UNHRC report: Judgement without trial

The UNHRC has made judgements without any evidence or a trial. There are many injustices in the report

By Sugeeswara Senadhira

The report to be submitted to the 46th Session of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights has now been submitted to the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) in accordance with Resolution 1/40, which was co-sponsored by Sri Lanka. At the last session in September 2019, Foreign Minister Dinesh Gunawardena announced Sri Lanka’s withdrawal from the resolution. 

The reason for withdrawal was the fact that the UNHRC treatment of Sri Lanka was highly biased and unfair as the resolutions against Sri Lanka have been passed without any vote or debate. The UNHRC has made judgements without any evidence or a trial. There are many injustices in the report.

According to the 21st point of the report, the appointment of Rear Admiral Sarath Weerasekera, who served in the Navy, as the Minister of Public Defence was wrong. It states, “The President moved the Police Department under a new Ministry of Public Security and appointed a former Navy Admiral, (he was not an Admiral, but UNHRC should be thanked for the promotion given by the world body to a much-respected Navy Officer).

The UNHRC has ignored the fact that he was elected to the Parliament in August 2020 and he got more votes than any other candidate in the Colombo District. There is no bar for a retired officer to contest elections. In the United States Congress and Senate there are many ex-armed force officers. Veterans in the 117th Congress, by the numbers were listed in US Military Times of 28 December 2020. When elected officials gather on Capitol Hill to formally convene the 117th Congress on 3 January, they’ll do so with 91 veterans among their ranks, the lowest total since at least World War II. The number of veterans in Congress has declined almost steadily since the mid-1970s, as the military shifted from an end strength of largely drafted individuals to an all-volunteer force. 

In 1973, nearly three in every four members of Congress had some type of military service. In 2021, it’ll be about one in every six members who have military experience. They all served voluntarily joining the forces as the draft had ended. 

Para 22 of the UNHRC Report finds fault with military officers handling COVID-19 pandemic control measures. The Army Commander has headed the COVID-19 response, the military has been tasked with administering quarantine centres and checkpoints, and 25 senior military officers have been appointed as Chief Coordinating Officers for all districts to tackle COVID-19. 

Euromil website states on Armed Forces and COVID-19 globally, that the COVID-19 pandemic created new challenges, including for the armed forces. Since the beginning of this unprecedented health crisis, Euromil has been closely monitoring the role of European armed forces in fighting the virus and the overall support they provided to civilian authorities and the population. In almost all countries, armed forces and their members provided logistical and medical support to the authorities. Among others, they were tasked to transport medical supplies, set up field hospitals, distribute personal protective equipment and provide medical equipment and staff. Additionally, in some countries military personnel were requested to enforce lockdown measures or had other tasks such as disinfecting public places, conducting testing, or transporting dead bodies.

Para 24 of the UNHRC Report claims alleged reversing of many democratic gains introduced with the 19th Amendment in 2015. The High Commissioner is concerned that the amendment has fundamentally eroded the independence of key commissions and institutions, including the HRCSL, the Election Commission, the National Police Commission and the judiciary in terms of procedure for the selection, appointment and dismissal of senior judges and other high-ranking officials. The amendment abolishes the Constitutional Council of eminent persons, which recommended appointments to the President and re-established the Parliamentary Council, which is composed exclusively of politicians and may only make observations. The UNHRC ignored the fact that the members appointed to PSC were Members of Parliament elected by the people. Is it an erosion of democratic practices? 

The conclusions by the Office of High Commissioner for Human Rights Investigating Sri Lanka (OISL) claims it was consistent with the practice of other United Nations fact-finding bodies, the OISL will base its findings on a ‘reasonable grounds to believe’ standard of proof. There are reasonable grounds to believe that an incident or pattern of violations or crimes occurred if the OISL has obtained a reliable body of information, consistent with other information, indicating their occurrence. This standard of proof may be sufficiently high to call for judicial investigations into violations of international humanitarian and human rights law and international crimes. 

While passing judgements, the OISL refrains from disclosing evidence to prove the charges by hiding behind a witness protection clause. “The OISL will take appropriate steps to address witness and victim protection concerns and shall adopt procedures and methods of work aimed at protecting such persons during all stages of its work.”

While keeping the identity of witnesses, the OISL calls on Sri Lanka also to safeguard them. “The Government of Sri Lanka also has an obligation to protect victims and witnesses and others in Sri Lanka who make contact with the OISL, and it will be requested to make an undertaking that no such person shall, as a result of such contact, suffer harassment, threats, acts of intimidation, ill-treatment or reprisals.” 

As Minister Gunawardena stated last September, the Resolution infringed upon the sovereignty of the people of Sri Lanka as well as violated the basic structure of Sri Lanka’s Constitution. “The previous Government had violated all democratic principles of governance as it declared support for the Resolution even before the draft text was presented, sought no Cabinet approval to bind the country to deliver on the dictates of an international body, had no reference to the Parliament processes, undertakings, and repercussions of such co-sponsorship, and included provisions which were undeliverable due to its inherent illegality, being in violation of the Constitution the supreme law of the country,” the Minister told the UNHRC.