Human Rights Resolution Passed: the UN, Ideals and Practicality
Photo courtesy of International Crisis Group
The need to tackle current and past abuses against Sri Lankans was highlighted in a UN Human Rights Council (HRC) resolution adopted on October 6, 2025. In promoting reconciliation, accountability and human rights in Sri Lanka, although noting some promising government measures and commitments, the HRC agreed to continue to fund the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) to keep gathering evidence and promoting action to tackle rights violations. It was asked to present a written update at the 63rd session and a comprehensive report on progress at the 66th session (probably in September-October 2026 and 2027 respectively). Reactions varied, as some complained the resolution was unfairly critical and interfering while others thought it weak in view of the delays in meaningful change.
In early September, near the beginning of the HRC 60th session in Geneva, High Commissioner Volker Türk had introduced a report urging that the pledges of a fresh direction be put into practice, amidst an “historic opportunity to heal from the cycles of violence and impunity that have dominated for decades.” This had been followed by an interactive dialogue in which, as in previous years, the government argued that any concerns could and should be addressed internally. But this time, while still voicing disagreement, it did not insist that the resolution be put to a vote. And in explaining why, in the face of criticism on supposedly patriotic grounds, foreign minister Vijitha Herath acknowledged that HRC scrutiny was in response to prolonged failure to rectify serious human rights failings, although he blamed these on previous administrations.
The tempering of criticism in the final version of the draft with more positive mention of current efforts was probably part of a bargain to get the resolution adopted without a vote, with the divisions which would inevitably surface. UN officials and experts in human rights have also recently been largely preoccupied with the urgent challenge of stopping, or at least slowing, genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and other grave violations of international law by Israel and encouraging Hamas to free people unjustly held hostage. The behind the scenes lobbying over a Sri Lanka resolution might have seemed a wasted effort for all concerned, especially if ministers had indicated a willingness to work to some extent with the UN while saving face with nationalists at home. Some core group members might also have not wanted attention drawn to their own less than impressive track record, although inconsistency is built into such systems: almost invariably governments try to fend off criticism of themselves and their allies but this is no reason not to protect the victims of abuses.
Yet the slow and uneven pace of change in the country and mixed messages from leaders of the ruling NPP alliance give cause for concern. Just days before the resolution was passed, numerous Sri Lankan individuals and organisations had signed a statementcondemning state harassment of journalist Kumanan Kanapathipillai. On October 7, the UN Committee on Enforced Disappearances, which has been reviewing the situation in Sri Lanka among other countries, issued its findings. It noted that over the years the Office on Missing Persons (OMP) had only traced 23 disappeared persons out of the 16,966 received cases. Meanwhile on other rights-related issues, local and international campaigners have pointed to inadequacies in how the authorities are responding to those injustices of various kinds.
While this is probably to some extent because political leaders, when in office, tend to be reluctant to part with power, for instance through devolution, it is genuinely challenging to take on the powerful, some of whom are both wealthy and willing to go to great lengths to get what they want at others’ expense. Yet shying away from confronting these can mean that they gain ground, imperilling what progress has been made on equity, healing and peace.
Mixed messages and ongoing challenges
Presenting the resolution, UK permanent representative to the UN Kumar Iyer delivered a statement on behalf of the Core Group – Canada, Malawi, Montenegro, North Macedonia and the UK. He started with a tribute to Dr Kasipillai Manoharan, the father of one of five students murdered in Trincomalee in 2006. Iyer underlined the fact that “too many family members have passed away without seeing justice for their loved ones, or without knowing the fate of those who were disappeared;” and that for “those who remain – survivors, families, communities – their call for truth and justice grows ever more urgent.”
While acknowledging “the steps taken and the commendable commitments made by the current Sri Lankan Government to address long-standing human rights concerns, and the deep wounds left by decades of ethnic conflict,” it was urged “to translate these commitments into tangible action.”
Exhumation of mass graves and adequate investigation, establishment of an independent prosecutor’s office, repeal and reform of key legislation in line with international standards and ending surveillance and intimidation of human rights defenders and families of the disappeared were all important, according to the statement. It thanked “the Sri Lankan delegation and to all delegations who have engaged constructively on this resolution. We have worked hard to strike the right balance between recognising progress and urging action on the challenges that remain.”
Afterwards several NGOs, including the Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development, shared their regret that lack of progress had not been adequately addressed. Likewise the International Commission of Jurists welcomed the fact that the OHCHR mandate had been extended for two years but expressed concern “that the resolution reflects unwarranted reliance on the Government’s commitments, broken in the past, and fails to acknowledge the Government’s demonstrated unwillingness and inability to deliver credible accountability for thousands of enforced disappearances and other atrocities” as well as ongoing violations. Human Rights Watch emphasised the need to act on promises and ensure justice for victims.
It has been suggested that the government has been encountering pushback from those still wielding considerable influence and opposed to some or all reform aimed at greater democracy and equity, including associates of the Rajapaksa former ruling dynasty. Political and civic leaders who have promoted ethnic nationalism and religious supremacism, senior officers and public officials misusing their authority, business and media magnates resistant to rights for all can put major obstacles in the way of progress.
Sometimes what is ideal may need to be balanced against what is achievable, which can be tricky. Thinking and acting tactically can be useful. There is a risk though that, if caution is taken too far and principles watered down, demoralisation will set in among those seeking a society where ordinary people of all communities and backgrounds are kept safe and treated with respect, while destructive forces gain ground again.
The NPP government faced daunting challenges from the start but with a huge popular mandate from diverse people who might not fully have understood the concerns of people with other needs and backgrounds yet sharing a wish for a more just and compassionate society. Leaders cannot rely on having that level of backing for a shared vision in two or three years’ time and should not waste the opportunity they have. There are approaches which may be helpful, for instance messaging which is both persuasive and truthful targeted towards particular groups’ experiences while promoting empathy across difference, and extension of participatory democracy so more people help to shape a fairer and more inclusive future.
Sri Lankan ministers may feel they have bought time at the UN HRC but it is time for the reality to catch up with the rhetoric. The grim past cannot be undone for victims of violence, extreme deprivation and marginalisation yet the future can be made brighter and a better society created which safeguards rights for all.
