15:46 CEST
Sri Lanka responded to the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights' (OHCHR) oral update on the international inquiry into mass atrocities in the country, by reiterating its rejection of the inquiry and dismissing calls by several states, as well as the High Commissioner, to cooperate with the process.
"Sri Lanka categorically rejected Resolution 25/1 and its call for the OHCHR investigation, and made its position clear of non cooperation with the investigation. To those who continue to urge that Sri Lanka to revisit this position, I wish to respectfully reply that government of Sri Lanka does not wish to help legitimise a flawed process and have a detrimental precedent established," Sri Lanka's Permanent Representative to Geneva, Ravinath Aryasinha told the UN Human Rights Council today.
"This position has been taken after much consideration, and represents not only the will of the Sri Lankan people as reflected in the motion recently adapted in our parliament with an overwhelming majority, but also the majority within this council who refuse to support OP 10," he said, adding that the investigation was "politically motivated, and challenges sovereignty and independent of member states that it violates the fundamental principal international law".
Flatly rejecting all reports of threats made against the human rights community, Sri Lanka also rejected reports of violence against any religious or ethnic groups.
In a detailed document, distributed to the Council as Aryasinha delivered the statement, Sri Lanka highlighted points made in the High Commissioner's oral update and detailed its rejection and criticism of them.
Extracts reproduced below:
"It is felt that the emphasis chosen to be made on Sri Lanka is misplaced and contrived by a few countries, with politically motivated agenda emanating interalia from their domestic electoral compulsions, which had reference in a leaked communication of one such state."
"The reference by the High Commissioner to the resolutions adopted by the Northern Provincial Council cannot in anyway be equated to the endorsement given in the national legislature. In any event a Provincial authority constitutionally has no mandate what so ever to adopt resolutions or take decisions on foreign policy issues which is entirely within the purview of the central government,"
See related article: Fundamental and far-reaching accountability needed in Sri Lanka says UN Human Rights Chief (25 Sep 2014)
See full statement delivered by Sri Lanka to the Council transcribed below:
Madam Vice President, Deputy High Commissioner, Sri Lanka categorically rejected Resolution 25/1 and its call for OHCHR investigation, and made its position clear of non-cooperation with the investigation. To those who continue to urge that Sri Lanka to revisit this position, I wish to respectfully reply that government of Sri Lanka does not wish to help legitimise a flawed process and have a detrimental precedent established.
This position has been taken after much consideration, and represents not only the will of the Sri Lankan people as reflected in the motion recently adapted in our parliament with an overwhelming majority, but also the majority within this Human Rights Council who refuse to support OP 10.
Let me reiterate that notwithstanding this rejection, GoSL continues to engage with the regular mechanisms of the council with the OHCHR and the High Commissioner. GoSL is also continuing its own domestic process of accountability justice, reconciliation and nation building with utmost dedication. The results of which including regarding the CoI on disappearances has been detailed in Sri Lanka’s comprehensive statement earlier this session. As repeatedly stated in this council, Sri Lanka rejects assertions regarding threats against the human rights community. Sri Lanka will treat all such person equally before the law guaranteeing to them and upholding the full guarantee of constitutional rights available.
Sri Lanka also expressly rejects all acts of violence against any religion or ethnic communities and it is committed to bring such perpetrators to justice.
Let me reiterate that as the oral report was replete with accusations and unsubstantiated statistics, however it may be noted that whenever details of statistics have been requested from the OHCHR on claims made in their comments reports to this Council such information that has not been forthcoming.
Our detailed statement circulated today clarifies GoSL’s position on a few issues raised in the oral update notes as previously with respect to the deportation of refugees and asylum seekers, GoSL’s listing of some Tamil organisations, and individuals perusal to UNSc 1373 and issues raised on Weliweirya, Vavuniya, Welikada prisons and mass graves.
GOSL's principle position to the OHCHR investigation stems from the fact that it is as politically motivated, that it challenges sovereignty and independent of member states that it violates the fundamental principal international law which requires that national remedies have to be exhausted before resorting to international mechanisms and to those pretending to help the actions of human rights council has in fact impeded reconciliation in my country.
GoSL’s opposition to the OHCHR investigation would seem even more justified today than it did at the time of the resolution 25/1 was carried in late march 2014. For over the past 6 months the operationalisation of this resolution has clearly violated both the letter and spirit of the set resolution, without prejudiced to our principle position on resolution 25/1 and OHCHR investigation, let me draw to this Council’s attention several rate grave anomalies in the conduct of this investigation. It has gone beyond the original time frame; it has expanded that scope and subject of discussion, in contravention of provision of PBI, OHCHR decided to appointment of 3 high level individuals, instead of two.
By appointment of high level international figures who are by no means technical experts relevant to the investigation, It seems the OHCHR sought to tacitly elevate the level of OHCHR investigation to mimic an international COI.
While the PBI made reference to the involvement of the three most relevant special procedural mandate holder, the ToR has however chosen to increase it to 6. The names of all but one of the investigation team continue to remain secret, which is in clear contravention to the principles of Natural justice. Thereby hampering the establishment of credibility of the information and creating suspicion.
In recent weeks, we have heard many countries in this Council express concern about the increasing strength to assign the Office of the High Commissioner with extensive investigative roles which it is neither mandated to undertake nor equipped for, demonstrating clear departure from UNGA [resolution] 48/121.
Such arbitrary and selective action especially with respect to what is clearly politically motivated, and highly polarised issue in the Council giving disproportionate and unwarranted attention to Sri Lanka, if left unchecked not only falls into question the credibility of the functioning of the OHCHR and OHCHR processes but also creates dangerous precedence
In conclusion Madam Vice President, Madam Deputy High Commissioner, with all the calamities and afflictions around us today, Sri Lanka is clearly not in a situation that requires urgent and immediate attention of this Council. Sri Lanka is continuing transformative journey in the interest of all the people of Sri Lanka. What Sri Lanka needs at this juncture is to be encouraged not impeded.