UNHrc Report and GoSL Response

4 March 2014 04:25 am

Contd. from Monday





Date of appointment of the Military Court of Inquiry is changed in the Edited Version in para 23 taking into consideration the observation of the GoSL response in para 47

Unedited Version- Para 23 In the Unedited Version para 23 refers to the date of appointment of CoI as 2nd September 2013:

“On 2 September 2013, the Army Commander appointed a Military Court of Inquiry…”

Edited Version- Para 23    “On 2 August 2013, the Army Commander appointed a military court of inquiry”
Para 47 GoSL response had in it:

GoSL Response- “Consequent to the Weliweriya incident a 5 member Court of Inquiry (CoI) was appointed by the Army Commander on 02/08/2013”



On Mass Graves,  the reference made to the transfer of the Matale Magistrate in the Unedited Version para  25 has been removed from the Edited Version taking into consideration the GoSL comment that Matale Magistrate was transferred consequent to disciplinary reasons.

Unedited Version- Para 25 Unedited Version refers to the transfer of Matale Magistrate as an example of lack of impartiality in the investigation process:
“There were concerns regarding the manner in which remains were being preserved, protection  of crime scene and the investigation process, which has been exacerbated by the transfer of the Magistrate of Matale to Colombo”

Edited Version- Para 25 The Edited Version deletes reference to the transfer of Matale Magistrate:
“There were concerns regarding the manner in which remains were being preserved, protection  of crime scene and the investigation process, which has been exacerbated by the transfer of the Magistrate of Matale to Colombo* ”
* Deleted in the edited version


GoSL Response- Para 52     Following response of the GoSL comment in para 52  seems to have influenced the deletion in the Edited Version:
“The Magistrate of Matale was transferred consequent to complaints made by the entirety of the Bar in Matale on irregular practices committed by the said Magistrate in association with local police”



The Edited Version carries a new sentence in para 28 on the official use of  the Tamil language based on the response of the GoSL in para 56

Unedited Version- Unedited Version does not refer to the official use of Tamil language.
“The High Commissioner welcomes the progress reported in implementing a number of LLRC recommendations, for instance giving effecting to the trilingual policy, the upgrading of schools in the Northern and Eastern Provinces…”

Edited Version- Para 28    The sentence in bold below has been added to the Edited Version ( in bold for emphasis):
“The High Commissioner welcomes the progress made by the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission, for instance giving effecting to the trilingual policy, promoting the official use of the Tamil language*, the upgrading of schools in the Northern and Eastern Provinces…”
* not mentioned in the unedited version

GoSL Response- Para 56    The following sentence of the GoSL response seems to have influenced Edited Version( in bold for emphasis):
“…integration of youth in reconciliation, recruitment of Tamil speaking officers to the public service …”



Reference in the Unedited Version that only 30 of the LLRC recommendations are partially reflected in the NPoA is deleted in the Edited Version taking into consideration the observation in the GoSL response that its “it is factually incorrect to say that only 30 of the 145 recommendations ‘are only partially reflected in the NPoA”

Unedited Version-Para 30    Following sentence is mentioned at the end of para 30 of the Unedited Version:
“However, around 30 of these are only partially reflected in the NPoA”

Edited Version- Para 30    Above sentence has been deleted in the Edited Version in para 30:

GoSL Response- Para 54i    Following response of the GoSL seems to have influenced the deletion( in bold for emphasis):
“The statement that the GoSL has been selective in implementing only some of the recommendations of the LLRC is erroneous. It is factually incorrect to say that only 30 of the 145 recommendations ‘are only partially reflected in the NPoA’, and that ‘a remaining 140 recommendations have been left unaddressed in the NPoA altogether’”



The allegation that the GoSL has been selective in implementing the LLRC recommendations in para 31 of the Unedited Version has been deleted in the Edited Version
Unedited Version- Para 31 Following allegations were made in para 31 in the Unedited Version:
“The remaining 140 out of the LLRC’s 285 recommendations have been left unanswered in the NPoA altogether. For instance the NPoA does not include the important safeguards recommended by the LLRC to ensure the security and safety of any person taken into custody”
Edited Version- Para 30 Above  sentences mentioned in the Unedited Version have been deleted from the Edited Version:

