|
||||||||||||
|
|
|
| ||||||||||
Sri Lankan Ambassador accuses Member of European Parliament Robert Evans of using European Tax payers' money for propagating Tamil TerrorismSri Lanka NewsSri Lankan Ambassador to the European Union, Mr. Ravinatha Aryasinha
in a statement delivered at the session of the South Asia Delegation
of the European Parliament on Tuesday (Oct 7) stated Robert Evens MEP
has attempt to sully the good name of Sri Lanka in the European eye.
Referring to a speech made by Robert Evans at a pro-LTTE rally in Harrow,
Robert Evans reported to have declared amidst cheers, that the EU delegation
did not visit the East because he refused to give only a photo opportunity
of shaking hands with Pillayan, the Chief Minister of the Eastern Province. However, the Sri Lankan Ambassador claimed that the members of the
delegation were deprived of experiencing first-hand one of the proudest
achievements of Sri Lanka in recent times. We have not only cleared
the Eastern Province of any significant terrorist presence, our forces
did this without any civilian casualties during their operations, and
our citizens who were displaced were almost all resettled to the satisfaction
of UNHCR, followed by democratic elections and restoration of the provincial
council- all within a year. Such a record is unparalleled, , in other
theatres of the fight against terror and the Sri Lankan example has
been commended not only as an instructive model in transforming former
terrorists to the democratic way of life, but also as a case study in
post-conflict development. The Government of Sri Lanka sees these contradictory messages communicated
to different audiences as an attempt to sully the good name of Sri Lanka
in the European eye, and an exercise at scoring brownie points with
a constituency due to vote in the upcoming European Parliamentary election.
Sri Lankan Ambassador further said, instead of flying with a local company
which had earlier been booked by the EC office in Colombo (to be cancelled
with a 'cancellation fee' of US$ 2,500/-, paid by the European taxpayer
doubtless), Mr. Evens decided to embark on a "UN plane" flown
all the way from South Africa, arriving in Sri Lanka 48 hours prior
to his scheduled departure to Trincomalee, which incidentally is only
five hours by road. Also, commenting on a draft report furnished by the MEP , Ambassador
Ariyasinha called the report is replete with unsubstantiated allegations,
deliberate distortions and blatant falsehoods and seeks merely to highlight
negatives, ignore positives, and disregard the context and environment
prevailing in Sri Lanka today The statement in full: Statement of H.E. Mr. Ravinatha Aryasinha, Ambassador of Sri Lanka
to the EU at a discussion on Sri Lanka at the Session of the South Asia
Delegation of the European Parliament - 7th October 2008 Mr. Chairman, I thank you for affording the Government of Sri Lanka
an opportunity to be heard, as you exchange views on the 5th European
Parliament/Sri Lanka Inter Parliamentary Meeting (IPM) which took place
on 20 - 26 July, 2008. I do so in the context that Sri Lanka values
the cordial relations it has with all European Institutions and, as
you are aware, has in recent times intensified its engagement with the
European Parliament. Mr. Chairman, so much has been said about this visit, mainly by yourself,
that I am not sure whether I should respond here to the press statement
and comments you made in Colombo on 25th July, to your widely reported
speech on 25th August 2008 at an event organized by the British Tamil
Forum (BTF), a front organization it would seem of the proscribed LTTE,
held in Harrow, South London, a part of your EU Parliamentary constituency,
or to this draft report which has been placed before this body. At the outset, I am instructed by my Government to place on record
our strong protest about the damage which may have been done to the
good relations between my country and the European Union through the
aspersions cast on the Government of Sri Lanka through your statement
issued and comments at the Colombo press conference, which I note is
also part of this report. Among other matters, it stated in relation
to the planned visit to the Eastern Province "the last minute cancellation
and a catalogue of chaos and confusion meant that the delegation did
not fly to Trincomalee. Despite repeated assurances; endless complications
resulted in the party being turned back from Ratmalana Airport, destroying
months of preparation, time and expense". I note that your draft
report itself, is less critical in explaining the reasons for the delegation
aborting the scheduled two-day visit to the East in saying "when
the authorization (for the UN plane) was eventually received, in a best
case scenario, the field trip would have had to be shortened drastically".
