Print

Mail

wiki links

Panel criticizes Sri Lanka rights commission's work

A presidential commission created to investigate human rights violations amid Sri Lanka's worsening civil conflict has been ineffective and plagued with conflicts of interest, a government-appointed international panel said.

The panel, created last year to monitor an official commission probing human rights violations, issued its first statement late on Sunday night. It accused the commission of moving slowly, failing to protect witnesses and operating without transparency.

"The commission has so far made hardly any noticeable progress in investigations and inquiries since its inception," the statement said.

The commission's methods "are not adequate and do not satisfy international norms and standards," it said, referring to inadequate witness protection programs and lagging investigation times.

As violence between Tamil Tiger separatists and government forces has increased over the past 19 months on this war-torn island, abductions and killings have escalated.

Sri Lankan President Mahinda Rajapakse created the commission last November to investigate 16 specific cases of human rights violations, including last year's killings of 17 employees of the international aid group Action Against Hunger.

His government then appointed an 11-member international panel called the International Independent Group of Eminent Persons to monitor their investigation, though under tight reins. The panel is only permitted to "observe" the workings of the commission.

The international group faulted the commission of inquiry, saying it had dawdled since its inception last November and that its independence had been compromised by interference from the attorney general's office, which acts as the legal counsel to the commission.

As the government's top law enforcement authority, the group said, the attorney general's office faces a conflict of interest in investigating crimes in which government officials, including security forces, are suspected.

"We consider these to be serious conflicts of interest, which lack transparency and compromise national and international standards of independence and impartiality," the statement said.

The international panel went further to say that the commission of inquiry ought not to be seen as "a substitute for robust, effective measures including national and international human rights monitoring."

The attorney general's office issued a sharp retort to that last observation, calling it "inappropriate" and urging the group to stick to making "observations and recommendations in terms of its mandate."

The commission of inquiry, for its part, disputed that its reliance on the attorney general undermined its independence.

It said it expected the government would soon enact a witness protection law, enabling witnesses to come forward without fear.

The commission added that it was committed to its task and was at the stage of interviewing witnesses. Its members are confident "the mandate of the commission can be implemented in the best interests of justice," a statement said.

In an interview last month, commission chairman Nissanka Kumara Udalagam, said the commission had not heard from a single witness in the killings of the aid workers, its first case.

"There are witnesses, but they are frightened to come forward," he said.
This story has been viewed 1433 times.