UNHRC Sessions Highlight Sri Lanka’s Dilemmas of Justice and Accountability

Photo courtesy of Maatram

The ongoing sessions of the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) have raised several issues regarding Sri Lanka and the government’s response to issues such as justice, accountability and foreign involvement that are crucial to the country’s healing and reconciliation process.

The government has rejected the possibility of foreign involvement with Foreign Minister Vijitha Herath saying, “The Government is opposed to any external mechanism imposed on us such as the Sri Lanka Accountability Project which serves to create divisions and complicate the national reconciliation process underway in Sri Lanka.”

However, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Volker Turk, called on all member states to support the project’s work adding, “I also call on them to cooperate in investigating and prosecuting alleged perpetrators of international crimes committed in Sri Lanka, under principles of universal jurisdiction, and to explore further sanctions against people credibly accused of gross violations of human rights.”

Families of the disappeared from both North and South have repeatedly expressed dissatisfaction at domestic attempts to address war crimes and call for external bodies to investigate and prosecute alleged perpetrators from the military and police.

With its refusal to condemn and punish Israel for its genocide in Gaza, Western governments are facing a severe lack of credibility when it comes to endorsing human rights while actively supporting Israel’s obliteration of Gaza and its extermination of the Palestinian people.

Veteran human rights activist and Executive Director of the National Peace Council, Dr Jehan Perera, answered questions from Groundviews on how to bridge the gap between the government’s position and victims’ demands for an external accountability mechanism, the Chemanni mass graves and the erosion of Western credibility over Gaza.

The government has been in power for one year but hasn’t come up with an internal mechanism for accountability. In this scenario, isn’t it inevitable that there will be a call for an international mechanism instead?

The international demand for an external accountability mechanism has existed since 2015 when Sri Lanka co-sponsored Resolution 30/1. Each year that passes without progress increases scepticism that a credible domestic process will materialise. The present call is therefore not new but a continuation of that long standing demand. Successive governments have argued that external initiatives will undermine sovereignty and polarise the population but the reality is that the absence of credible domestic action has already polarised the country. Many Tamils, sceptical of commissions of inquiry that lead nowhere, now place their faith only in international processes. The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights has repeatedly called for an independent international mechanism most recently this March, reflecting this erosion of trust.

How can the gap between what the government says and victims’ demands be bridged?

The present government has stated its commitment to reconciliation and accountability but victims remain unconvinced because their voices are rarely central to decision making. To bridge this gap, the government needs to formalise and institutionalise dialogue with victims and their families. Without this, efforts risk being seen as top down, designed to placate international pressure rather than to address grievances. Consultation will be symbolic of inclusion after decades of exclusion. Victims and their communities want to decide on the future of their lands, livelihoods and memory of the conflict, not merely be recipients of development schemes. Economic development by itself cannot substitute for justice and political inclusion. A transparent, inclusive process of dialogue is the only way to reduce polarisation and build trust across communities.

Why do you think the government, like its predecessors, is so much against international involvement?

Governments in Sri Lanka, regardless of political persuasion, have consistently resisted international involvement in accountability processes. The primary concern is sovereignty but beneath this lies a fear of exposure and loss of control. Once the door is opened to external actors, the process can extend beyond what the government intends, potentially implicating senior political and military figures. There is also a political calculation: portraying resistance to international mechanisms as defence of the war heroes resonates strongly with the Sinhalese majority, who continue to see the war victory as a national achievement despite its costs. This domestic constituency makes governments reluctant to cooperate with external initiatives, even if international credibility suffers.

Why is the government opposed to the accountability project, which seems to be a good way to preserve and protect evidence of war crimes?

From the government’s perspective, accepting this project would amount to conceding that the national legal system is incapable of handling such cases. Furthermore, evidence preserved by such a project could one day be used in international prosecutions or sanctions regimes, creating long term risks for leaders and security personnel. This is why successive governments have resisted hybrid or internationalised processes, from the International Independent Group of Eminent Persons (IIGEP) in 2006 to present day UN initiatives.

The government has yet to acknowledge that what is seen at Chemmani constitutes a war crime despite evidence that the bodies are of people who were killed by extra-judicial means. Does this not undermine credibility and also require international expertise?

The government has publicly acknowledged Chemmani as a mass burial site and permitted judicial proceedings to continue. This is significant in a political culture where denial has often been the default response. However, it has stopped short of calling it a war crime, arguing that culpability must be established by the courts. At the same time, it has recognised the need for international expertise, particularly in forensic analysis, to ensure credibility.  However, the central issue remains what will be done with the evidence.  The question is whether it will it lead to prosecutions or simply documentation perhaps with compensation but without accountability.

Do you think that some members of the core group such as the UK have lost credibility over their lack of action on Gaza and will this undermine any efforts to pressure Sri Lanka to deliver on accountability?

The credibility of the core group is weakened by their selective application of international standards. The failure to act decisively on Gaza is plain double standards where human rights principles are enforced or ignored depending on geopolitical interests. This double standard does not absolve Sri Lanka of responsibility but it makes it harder for international actors to claim moral authority.

The post UNHRC Sessions Highlight Sri Lanka’s Dilemmas of Justice and Accountability first appeared on Groundviews.