These however do not correspond with your statement at the pro-LTTE
rally in Harrow, where you gallantly explained amidst cheers it seems,
that the EU delegation did not visit the East because "I refused
to give only a photo opportunity of shaking hands with Pillayan, the
Chief Minister of the Eastern Province". The Government of Sri Lanka sees these contradictory messages communicated
to different audiences as an attempt to sully the good name of Sri Lanka
in the European eye, and an exercise at scoring brownie points with
a constituency due to vote in the upcoming European Parliamentary election.
Let me state categorically that the Government was very keen to ensure
that the delegation had the opportunity to experience first-hand the
transformation that had taken place in the Eastern Province of Sri Lanka
over the past year. As I stated even prior to your embarking on this
visit, it was particularly keen that you did so, as it seemed that the
EU had been reluctant to appreciate the 'winds of change' blowing through
Eastern Sri Lanka in recent times and in June 2008 the European Commission
(EC) office in Colombo, , had prevented a member of the EC delegation
attending the Joint Commission from even interacting with the newly
elected Chief Minister of the Eastern Province. For your visit the Government had initially offered air-transportation
but this was refused by you Mr. Chairman on the basis of wanting to
"demonstrate impartiality" (although between whom it is unclear).
Nevertheless the Government did everything within its power to make
the journey possible to your satisfaction. What it did not know was
that, instead of flying with a local company which had earlier been
booked by the EC office in Colombo (to be cancelled with a 'cancellation
fee' of US$ 2,500/-, paid by the European taxpayer doubtless), you decided
to embark on a "UN plane" flown all the way from South Africa,
arriving in Sri Lanka 48 hours prior to your scheduled departure to
Trincomalee, which incidentally is only five hours by road. You would understand that the Sri Lankan aviation authorities were
obliged as per international civil aviation safety regulations to assess
the air-worthiness of this rather old aircraft and familiarize a foreign
crew that had never flown in Sri Lanka with the route to be taken. This
they did in record time and, as your draft report now confirms, authorization
for the flight was granted only 45 minutes later than your estimated
departure time. You were assured of this, but you chose to leave the
airport and return to the hotel. Why you chose to abort this journey,
when you could still have had a clear day and a half in the East, and
done all you wanted, will remain known only to you. Turning to your draft report, it is disappointing that, despite what
you acknowledge to have been "a substantial and extensive program",
the report is replete with unsubstantiated allegations, deliberate distortions
and blatant falsehoods and seeks merely to highlight negatives, ignore
positives, and disregard the context and environment prevailing in Sri
Lanka today - a country fighting one of the most dangerous terrorist
groups in the world - the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE). This
is terrorist group the US Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has
described as "among the most dangerous and deadly extremists in
the world". A truism once again demonstrated only yesterday in
Anuradhapura, through the dastardly LTTE terrorist attack on the Opposition
Leader of the North Central Provincial Council who belonged to the United
National Party (UNP) Major General Janaka Perera and several others.
