Menu
Home
Log in / Register
 
Home arrow Law arrow Transitional Justice in the Asia-Pacific
Source

The Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission

In May 2009, President Rajapaksa promised that the government would investigate allegations of war crimes. The government created a domestic commission of inquiry, the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation

  • 63 ‘Deeming Sri Lanka Execution Video Authentic, UN Expert Calls for War Crimes Probe,’ UN News Centre (7 January 2010), at http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp? NewsID=33423 (accessed 15 May 2012).
  • 64 Basil Fernando, ‘UN Human Rights Council Drops Sri Lanka,’ UPI Asia (23 May
  • 2008) , at http://www.upiasia.com (accessed 28 February 2011);Sri Lanka Democracy Forum, ‘Submission to the Universal Periodic Review of Sri Lanka,’ (9 February 2008), at http://www.srilankademocracy.org (accessed 28 February 2011).
  • 65 ‘Full Text of Resolution Adopted by the UN Human Rights Council’ reprinted in the Sunday Times (Sri Lanka) (28 May 2009), at http://sundaytimes.lk (accessed 28 February 2011);Human Rights Watch, ‘Sri Lanka: UN Rights Council Fails Victims,’ (27 May
  • 2009) , at http://www.hrw.org (accessed 11 May 2011);Michael Binyon, ‘A Disgraceful Vote which Discredits the UN Human Rights Council,’ The Times (28 May 2009), at http://www.timesonline.co.uk (accessed 28 February 2011). Arguably, the state has been able to resist calls for accountability because pressure from traditional donors has been muted, and from newer donors nonexistent. Anonymous, ‘Against the Grain: Pursuing a Transitional Justice Agenda in Sri Lanka,’ International Journal of Transitional Justice, Vol. 5, No. 1 (2011), pp. 46-47.
  • 66 Human Rights Watch, ‘Recurring Nightmare.’

Commission (LLRC), in May 2010, partly in response to demands for accountability. Its mandate was to report on events between 21 February 2002 and 19 May 2009 and to identify those responsible for the breakdown of the 2002 ceasefire as well as a method for reparations. The LLRC was also tasked with identifying administrative and legislative measures needed to prevent recurrence of conflict and to promote national unity and reconciliation. According to the UN commission of experts, the LLRC did not meet international standards for an accountability process. Specifically, the UN commission found that the LLRC was compromised by conflicts of interest of various members, a failure to engage in what it termed ‘genuine truth-telling’ about abuses which took place in the final stages of the conflict and failure to engage in proper investigation of abuses by both sides of the conflict.[1]

Human rights advocates have strongly criticized the LLRC because it was not mandated to address and not interested in addressing accountability for serious abuses such as war crimes or crimes against humanity. Its mandate was to focus on the root causes of conflict and methods for promoting reconciliation only. The commission had no mandate to investigate allegations of international humanitarian law, nor to impose accountability. Further, the commission came under severe criticism as being subject to government interference and therefore not independent.[2] Its chair, C.R. de Silva, was the Attorney General under Rajapaksa, and was charged with implementing the Prevention of Terrorism Act and accused of tolerating and covering up police abuses. Many who sought to testify before the commission claimed that the commissioners appeared unsympathetic and uninterested, and witnesses were subject to threats and intimidation.[3]

The significant turnout of individuals wishing to testify amongst the affected populations even at the flawed LLRC indicates a demand for an accounting of abuses and for accountability. Despite the LLRC’s many shortcomings, large numbers of civilians did present testimony across the country, and thousands in former conflict areas in the north and east presented detailed testimony about abuses. According to Amnesty International, the commission was not prepared for the turnout, lacking adequate facilities and Tamil translation. Further, despite some reports of threats to witnesses, the commission’s mandate did not include witness protection.[4]

In its hearings, which were held around the country and concluded in January 2011, the LLRC did not investigate allegations of violations of international humanitarian law; hearings in Colombo largely included government officials and others who focused exclusively on the limited topics of the mandate - the causes of conflict and modes of reconciliation. When the commission was presented with testimony of violations such as disappearances in the north, it did not investigate them further. The recommendations of the commission have offered what one expert at Amnesty International terms ‘problem solving’ proposals, such as technical reforms to trace the disappeared, rather than to investigate abuses or punish perpetrators.[4] An expert at the International Center for Transitional Justice characterized the commission as simply another in a long line of commissions of inquiry in Sri Lanka and elsewhere, ostensibly designed to reach the truth about past abuses, which in operation would do the reverse.[6] The report of the commission was released in mid- December 2011, amid criticism that it had sought to minimize government responsibility, although its report did identify extensive harm to civilians whom it categorized as caught in the crossfire. Independent international observers raised concerns that the report failed to apply international humanitarian law standards and relied upon testimony of government officials and of Tamil doctors detained under terrorism legislation.73

  • [1] Report of the Secretary-General’s Panel of Experts on Accountability in Sri Lanka,pp. v;‘The Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission’ at http://www.llrc.lk(accessed 1 May 2011).
  • [2] ‘Sri Lankan War Inquiry Commission Opens Amid Criticism,’ BBC News (11 August 2010), at http://www.bbc.co.uk (accessed 21 April 2011);Human Rights Watch, ‘SriLanka: New Evidence of Wartime Abuses,’ (20 May 2010), at http://www.hrw.org(accessed 21 April 2011).
  • [3] International Crisis Group, ‘Reconciliation in Sri Lanka’, pp. 24-25.
  • [4] Yolanda Foster, ‘LLRC is Not a Credible Domestic Process of Accountability,’LankaNewsWeb (16 March 2011) at http://www.sangam.org (accessed 25 March 2011).
  • [5] Yolanda Foster, ‘LLRC is Not a Credible Domestic Process of Accountability,’LankaNewsWeb (16 March 2011) at http://www.sangam.org (accessed 25 March 2011).
  • [6] Vasuki Nesiah, ‘Unpacking the Truth,’ (16 August 2009), at http://www.ictj.org(accessed 21 April 2011).
 
Source
Found a mistake? Please highlight the word and press Shift + Enter  
< Prev   CONTENTS   Next >
 
Subjects
Accounting
Business & Finance
Communication
Computer Science
Economics
Education
Engineering
Environment
Geography
Health
History
Language & Literature
Law
Management
Marketing
Mathematics
Political science
Philosophy
Psychology
Religion
Sociology
Travel