The release of the long awaited OHCHR investigation into Sri Lanka (OISL) report last week is a monumental moment for the victims of mass atrocities on the island and all those who continue to work towards seeing justice served. The crucial document, which was mandated by a UN resolution, meticulously outlines the gravity of the crimes perpetrated, and lays down the path towards accountability for them. Clear decisive action must now be taken to follow it.

The visit by senior US officials, Nisha Biswal and Tom Malinowski this week, and the US’ endorsement of a domestic process of accountability into mass atrocities committed against the Tamil people during the end of the armed conflict in 2009 has been met with a sense of relief by the Sri Lankan government and was reported triumphantly across the southern English-language Sri Lankan press. However, whilst the government’s pledge to establish a domestic inquiry has been cautiously welcomed by the West, Tamils, who have been waiting for over 6 years to see justice, responded with disappointment and dismay.

With the conclusion of Sri Lanka's parliamentary elections last week, the island has reached an important juncture. In the North-East, the Tamil National Alliance swept the polls on a clear platform of self-determination through federalism and an international mechanism of accountability for the massacres of Tamils. In the Sinhala south, the UNP promise of a future without the corruption of the Mahinda Rajapaksa era, secured enough seats to confine the former president to the opposition benches.

Reports that the United Nations has begun drawing up plans for the Sri Lankan government to lead a purely domestic mechanism into the mass slaughter of Tamils have widely, and rightly, been met with dismay by the victims. Sri Lanka has shown it cannot effectively deliver justice to those who have suffered – a fact that becomes ever more apparent 6 years since the end of the armed conflict. With elections looming and the release of a much awaited OISL report just weeks away, the international community and UN cannot waver on their obligations to the victims.

The UN Human Rights Council’s decision to give the new government 6 months to cooperate with the OHCHR Investigation on Sri Lanka (OISL), in view of gathering more information, and defer the publishing of the UN inquiry into mass atrocities till September, has been met with mixed reactions. Whilst Colombo celebrates what it sees as a diplomatic coup, human rights groups have cautiously welcomed the prospect that more evidence can be found. However, Tamil victims, witnesses and campaigners for justice have expressed deep disappointment that justice, denied to them for so long, is delayed once again.

Describing it as a “difficult decision”, the High Commissioner for Human Rights, Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein’s acknowledged the inevitable disappointment of witnesses, but said the decision was based on the promise of “broad cooperation” by the new government and the prospect of “a stronger and more comprehensive report”. Mr Zeid’s unequivocal statement that the deferment was “for one time only” and his personal commitment to ensure its release at the Council’s 30th session is welcome. However, despite the new government’s very basic promises (outlined in the foreign minister’s letter to Mr Zeid), the Tamil people’s deep scepticism that it will deliver on them remains palpable - nowhere more so than in the North-East.

In less than a month’s time, Sri Lanka will choose a president. In the south of the island the poll is one of the most anticipated in the country’s recent history, with the common opposition candidate Maithripala Sirisena, and his extensive coalition, encompassing the right to the left of Sinhala politicos, widely seen to be a serious challenger to incumbent President Mahinda Rajapaksa. Maithripala’s defection from the SLFP led government, and pledge to abolish the executive presidency and tackle corruption, is being seen by many in the South as an opportunity to effect change on the island and to end Rajapaksa’s reign, which has been characterised by corruption, repression of freedom of expression, nepotism, and an autocratic, despotic leadership style.