Despite these challenges we have maintained a resilient economy in an
inhospitable international climate and above all ensured levels of socio-economic
development akin to developed nations, keeping apace in meeting the
Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) towards which development partners,
including the EU have made significant contribution. With reference to Section A - "the peace process collapses...",
Let me make very clear that, contrary to your report, the Government
of Sri Lanka has not chosen an "all - war strategy" nor "abandoned
any idea of peace talks before a complete military victory". As
President, Mahinda Rajapaksa stated at the 63rd session of the UNGA
on 24th September 2008 "our Government has always been ready to
address the causes of these issues and effectively implement political
and constitutional solutions to meet the aspirations and rights of all
communities. What the Government would not, and could not do is to let
an illegal and armed terrorist group, the LTTE, to hold a fraction of
our population, a part of the Tamil community, hostage to such terror
in the Northern part of Sri Lanka and deny those people their democratic
rights and free elections...'' The problem is that some people still
believe that peace talks can only be with terrorists, forgetting that
in Sri Lanka there are several pluralist democratic Tamil forces which
are happy, and in fact now emboldened, to discuss with us the political
reforms that are essential. We will not let them be intimidated again
by the forces you addressed in London, we will not let them be killed
by the LTTE as so many Tamil political leaders have been over the last
several decades. With reference to Section B - "..... followed by a clear deterioration
of the humanitarian situation", the unsourced assertion in the
report that "in July 2008 there were approximately 610,000 Internally
Displaced Persons (IDP) in Sri Lanka" is an exaggeration. The correct
current figure of IDPs- which accounts for those displaced and living
in Welfare Centers or with family and friends, is far less, and includes
approximately 300,000 displaced before 2006. When the Eastern Province
was cleared of the LTTE in 2006/2007, it is true that the IDPs in the
East came to over 200,000 but, following prompt action by the Government,
certified by the UNHCR as having satisfied international standards,
today only 28,000 remain as IDPs this too is because their places of
residence are yet to be cleared of the landmines laid by the LTTE. All
others have been re-settled in their original homes or in alternate
dwellings. With regard to IDPs in LTTE dominated areas in the Killinochchi
and Mullativu districts, the current estimate is around 250,000, of
which there are 110,000 pre- 2006 IDPs brought to the Wanni by the LTTE
at the time they fled the Jaffna peninsula, another 90,000 who were
displaced between 2006 and June 2008 and the rest displaced due to the
on-going operations. There are about 200,000 IDP's in Jaffna, Vavuniya and Mannar districts,
two thirds of them of the pre-2006 category. There is also a significant
number of pre-2006 IDPs in the Puttalam District, resulting from the
deliberate policy of ethnic cleansing by the LTTE in 1990 when some
75,000 Muslims were overnight driven out of Jaffna by the LTTE. The
process of finding durable solutions for them was begun by this government,
assisted by the World Bank with a housing project, and most recently
by the Prof. Walter Kalin, the Representative of the UN Secretary General
on the Human Rights of IDPs, who contributed to a national consultation
on the subject. Merely citing figures does not do justice to the fact
that, in the midst of dealing with our terrorist problem, the current
government has shown itself determined to deal with these tragic victims
of LTTE atrocities. Whatever your constituents in Harrow might say,
Mr Chairman, we will care for these are our citizens. The draft report goes on to describe as "an extremely disturbing
move", the Government's instruction to NGOs and the UN to relocate
their staff and equipment from the Wanni (where military operations
are on-going, development work is not possible and the LTTE was known
to be conscripting staff of these organizations and forcefully taking
over their assets) to Vavuniya, where a new Humanitarian hub has been
established and they can continue their work. It fails to acknowledge
that the ICRC continues to remain in the operational area playing an
important role, and that the UNHCR and WFP, though they too were initially
meant to remain, chose to leave the area on the grounds that other UN
agencies were not permitted to remain. However, at their request, their
staff will be permitted to go into the Wanni with convoys transporting
supplies to the displaced. The Wanni continues to be looked after by
our government, also provides free education health and other social
services to all our people. Naturally, we are deeply troubled by the fact that, , a section of
our people have had their lives for many decades disrupted by the continuing
conflict situation, and that this will persist only for a little while
longer. But I want to allay the fear raised in the draft report, about
the "conditions" of the IDPs presently in the Vanni, held
by force by the LTTE. It was former UNICEF Executive Director James Grant who described the
Sri Lankan example as "uniquely humanitarian in a conflict situation",
while Dr. Francis Deng, former UN Secretary General's Special Representative
on IDPs who noted that "Sri Lanka represents the unusual situation
of a central government providing relief aid to persons under the control
of the main opposition group. In a world replete with examples of Governments
and rebel groups using food as a weapon against civilian populations,
the situation in Sri Lanka is one that deserves closer attention if
not more publicity as an important precedent". Sri Lanka is proud
that, not withstanding the on-going intensive military operations in
the North against the LTTE, it continues to live up to these cherished
values. This was re-confirmed in comments made during a visit to Colombo
on 26 September 2008 by Prof. Walter Kalin, who commended the "political
will" at various levels of Government in Sri Lanka to find durable
solutions to the concerns of IDPs, and that "despite facing many
challenges", Sri Lanka "is heading in the right direction
overall". Obviously, the authors of this report didn't want to
see it that way. I am glad to report to you that on 2 October 2008, 07 UN staffers and
3 persons from the Consortium of Humanitarian Agencies (CHA) accompanied
a convoy of 51 trucks with 650 MT of food, clothing, shelter and medical
needs to the Wanni. I can assure you that the Government of Sri Lanka
is committed to ensuring that at least one convoy per week will be undertaken
with an approximate delivery of around 3,500 MT of food per month. The
government will do so, while not compromising on security and with limited
restrictions to avoid material used in the conflict from reaching the
LTTE. In fact, I wish to note that 3 of the trucks that were scheduled
to make the journey to Wanni last week did not do so, as the security
forces found concealed in them 2.5 kilo grams of plastic explosives,
batteries and GPS systems respectively - acts the UN has also condemned.
