Statements by families were emotional with several breaking down before the COI. During their submissions, they were reliving, yet again, the trauma of losing a loved one and the few minutes provided to them hardly do justice to what they have endeavoured. In addition, the questions posed to the families so far lack empathy in the context of deep trauma. Furthermore, statements made by some of the commissioners to the families insinuate the disappeared and/or the families themselves were at fault. This raises the question whether the COI and the Government’s version of truth telling is more damaging than helpful to the families with little evidence to show there is genuine concern to hear grievances of affected communities. And it raises the larger question whether the official narrative has already taken shape with no space for any other.
Harshadeva Amarathungar discusses the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission and its inadequacies in considering gender issues in the post-conflict Sri Lanka.
« We recognize the framework agreed upon in resolutions 21/1 HRC (2012) and 22/1 HRC 2013 supporting reconciliation and accountability in Sri Lanka and efforts made by member states calling on the Sri Lankan government to address grave violations of human rights and humanitarian law committed before, during and after the war which ended in May 2009. We recognize too the efforts of member states calling on the Sri Lankan government to address continuing violation of human rights and democratic norms in Sri Lanka.
Despite the failure of the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC) to deal adequately with issues of accountability, civil society broadly agreed to cooperate with the Sri Lankan government in the implementation of the main LLRC recommendations. However, the government has not engaged in meaningful dialogue with civil society, opposition political parties and the international community in the implementation of LLRC recommendations. Moreover, the National Action Plan (NAP) conceived by the Sri Lankan government in July 2012 for this purpose, glosses over the most important issues of the LLRC, diluting its recommendations, considerably.
In our opinion, the Sri Lankan government continues to procrastinate over the implementation of key LLRC recommendations and instead, showcases ostensible progress on the NAP. The latter totally ignores the call for the setting up of an effective national mechanism to address accountability issues. Accordingly, we affirm the reports released by prominent Sri Lankan think tanks and civil society organisations such as the Centre for Policy Alternatives, which highlight the failure and shortcoming of the Sri Lankan government in the implementation of the LLRC recommendations. »
Read & download the full statement here –http://www.cpalanka.org/joint-civil-society-memorandum-to-the-human-rights-council-and-the-international-community/
« Using the data obtained last year as a baseline, [The Social Architects] will be releasing two companion reports reevaluating Sri Lanka’s LLRC progress. This is the first. »
The Rajapakse Administration has deployed a key architect of its post war policy towards minorities and war affected communities in Presidential Secretary Lalith Weeratunga, through his position as Chair of the Action plan to implement the LLRC, to be the chief defender of the Government’s case to the international community in general and the UNHRC stakeholders in Geneva in particular. Government ministers have also been given their briefs and are traversing the globe to lobby member nations of the UNHRC against a third US sponsored resolution on Sri Lanka. There is little doubt, that like in 2012 and 2013, another resolution on Sri Lanka would be carried by the UNHRC, decrying Sri Lanka’s post war policy trajectory.
According to a letter issued by the Kilinochchi zonal education director on the 03rd of January 2013, hundred and three security personnel have been employed to teach the Sinhalese language in all schools within the Kilinochchi zone.
It is illegal to employ any person for teaching in government schools other than those who have been appointed by the Ministry of Education and who have been properly trained according to the teacher services regulations. This decision also goes against the LLRC Recommendation which urges that security forces personnel should move out of civil administration activities as a vital step towards post war reconciliation. As per Recommendation 9.134 of the LLRC report, “the security forces should dis-engage itself from all civil administration related activities as rapidly as possible.” In addition to this, Recommendations 9.171 calls for “the phasing out of the involvement of the security forces in civilian activities…”
click to read the article: http://vimarsanam-vimansa.org/report/military-teaching-in-north-schools-defies-llrc/