federalidea.com

The Presidential Commission of inquiry into Serious Violations of Human Rights wishes to strongly refute the statement issued by the International Independent Group of Eminent Persons with regard to its recent comments that the current inquiry ‘does not meet international standards.’

Justice Nissanka Udalagama, Chairman of the COl states that the Commission ‘does not comprehend how the IIGEP came to hold the opinion that the COI’s Investigations are not transparent when the IIGEP and their Assistants have been given the opportunity and have in fact questioned witnesses in detail at these sessions. The COI has repeatedly informed IIGEP that at the inquiries the Public including affected parties will be allowed access.”

Justice Udalagama also notes that the IIGEP assert that they have attended 76 sessions of investigations of the two cases investigated, namely; the killing of 17 Aid Workers of Action Contre La Faim in Muttur, and the killing of 5 youths in Trincomalee.However he observed that in fact out of the total number of 76 sessions of investigations conducted, only one member of the IIGEP has been present at 37 of these sittings while only two were present at 2 sittings and three present at 1 sitting (The total number of IIGEP members appointed by the President is eleven).

Assistants to the members have been present but the COI chairman says “the attempt to portray the Assistants as representatives of the IIGEP at the proceedings is contrary to the Presidential Invitation which only permits their appointment to provide necessary assistance to a Member of IIGEP. In any event only one or sometimes two Assistants out of 10 Assistants have been present at 76 sessions. Thus the IIGEP has not been present to observe over half the proceedings and therefore the credibility of any comments made by the IIGEP must necessarily suffer from the consequences of such absence.”

The Chairman also says the observation by the IIGEP that there has been no full and timely disclosure by COI is not acceptable. In fact COI has taken every possible step to ensure that such full and timely disclosure has been made and the COI invites members of the IIGEP to be present at investigations on a continuous basis in order to observe such full and timely disclosure. Justice Udalagama also states that the statement made by the IIGEP that its recommended corrective actions have not been adopted by the COI is contrary to facts.

The IIGEP has in fact made very few suggestions for corrective actions some of which have been accepted and acted upon by the COI. One example is the response to the criticism levelled against COl by IIGEP for obtaining the services of Members of the Official Bar who work under the guidance, supervision and direction of the Commission. Although the COl does not accept the validity of such criticisms, in deference to the views of the IIGEP the COI has enlisted the services of Counsel of the Unofficial Bar including two of the most outstanding members of the legal profession in Sri Lanka — Mr. R.K.W. Goonesekera and President’s Counsel Mr Ranjit Abeysooriya,

“The undoubted Eminence and wide experience of the IIGEP cannot be a substitute for the ground observations by the IIGEP. Otherwise the IIGEP will be reduced to making their comments with regard to the work of the COI on the basis of hearsay which is undoubtedly contrary to international norms and will militate against the credibility and value of such comments,” Justice Udalagama states.

The COI further notes that due to the lack of an adequate presence of the IIGEP at the sessions, the collective wisdom of the eleven members of IIGEP is unfortunately, not reflected in the observations of the IIGEP as was intended in the Presidential Invitation to the IIGEP.

Despite the absence of national legislation for Witness Protection in Sri Lanka, the COI has developed a scheme of witness protection which elaborates rigorously researched rules and study of international best practices. Copies of such rules were shared with the IIGEP at the beginning of the COI’s term and did not receive any adverse comment from the IIGEP which suggested that the IIGEP was satisfied by such a scheme The COI notes that right throughout the investigation process initiated by the COI, this scheme has beer and will continue to be in operation.

The COI notes with regret that the IIGEP has resorted to criticizing the mechanism repeatedly which could have the effect of undermining the work of the COI. In the event of genuine concern of the lack of adequate protection for witnesses it would have been more befitting for the IIGEP in the interests of bringing the perpetrators to justice, to bring to the notice of the COI such shortcomings in a direct and discreet manner rather than publicly announcing such dissatisfaction lest it has the effect of discouraging potential witnesses from coming forward to give evidence.