federalidea.com

[Full Text of Press Release by national peace Council of Sri Lanka]

The assassination of Minister of Highways and Road Development, Jeyaraj Fernandopulle and the killing of 14 others including some of the country’s athletic stars, and the injuring of over 80 others by a suicide bomb attack at a new year Marathon race adds to the long list of political leaders and civilians whose lives have been cruelly taken due to the long unresolved ethnic conflict. The National Peace Council condemns this bombing which is suspected to be by the LTTE. Targeting of civilian events for violence is reprehensible.

Minister Fernandopulle belonged to both a religious and ethnic minority and could have played a greater role in rebuilding relations between
the ethnic communities and the warring parties. Instead he was a proponent of the government’s strategy of military confrontation with the LTTE which claimed his life. At the same time he assisted civil society groups such as ours when it fell within his domain of authority despite our critical stances.

Minister Fernandopulle was one of the government’s key speakers, and his absence will be felt at the forthcoming Eastern Provincial elections where
he would have played an important role. We urge the government to ensure that all high risk candidates at these elections, including leader of the
Sri Lanka Muslim Congress Rauf Hakeem whose security is being sought to be reduced, should be provided with additional security.

Once again we urge the government to reconsider its strategy of violence and war towards the resolution of the ethnic conflict. The loss of life and the disruption to the life of the people make it clear that the path of violence and war is too costly for any democratic society to bear. We also urge the LTTE to make it known in a convincing manner that they will be ready to respond positively to political initiatives, instead of persisting in their campaign of violence and war.

Executive Director
on behalf of Governing Council

Arbitrary detention/ medical concern

SRI LANKA: 04 April 2008-UA 88/08

Jayaprakash Sittampalam Tissainaygam (m), journalist

Journalist Jayaprakash Sittampalam (J. S.) Tissainaygam has been held in the Terrorist Investigation Division (TID) detention center in Colombo since 7 March. The authorities have claimed that he is held on suspicion of involvement with the armed group, the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), although he has not been charged with any offence, and Amnesty International believes that his detention is arbitrary. He is at risk of going blind if he does not receive specialist treatment for a serious eye condition.

[J. S. Tissainayagam]

On 7 March, J. S. Tissainayagam was detained after making enquiries to the TID regarding the arrest of his colleague V. Jasikaren and Jasikaren’s wife the previous day. When arrested J. S. Tissainayagam was not issued with a detention order as required under any Emergency Regulations in Sri Lanka. In addition procedural safeguards set out in the Sri Lankan Presidential Directives, such as the provision of a document giving details of the arrest to the detainee’s relatives, were not fulfilled,

J. S. Tissainayagam suffers from an eye condition that has required operations to re-attach his retinas. High levels of stress, or exposure to extreme levels of light, could cause a recurrence of the condition, which may result in blindness. It is not known whether he has received the required specialist medical treatment for his condition.

J. S. Tissainayagam filed a petition against his arbitrary arrest and detention with the Supreme Court. The Court allowed his petition to proceed. He was only granted access to a lawyer after lodging this and has reportedly been able to meet the lawyer only once, on 21 March, in the presence of a TID chief investigating officer.

A Supreme Court hearing on 27 March, in which J. S. Tissainayagam’s lawyer and wife were present but not himself, reportedly confirmed that no detention order had been presented to him when he was arrested. Citing a previous ruling by the Chief Justice that detainees should not be held by the TID for more than a week the Court decided that the case should be reviewed by the Chief Justice.

The Chief Justice heard the case on 31 March. The government then presented a detention order to the Chief Justice, claiming that J.S. Tissainayagam is acting on behalf of the LTTE, and, can be held for up to 90 days from 7 March.

Amnesty International is concerned that J. S. Tissainayagam is being held under the Emergency (Prevention and Prohibition of Terrorism and Specified Terrorist Activities) Regulations No. 7 2006, which are incompatible with international human rights law and standards, and have been used to intimidate and harass political opponents, thus fostering a culture of impunity. The Emergency Regulations, issued by the President, introduce broad-based and vaguely defined “terrorism” offenses which, among other things, have been used to silence critical media and generally violate freedom of expression in Sri Lanka, including through detention without charge or trial, which could under these Regulations last up to 18 months. Such detention is
clearly arbitrary, in violation of Article 9(1) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which Sri Lanka is a state party.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

Amnesty International is alarmed by a number of recent attacks and other violations of the human rights of media workers, which follow the pattern outlined in its recent report ‘Sri Lanka: Silencing Dissent’ (AI Index: ASA 37/001/2008) . Journalists and other media workers have been
detained for long periods of time without charge on previous occasions. On 21 November 2006 Parameshwari Munusamy, a Tamil woman journalist with the Sinhalese newspaper Mawbima, was arrested by Special Task Force (STF) personnel and detained at TID headquarters under the Emergency Regulations on suspicion of having links with the LTTE. At the time of her arrest, she was not told details of the grounds and legal basis she was held under. Detained without charge for four months, she was released on 22 March 2007. Her family was also reportedly assaulted at their home on 14 March 2008, by intruders who forcibly entered their home, causing serious injuries to her father and sister. There have been a number of attacks and arbitrary arrests of media workers in the last few weeks including Gayan Lasantha Ranga, Udayen and Kithsiri Wijesinghe, all contributors to the website
www.outreachsl. com. The three were reportedly released on 18 March after being held in TID detention without charge for a number of days.

