Daily Mirror - Print Edition

SL rejects UNHRC resolution, calls external evidence mechanism ‘unprecedented expansion’ of mandate

08 Oct 2025 - {{hitsCtrl.values.hits}}      

  • Sri Lanka also questioned the credibility, transparency, and effectiveness of the OHCHR project, noting that after four years, it has shown “no tangible benefit for the people of Sri Lanka

Sri Lanka on Monday has firmly rejected the draft resolution HRC 60/L.1/Rev.1 on the country adopted at the 60th Session of the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC), describing the resolution’s reference to the 2022 external evidence-gathering mechanism as an “unprecedented and ad hoc expansion” of the Council’s mandate.   

Delivering Sri Lanka’s statement as the country concerned, the delegation emphasized that Colombo does not accept the Sri Lanka Accountability Project established within the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), arguing that it undermines nationally driven reconciliation efforts.   

The statement, delivered on behalf of the government, stressed that domestic institutions - including the Offices on Missing Persons and Reparations, the Office for National Unity and Reconciliation, and the planned Truth and Reconciliation Commission - are being strengthened to address human rights concerns through nationally owned processes.   

Sri Lanka also questioned the credibility, transparency, and effectiveness of the OHCHR project, noting that after four years, it has shown “no tangible benefit for the people of Sri Lanka.” The government warned that extending its mandate would only serve groups with “vested interests seeking to create divisions and polarize communities.”   
Quoting the Foreign Minister’s earlier remarks to the Council, the statement reaffirmed Sri Lanka’s commitment to reconciliation and transformative reforms, urging the international community to allow space for the country to pursue these goals domestically.   

Concluding its address, Sri Lanka announced its rejection of the resolution, reiterating opposition to what it called “coercive international action.”