Resolution both toothless and dangerous: Human Rights Commissioner

By Lakmal Sooriyagoda

The US-backed resolution passed at the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva last week was mild in essence, but also indicated dangerous precedents for the future, a local human rights expert warned yesterday.

Human Rights Commissioner Dr. Prathibha Mahanamahewa said the UNHRC resolution on Sri Lanka could be analysed as a soft one with some danger attached to it.

Commenting on the possible consequences of the US-backed resolution passed at the UNHRC Dr. Mahanamahewa said that there was no threat from the resolution at the moment, since Sri Lanka had been given a considerable time period to implement the recommendations.

He said that an analysis of the language of the resolution proved that it was very soft, with the terms used in the resolution like “urge,” “note,” “welcome” and “request” implying that Sri Lanka was not being bound to implement the clauses.

But the Human Rights Commissioner said that the current resolution had nevertheless included some elements that New Delhi had insisted remain excluded from the draft in 2012.

“A dangerous fact is there under number 11 – sub section 4 of the resolution. It urges Sri Lanka to cooperate with special procedures. It urges Sri Lanka that an opportunity should be given to the UN rapporteur in the following incidents: the freedom of expression, the independence of the Judiciary, the independence of the judges, the independence of the lawyers; abductions, disappearances and women rights,” the Commissioner said. He alleged with the adoption of the resolution against Sri Lanka, the UNHRC had acted contrary to UN mandates governing the sovereignty and equality concept of a country. “No one can encroach upon the sovereignty of a country. The resolution threatens the sovereignty of the country. They want to send an international monitoring mission here,” Dr. Mahanamahewa said.

When asked if Sri Lanka should treat the matter seriously, Dr. Mahanamahewa said that Sri Lanka should prioritise its National Human Rights Action Plan and implement that policy instead of focusing on the UNHRC resolution. He said the current resolution provides time until 2015 with any potential consequences only likely to emerge after that year.

The Human Rights Commissioner warned that once the 2015 provision lapses, potential consequences for Sri Lanka could be an extension of that time or the moving of a resolution through the UN General Assembly and the UN Security Council.