GoSL Response- Para 54i Following response of the GoSL seems to have influenced the deletion ( in bold for emphasis):
“The statement that th GoSL has been selective in implementing only some of the recommendations of the LLRC is erroneous. It is factually incorrect to say that only 30 of the 145 recommendations ‘are only partially reflected in the NPoA’, and that ‘a remaining 140 recommendations have been left unaddressed in the NPoA altogether’;”

Edited Version- Para 31    Para 31 in the Edited Version given below is a new insertion which was not mentioned in the Unedited Version:
“in many instances however the specified activity in the national plan of action does not fully correspond to or address the recommendations made by the the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission….the corresponding activity is the disarming of armed groups ”



Examples of “partially adopted” LLRC recommendations mentioned in footnote 20 of the Edited Version have been changed in the Edited Version considering the GoSL response that they were adequately reflected in the NPoA and are under implementation.

Unedited Version- Para 30     Footnote 14 of the Unedited Version     ( in bold for emphasis):
Examples of other recommendations that are only partially adopted are 9.236, 9.81, 9.103, 9.117, 9.128, 9.134, 9.140 and etc”

Edited Version- Para 31    Taking into account the GoSL comment (para 54, iv), the Edited Version now refers to different examples from the LLRC recommendations.
Footnote 20 of the Edited Version reads as ( in bold for emphasis):
“Other examples include recommendations 9.57 and 9.81”
Note: SAS/P when contacted confirmed that these have been accommodated in the NPoA and a suitable line to refute OHCHR comments can be provided.

GoSL Response- Para 54 iv Following response of the GoSL seems to have influenced the Edited Version to change the footnote reference to partial reflection of LLRC recommendations in the NPoA     ( in bold for emphasis):
“The recommendations itemized under Footnote 14 as being partially reflected in the NPoA is erroneous. Recommendations 9.81, 9.98, 9.103, 9.117, and 9.134 referred to are adequately reflected in the NPoA and are under implementation.”

Unedited Version- Para 32 In the Unedited Version Para 32 ends as “…but focuses on capacity building of police and community policing”

Edited Version- Para 32    Following sentence is a new insertion to the Edited Version in Para 32.
“…but focuses on capacity building of police and community policing. Recommendation 9.270 called for the establishment of interfaith mechanisms to facilitate early warning and prevention of communal or religious violence…”


The GoSL comment that the Government’s request to obtain information on asylum seekers was turned down by the requested States has influenced the Edited Version ( in Para 43)  to insert a new sentence to that effect.
Unedited Version- Para 43 in the Unedited Version does not mention that the GoSL sought information from other States on asylum seekers.

Edited Version- Para 43    The following new sentence is added to para 43 of the Edited Version( in bold for emphasis):
“The Government has sought information from other countries concerning Sri Lankans who may now be abroad.”

GoSL Response- Para 69    Para 69 of the GoSL refers to the request made by the GoSL from UK, USA and Canada to obtain information on persons who had sought asylum which was denied by the said governments. This seems to have influenced the Edited Version to insert a new sentence to para 43



On Trinco 5 case: the number of witnesses from whom evidence has been  gathered has now changed from 17 to 14 based on the GoSL response in para 73

Unedited Version- Para 51 of the Unedited Version mentions that evidence has been gathered from 17 witnesses:
“On 20 January  2014 the Attorney General’s office informed the High Commissioner that evidence has been recorded from 17 witnesses”

Edited Version- Para 51 of the Edited Version changes the number of witnesses to 14:
 “The Attorney General’s office informed the High Commissioner that evidence has been recorded from 14 witnesses ”

GoSL Response-Para 73 Following response of the GoSL seems to have influenced the change in the number of witnesses:
“With regard to the Trinco Five case, the Non Summary inquiry which is in progress has concluded the evidence of 14 witnesses and ….”