Although not pointed out by your selective sources, these are the realities
average Sri Lankans have to grapple with on a daily basis, as Sri Lanka
continues to care for its people, amidst facing terrorism. With respect to Section C, "Human Rights situation", the
report states that the Sri Lanka constitution "nominally"
ensures the protection of fundamental human rights. It fails to acknowledge
that in Sri Lanka, fundamental rights are fully justifiable and the
exclusive jurisdiction to hear and determine related questions is vested
with the Supreme Court, which has in recent years vastly enhanced its
jurisdiction by giving wide and purposeful interpretations - including
reversing policy decisions taken by the security forces. The draft report
also ignores the Sri Lanka Government's consistent policy of openness,
transparency and constructive engagement with the international community,
including receiving rapporteurs and voluntarily submitting itself to
the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) of the UN Human Rights Council.
Let me reiterate the Sri Lanka Government's firm conviction that those
who violate human rights or break laws will not be excused. Such persons
will be prosecuted according to the law and the Government is committed
to ensuring investigation into and prosecution of alleged offenders
within the legal framework operative in Sri Lanka. It is in this spirit
that the Government established a Commission of Inquiry (COI) in 2006
to inquire into 16 incidents of alleged serious violations of human
rights, including the ACF case referred to in the report. However, the
report fails to acknowledge the action being taken by the COI, which
in respect of the cases of the Trincomalee students and the ACF have
since early this year held public hearings. The investigation into the
Trincomalee case has been concluded and the COI is expected to submit
a report to the President shortly. The investigation into the ACF case
is continuing and a representative of the French Government is observing
the proceedings. The draft report makes much of Sri Lanka's not being re-elected to
the UN Human Rights Council in May 2008 when, as members should know
well enough, failure to be re-elected means nothing in a context in
which a more popular competitor got more votes. It is pertinent to note
that in terms of actual numbers of votes Sri Lanka got only a few votes
less than some European countries who were also engaged in tight competitions,.
With regard to the COI, contrary to what is stated in the report, four
members did not resign from the COI "saying that the GOSL had shown
little willingness to help them in their work". Mr. U. Yapa, a
former Solicitor General, resigned due to ill health and later passed
away; Mr. K.C. Logeswaran resigned for personal reasons as he wanted
to be out of the country and upon his return continues to function as
a member; Dr. D. Nesiah resigned after his role as a Commissioner was
challenged by private Counsel on the grounds of conflict of interest;
Mr. Javid Yusuf also resigned as he had other personal commitments.
As for the Independent International Group of Eminent Persons (IIGEP)
which was mandated to observe the workings of the COI, it certainly
did not claim that "it was interfered with by the Attorney General's
office". The claim was that the COI was interfered with, whereas
the COI has made it clear that this is not its view, and that it continued
to require the assistance of the AG's Department in certain respects.
