mass scale and being unaddressed for so long. This will require empathy, political humility, courage and commitment from the president, prime minister, minister of justice and all those responsible in the government.