The language in para 51 of the Unedited Version that the “Attorney General’s office intends to serve summons on further 14 witnesses now residing outside the country” has been changed in the Edited Version to “Attorney General’s office has summoned a further 14 witnesses although it had had difficulties contacting those outside the country” based on the GoSL response in para 73

Unedited Version- Para 51Para 51 of the Unedited Version reads as follows:
“Attorney General’s office intends to serve summons on further 14 witnesses now residing outside the country”

Edited Version- Para 51 Para 51 of the Edited Version has changed the language of the same sentence as follows:
“Attorney General’s office has summoned a further 14 witnesses although had had difficulties contacting those outside the country”

GoSL Response- Para 73 Para 73 of the GoSL response given below seems to have  influenced the change of language in Para 51 in the Edited Version:
“14 other witnesses have been summoned for the next date of inquiry which is 06 March 2014. 7 witnesses are said to be living overseas and steps have been taken to trace their whereabouts. Attempts to service summons on witnesses via email failed.”



On the ACF case: The Edited Version has a new sentence at the end of Para 55 based on the response of the GoSL that a team of senior prosecutors continue to review material gathered during the investigations

Unedited Version- Para 55 Para 55 of the Unedited Version ends as “…but that so far medical, ballistic or scientific evidence has not shed any conclusive evidence*”
* This last sentence in Para 55 of the Unedited Version has been deleted in the Edited Version and replaced with  another sentence.

Edited Version- Para 55 Last sentence in Para 55 of the Unedited Version has been replaced with the sentence below in the Edited Version:
“In its comments on the present report, the Government stated that a team of senior prosecutors continued to pursue various lines of inquiry”

GoSL Response- Para 74 The new sentence added to para 55 of the Edited Version seems to have been influenced by the comment below in the GoSL response:
“With regard to the Action Contre la Faim (ACF) case, a team of senior prosecutors comprising of 6 Senior State Counsel and a State Counsel reviewed material gathered during the investigations… ”



The Edited Version has taken off the date of first broadcast by Channel 4 which was mentioned in the Unedited Version.
Unedited Version- Para 57 The Unedited Version in para 57, gives the date as “video footage aired by Channel 4 on 25th August 2009”

Edited Version- Para 57 The Edited Version removes the date in para 57:
“…that demonstrated the authenticity of portions of the vedio footage  first broadcast by Channel 4 in August 2009”



On Balanchandran: the Edited version in para 58 removes reference to Mullaitivu where Balachandran was alleged to have been killed.
Unedited Version- Para 58 The last sentence in Para 58 of the Unedited Version was as follows:
“The authorities have maintained that Prabahkaran’s son was killed in cross-fire, as troops moved into take the LTTE’s last stronghold, located on a strip of coastline near Mullaitivu”

Edited Version-Para 58 * The following words (stricken off) have been deleted in the Edited Version:
“The authorities have maintained that Prabahkaran’s son was killed in cross-fire, as troops moved into take the LTTE’s last stronghold, located on a strip of coastline near Mullaitivu *”



A new para as para 61 is added to the Edited Version to mention the government response on alleged killings of  Balachandran, Thurairajasingham, Isipriya. This new para is influnaced by the GoSL response in para 81

Unedited Version- Edited Version does not contain a para 61 under the section “Shoba (alias Isaipriya)”
Edited Version- Para 61  A new para has been added under the section Shoba (alias Isaipriya) as follows:
“The Government stated the authenticity of the footage and photographs remained unsubstantiated and unverified. Whether this has been the subject of any further investigation is unknown.”

GoSL Response- Para 81 Following response of the GoSL seems to have influenced the insertion of a new para after para 60 in the section tited Shoba (alias Isaipriya):
“With regard to the assertions on Balachandran, Thurairajasingham, Isipriya, it is categorically stated that the authenticity of the footages/photographs referred to remain unsubstantiated and unverified.”



White flag incident: The GoSL comment that  the White Flag incident inquiry is discontinued due to lack of credible evidence is added to the Edited Version in para 61 of the Edited Version

Unedited Version- Para 61 The following sentence in the end of para 61 in the Unedited Version has been deleted in Edited Version and a new sentence has been added.
“While the Military Court of Inquiry is examining Channel 4 video material, it is not known  whether the “white flag” incident has been the subject of any further investigation ”

Edited Version- Para 62 The last sentence in para 61 of the Unedited Version has been replaced with the  following sentence in the Edited Version ( in bold for emphasis):
 “In its comments on the present report, the Government stated that no further inquiries were being conducted into the incident owing to lack of credible evidence.”