It must be noted that unlike in the US, the Attorney General is not
a political appointee in Sri Lanka and cannot according to the law of
the land be replaced in such proceedings by a private lawyer as is done
in some countries. It should be further noted that the COI has exercised
the liberty to additionally choose lawyers from the official or unofficial
bar in the conduct of its inquiry. With respect to the IIGEP, it is
the Government's position that the mandate given to the Eminent Persons
was abused by their Assistants, who took upon themselves authority they
did not have, to the extent of issuing statements contrary to agreed
guidelines and timed to embarrass Sri Lanka before meetings of the UN
Human Rights Council and other International fora. The report's reference
to the final IIGEP withdrawal, and claims by some of its members about
"a lack of political will", should be seen in the context
of the final statement by Justice P.N. Bhagwati, Chair of the IIGP who
in a letter addressed to the President of Sri Lanka on 26th April 2008,
categorically stated "you will find that the IIGEP has not accused
the Government of Sri Lanka of any lack of political will in so far
as the functioning of the COI is concerned. What has been recited in
the Public Statement is about IIGEP's apprehensions regarding absence
of political will". Relating to media freedom, it is important to note that of over 25
media outlets in Sri Lanka, only 4 are state owned. Despite the intensity
of the conflict, there is no media censorship and a reading of most
newspapers in Sri Lanka, or viewing of most television programmes should
provide a useful 'litmus test' for one to ascertain the veracity or
otherwise of "what the delegation heard" on what "is
expressly forbidden for journalists to do". This is not to claim
that journalists have not fallen victim to assassins nor been arrested
when suspected of wrong doing that needed to be clarified. Pursuing
such investigations transparently is in the interest of all concerned,
as well as the country. With reference to the case of journalist J.S.
Tissanayagam which the draft report refers to, following a period of
detention he was produced before judicial authorities who authorized
his further detention. He was subsequently indicted, and the case is
pending before the High Court. While in detention Mr. Tissanayagam in
a petition to the Supreme Court challenged his detention. This case
is currently being heard. Let me also assure you that Mr. Tissanayagam
has been examined and treated by eye specialists at the Colombo National
Hospital and has been produced before the Judicial Medical Officer at
the Colombo Judicial Medical Office for check-ups. In relation to alleged abductions and disappearances, the position
of the Government is that the situation has considerably improved from
what was highlighted in the latter part of 2006 and early 2007, when
following the earlier decimation of non-LTTE Tamil groups at the hands
of the LTTE, these groups re-established themselves following the weakening
of LTTE authority, and responded as they thought appropriate. The government
was soon able however to bring that situation under control, and though
internecine attacks continue, these are far fewer than before. As for
exact numbers, the Government faces difficulty in arriving at a figure
due to the multiplicity of lists provided by many agencies - often without
any rationalization, supporting evidence or even details of those alleged
to have disappeared, that could give investigators a starting point.
Further, investigations in areas in the North have been hampered due
to the security situation and lack of access to the LTTE dominated areas.
It must also be noted that since mid 2007 following vigorous operations
mounted by the Government against a number of groups operating in Colombo
who had been allegedly responsible for disappearances, and abductions
for the extortion of money, a downward trend was noted. However, it
is regrettable that agencies such as Human Rights Watch which is quoted
in the draft report, having produced figures for a year in 2007, in
2008 produced figures for an 18 month period, which deliberately ignores
this downward trend. As was pointed out with regard to its last report,
it is no coincidence that, in claiming that there were over 1500 disappearances
in the two years that ended in December 2007, HRW records 1300 of them
as having occurred in 2006 or the first four months of 2007. Again,
of the 97 cases documented in detail in its full report, just three
occurred in the calendar year before the report was issued, early in
2008. As to the allegation of the "prevalence of impunity", the
statistics quoted in the draft report as stated by Sri Lankan spokespersons
is accurate over a period, which includes the past few years. Since
2004, it is noted that indictments have been served by the Attorney
General of Sri Lanka against nearly 100 persons for human rights violations
(including allegations of torture). Among the prominent recent cases
where indictments had been served are that of an Army Corporal and Police
Constable alleged to be responsible for the murder of 5 students in
Thandikulam on 18th November 2006, and 6 members of the police and the
armed forces including a Wing Commander (both retired and currently
serving), who were arrested in June 2007 for a series of abductions
for ransom and murder. With respect to Section D, "Talks on Power Devolution", the
draft report makes much of the absence of the Tamil National Alliance
(TNA) from the APRC process at present, which I am informed by APRC
Chairman Prof. Tissa Vitharana, was perfectly well explained to you
during your discussions with him. Since the draft report avoids mentioning
it, let me repeat the very simple explanation for this. The setting
up of the All Party Representative Committee (APRC) was primarily intended
to build a consensus within the southern polity of Sri Lanka on the
nature and extent of devolution of power that could be put forward in
negotiations with the LTTE. The original non-inclusion of the TNA in
this process, was since the TNA had acknowledged their dependence on
the LTTE, it made no sense to negotiate twice with the same perspectives.
