Submitted by crinadmin on
Summary: The review of Sri Lanka during the second cycle of the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) took place on 1 November, and marked the first review since the end of the country’s civil war in 2009
Sri Lanka has repeatedly refused calls from the international community to enable an independent international report to be prepared detailing the events of the final months of the war; the manner of Sri Lanka’s engagement with the UPR process was therefore a matter of some anticipation. Mr Mahinda Samarasignhe, Minister of Plantation Industries and Special Envoy to the President on Human Rights, presented Sri Lanka’s lengthy State report. Though Mr Samarasignhe did emphasise that the UPR process was ‘the ideal platform to discuss all aspects of interest’, he also articulated that human rights situations should not be discussed without understanding of the context on the ground. The report was exhaustive, and covered progress made by Sri Lanka since the UPR in 2008 in the areas of children’s rights, women’s rights, economic, social and cultural rights, the prevention of torture, and the rights of internally displaced persons and migrants. Mr Samarasignhe also described in depth the initiation of the National Human Rights Action Plan (NHRAP), designed to implement policies on these issues. States were on the whole positive about Sri Lanka’s progress. The NHRAP was praised by a number of countries, though several States, including Estonia, Venezuela, and Germany, raised the need for more effective implementation of the policies. Sri Lanka’s Lessons Learned and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC) was commended as a ‘valuable framework’ by the United Kingdom (UK). Several States – notably Syria, Turkey, and Bangladesh – commended Sri Lanka on its successful eradication of the scourge of terrorism Despite these positive remarks, it was notable that a large number of recommendations were raised a second time in the light of Sri Lanka’s non-implementation over the last four years. Finland, the Holy See, Cuba, and Canada called for greater protection of internally displaced persons (IDPs) and the creation of restitution policies in line with international standards. The need for the promotion and protection of freedom of expression was raised by several States; in line with recommendations made in 2008 regarding the safety of human rights defenders, journalists and other civil society members, the UK asked that Sri Lanka ‘cultivate an atmosphere of security within which freedom of expression is supported’. Violence against women and girls Other recommendations raised for a second time included the need for more effective measures to protect women and girls from violence and sexual violence (raised by Austria, Spain, and Iran, amongst others). A number of countries also noted that several important international treaties have not yet been ratified, and urged that Sri Lanka accede to the Rome Statute on the International Criminal Court, the Optional Protocol on the Convention against Torture, and the Convention on Enforced Disappearances as soon as possible. Recommendations made for the first time included: However, the most prevalent recommendation was that Sri Lanka take more steps to combat impunity for those who committed crimes during the civil war. States from Latin and South America, as well as several European countries, were particularly vocal on this issue. The United States (US) strongly urged Sri Lanka to allow and facilitate an independent investigation into potential war crimes. Mr Samarasignge and his delegation were not, however, receptive to criticisms that Sri Lanka’s accountability mechanisms have fallen short of international standards; in response to States’ concerns about sexual violence committed against Tamil women during the war, he replied that ‘any correlation between military presence and sexual violence is completely unfounded’. It was clear that in spite of rhetorical aspirations to a constructive and objective dialogue, Sri Lanka was not willing to compromise on issues involving controversial events during the war. Given the large number of States that commended Sri Lanka on its effective elimination of terrorism, the State seemed to gain extra confidence in its oft-repeated assertion that it must now be allowed time and space to rebuild a new Sri Lanka without international interference. During the interactive dialogue, a total of 230 recommendations were given by 98 States, the highest number of recommendations given to a State during the 14th session of the UPR. However, Sri Lanka decided to reject 100 of these recommendations arguing that they are divergent with the NRHAP. Several States made objections before the report was adopted. The US, France, and the UK were concerned that Sri Lanka made changes to the substance of the recommendations given to it in the interactive dialogue. In response, Sri Lanka highlighted the importance of a State’s sovereignty within the UPR mechanism and argued that all the changes to recommendations were made in concurrence with the parties concerned. Additionally, Sri Lanka pointed out their ‘extreme flexibility’ in accepting a total of 110 recommendations. Further Information