GoSL Response- Para 82 Following sentence of the GoSL in para 82 seems to have  influenced the  Edited Version to delete the last sentence and to insert a new sentence at the end of para 61 ( in bold for emphasis):
“Due to lack of credible evidence there are no further inquiries being conducted pertaining to the “White Flag” incident.



Prageeth Eknaligoda: Para 64 of the Edited Version has been changed to reflect the GoSL
comment that the former Attorney General made his statement in court based on the instructions he received.

Unedited Version- Para 63 The following sentence in para 63 of Unedited Version has been slightly changed in the Edited Version:
“At the hearing, Mohan Peiris admitted that he did not know Prageeth Eknaligoda’ whereabouts and claimed he could not remember who said he was in exile”

Edited Version- Para 64 The following sentence in para 64 of the Edited Version (which corresponds to para 63 of the Unedited Version) has the following words ( in bold for emphasis):

 “At the hearing, Mohan Peiris admitted that he did not know Prageeth Eknaligoda’ whereabouts and said that his statement to the Committee had been based on the instructions received.”
The following sentence (in bold) has  also been added to para 64 of the Edited Version:
“The Government has reported that a magisterial inquiry was in progress.”

GoSL Response- Para 84 Response of the GoSL in para 84 seems to have influenced this change (in bold for emphasis):
“When the former Attorney General was questioned in court if he was personally aware of the whereabouts of Prageeth Eknaligoda, he replied in the negative, and he further stated that he made this statement on instructions received that the information was being investigated. The magisterial inquiry is in progress.”



Based on the GoSL response,  the Edited Version in para 69 removes the phrase that the Attorney General has observed a connection between the lack of progress in cases such as Trincomalee and ACF killings and the absence of a Victim and Witness protection mechanism.

Unedited Version- Para 68 Para 68 of the Unedited Version reads as follows:
“The Attorney General himself informed the High Commissioner the absence of any victim and witness protection mechanism was the major reason that the reluctance of witnesses to come forward was the main reason for the lack of progress in such emblematic cases…”

Edited Version- Para 69 Para 69 of the Edited Version (the corresponding para of the Unedited  Version is Para 68) has the following words struck off:
“The Attorney General himself informed the High Commissioner the absence of any victim and witness protection mechanism was the major reason* that the reluctance of witnesses to come forward was the main reason for the lack of progress in such emblematic cases…”

GoSL Response- Para 87 Following comments in the  GoSL response seem to have influenced the deletion:
“With regard to the statement attributed to the Attorney General in paragraph 68, the Attorney General has categorically stated that this is a misrepresentation of his position by a false and misleading link being drawn between lack of progress in cases such as Trincomalee and ACF killings and the absence of a Victim and Witness protection mechanism.”



Para 70 of the Edited Version contains a new sentence on the progress of the Witness and Victim Protection Bill based on the GoSL comment on the same.

Unedited Version- Para 69 Following sentence in the Unedited Version is removed has been replaced with a new sentence in the Edited Version:
“According to the media reports, the Cabinet approved the revised draft in October but the Government has yet to publicly release the final version and it does not appear there will be public consultation before it is tabled.”

Edited Version-Para 70 The following new sentence in para 70 of the Edited Version replaces the last sentence in the para 69 (which is the corresponding of para 70 of the Edited Version) of the Unedited Version:
 “According to the Government, the legislation is being finalized, even though the final version has yet to be released for public consultation ”

GoSL Response- Para 16 Following comments in the  GoSL response seem to have influence d this change:
“Sri Lanka had initiated action to prepare legislation with regard to Witness and Victim Protection. Consequent to extensive consultation in this regard, including examination by the Cabinet Sub Committee on Legislation and action being taken thereon by the Legal Draftsman, the finalization of legislation is in progress”