However, as Prof. Vitharana told you in Colombo, mid-way in the APRC
process, he had explicitly asked the TNA leader whether they would be
willing to join the process and that the President was ready to extend
an invitation to them. The answer was that they felt it inadvisable
at that time, and would consider it when talks were held with the LTTE.
While the United National Party (UNP) and the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna
(JVP) have withdrawn from attending sessions but remain engaged with
the Chairman of the APRC, the Tamil Makkal Viduthalai Pulikal (TMVP)
which recently entered the political mainstream has recently joined
the process. It is important to note that it is the termination of the Ceasefire
Agreement (CFA) which ended the LTTE monopoly of Tamil politics, that
enabled the Government to introduce a political process to the North
and East as recommended by the APRC and embark on ensuring the full
implementation of the 13th amendment to the constitution, in the areas
for which it was most intended but where it remained unimplemented for
20 years following the categorical rejection of it by the LTTE. The
re-establishment of the Eastern Provincial Council through the holding
of elections in May 2008, measures to ensure proper implementation of
the constitutional provisions relating to official languages, the recruitment
of Tamil speaking police officers, interpreters and translators are
all tangible results of the "full implementation" policy the
draft report questions. With respect to Section E, "The Situation in the East", having
avoided experiencing first-hand the developments on the ground, the
draft report obtusely refuses to acknowledge the massive strides that
have been made by the Government, along with all communities that share
the East- the Sinhalese, Tamils and Muslims, to restore normalcy in
an area where just over a year ago, the LTTE held the people's lives
to ransom. Even as many international development partners have become
engaged with this process, the European Union continues to stay aloof,
refusing to accept that, when a fact does not fit a theory, it is the
theory that must change. The draft report makes no effort to contribute
to the winds of change; instead it prefers to stand against the tide
of history. Incidentally, it should be noted that a year ago, the European
Commission had the temerity to call in my predecessor and advise against
holding elections in the Eastern Province, claiming that the EU report
on the 2004 parliamentary election indicated that fair elections could
not be held. The ground reality has disproved this misperception. The draft report also goes on to allege that "the TMVP has not
completely stopped its former practice to recruit child soldiers".
In this context, it is noteworthy that, according to UNICEF, as of 31st
January 2008, the number of children recruited by the 'Karuna' faction
was reported as 234 which included 164 children who were yet under 18
years. According to a report of a Committee set-up to monitor the recruitment
of children chaired by the Justice Scretary which includes UNICEF, only
66 child recruits of the 'Karuna' faction remained as at September 2008.
While 20 child recruits have been located and released with the assistance
of UNICEF, the others could not be located, the TMVP had earlier facilitated
the release 39. The US Ambassador in Sri Lanka, as well as UNICEF, has
commended the progress made by the Government in securing the release
of child soldiers held by the TMVP. The TMVP claims that there are no
more in its custody and has invited UNICEF and the Government to visit
and investigate all alleged cases. The logistics of this are still being
worked out, but as UNICEF itself has declared, this is not a major problem.
The tears shed in the draft report then seem ironic, since it makes
no reference to the main culprit of child recruitment in Sri Lanka -
the LTTE, who since 2002, had recruited over 5,700 children and that
according to UNICEF, there were 1,430 outstanding cases of child recruitment
by the LTTE as of 31st January, 2008. With respect to Section F, "GSP+ Issues", in comparison to
the strident statements made by the Chairman in Colombo that if he had
the choice Sri Lanka would not be given GSP+ and, at the pro-LTTE rally
in Harrow where he stated that Sri Lanka would lose its GSP+ concessions,
the observations made in the draft report are more measured. However,
the authors of the draft report are deliberately distorting the truth
or being badly misled when they state that "it would be extremely
difficult to accept that "Sri Lanka has been making progress"
if the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)
remains non-ratified through domestic legislations, or indeed, if need
be, by way of a constitutional amendment. Such a development would pave
the way for rights recognized in the ICCPR to find real protection in
Sri Lanka courts - which the Delegation knows is not the case today"
How could the drafters of this report pretend they did not know the
most crucial fact about the operationalization of the ICCPR in Sri Lanka,
namely that earlier this year, upon President Mahinda Rajapaksa seeking
its opinion on the recognition and justiciability of the ICCPR in Sri
Lanka, the Supreme Court of Sri Lanka expressed its opinion following
public hearings held on 17th March 2008 affirming the following: (i) The provisions of the constitution, the ICCPR Act and other laws,
including decisions of the Superior Court of Sri Lanka give adequate
recognition to the civil and political rights contained in the ICCPR,
and adhere to the general premise of the Covenant that individuals within
the territory of Sri Lanka derive the benefit and guarantee of rights
contained in the ICCPR; (ii) Rights recognized in the ICCPR are justiciable through the medium
of legal and constitutional processes prevailing in Sri Lanka. On the basis of the above, it would be fair to conclude that the Delegation
clearly does not know. With respect to "Final Recommendations" while the status
of journalist Mr. J S Tissanayagam has already been referred to, I want
to assure you that active investigations into the cases involving Parliamentarians,
including the assassinations of former Foreign Minister, Lakshman Kadirgamar,
of MP, Joseph Pararajsingham and MP, Nadarajah Raviraj which are additionally
before the Commission of Inquiry, are being fully investigated. On the 'Constitutional Council', it should be noted that the 17th Amendment
introduced hastily in 2001 was flawed from the start, with some appointments
recommended by a fully constituted Council not being made in the early
years of this decade, while the Council itself could not be constituted
for a long time because of uncertainty over membership, and the inability
of the Speaker to resolve the issue. A Parliamentary Select Committee
has recently been appointed to review this matter and once this process
is completed, action would be taken to constitute the body. This situation appears to have been compounded by this draft report,
which as I have documented is replete with unsubstantiated allegations,
deliberate distortions and blatant falsehoods, and underlines the patent
bias of its authors against Sri Lanka. Even at this late stage, Sri Lanka hopes that the concerns that have
been flagged in my presentation, of which a comprehensive submission
will be shared with those present here, will be carefully considered
by the members of this committee before finalizing this report. Without being guided by parochial self-serving interests of the authors
of the present document, I trust you will take it upon yourselves, the
task of making a more objective evaluation of developments in Sri Lanka,
in order that the damage caused by the present action is repaired, and
the Government of Sri Lanka can continue to engage with the President
and Members of the European Parliament, as a credible body. |
||||||||||||
|
|
Disclaimer: The comments contained
within this website are personal reflection only and do not necessarily
reflect the views of the LankaWeb. LankaWeb.com offers the contents
of this website without charge, but does not necessarily endorse the
views and opinions expressed within. Neither the LankaWeb nor the individual
authors of any material on this Web site accept responsibility for any
loss or damage, however caused (including through negligence), which
you may directly or indirectly suffer arising out of your use of or
reliance on information contained on or accessed through this Web site.
Copyright
© 1997-2004 www.lankaweb.Com
Newspapers Ltd. All rights reserved. |
|||||||||||