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Please send appeals to arrive as quickly as possible:

-expressing concern that J. S. Tissainayagam is being arbitrarily detained by the Terrorist Investigation Division (TID) in Colombo, apparently to prevent him from peacefully exercising his right to freedom of expression through his journalistic work;

-calling on the authorities to ensure that J.S. Tissainayagam is not tortured or ill-treated, and that he is allowed immediate and unrestricted access to his family, a lawyer of his choice, an independent court and any specialist medical treatment he may require;

-calling on the authorities to release J. S. Tissainayagam immediately and unconditionally, unless he is to be charged with a recognizably criminal offense and remanded by an independent court.

APPEALS TO:

His Excellency the President Mahinda Rajapaksa
Presidential Secretariat
Colombo 1
SRI LANKA
Fax: 011 94 11 2446657
Salutation: Your Excellency

Hon. Amarasiri Dodangoda
Minister of Justice
Ministry of Justice and Law Reforms
Superior Courts Complex,
Colombo 12
SRI LANKA
Fax: 011 94 11 2445447
Salutation: Dear Minister

COPIES TO:

Ambassador Bernard A.B. Goonetilleke
Embassy of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka
2148 Wyoming Ave., NW
Washington DC 20008
Fax: 1 202 232 7181
Email: slembassy@slembassyusa.org

Press Statement by National Peace Council of Sri Lanka

The arrest and detention without charge of a senior journalist, Jayaprakash Tissainayagam for nearly a month is matter of grave concern that highlights the vulnerability of journalists to accusations of having links with the LTTE. The Supreme Court, which has granted him leave to proceed with a petition of fundamental rights violation, has declined an application for interim relief to release Mr Tissainayagam on any condition deemed fit after a confidential report was submitted to it by government lawyers.

In the meantime the Terrorist Investigation Department of the police has also obtained an order from a Magistrate’s Court to seal the printing press of which Mr Tissainayagam is a director. This action has been taken against them for allegedly aiding the LTTE and attempting to tarnish the good name of the government by publishing distorted and false propaganda.

The National Peace Council accepts that all persons need to follow the law and not engage in illegal activities. However, journalists are particularly vulnerable in situations of conflict to which the government is a party as they are duty bound to cover all sides of the conflict. A responsible journalist will be motivated to make contact with all conflicting parties to ascertain the all facts pertaining to the conflict.

The National Peace Council requests the government to press charges, if any, against Mr Tissainayagam without delay or release him on bail if at this time it is unable to gather the quantum of information required to press ahead with legal charges. We are deeply concerned as Mr Tissainayagam has been an activist and colleague of long standing and repute in the fields of human rights and peace and his prolonged detention serves as a warning of the perils of engaging in such work.

Executive Director
On behalf of the Governing Council

[Full Text of Press Statement]

Press Statement by National Peace Council of Sri Lanka

The ongoing military battles in the north are now threatening the security of one of the country’s most sacred religious sites, the Madhu shrine. For more than 400 years the shrine has served the spiritual needs of Sri Lankans from different communities and different parts of the country. For the past two decades the shrine area has also been host to tens of thousands of persons displaced from their homes due to conditions of war.

The Madhu shrine has become locally and internationally recognized as a safe haven and place of refuge to victims of war. The desire to have battles in its close vicinity or capture it cannot be justified by any military or political purpose. The Catholic Church has complained that shells falling within the church premises have compelled many displaced persons to flee while others still remaining are living in fear and forced to seek shelter in bunkers.

The Bishop of Mannar, Rayappu Joseph, has issued an appeal to the government and LTTE to respect the area as a zone of peace and ensure that the Madhu shrine remains solely under the Catholic Church in terms of the Madhu Church Reservation under the Pilgrimage Ordinance of 1982. The National Peace Council joins in this appeal and calls on both the government and LTTE to desist from using the Madhu shrine for their military or political purposes.

National Peace Council of Sri Lanka
12/14 Purana Vihara Road
Colombo 6

Secretariat for Coordinating the Peace Process (SCOPP)

At the session on ‘International Dimensions’ during the Seminar on Conflict in Sri Lanka: Road Ahead, held at the Bandaranaike Centre for Ethnic Studies, March 26th & 27th, the following question was asked, with regard to an issue receiving much publicity at the time-

Now some of the actions initiated by the Sri Lankan Government have backfired on the government, so as this is a relevant platform I would like to ask the panel about one of them. There was the eminent group of persons and one of the most renowned Indian scholars Justice Bhagwathi, but what has happened. They have resigned, with much publicity? Why? My reading is that we did it in all in good faith but why is it coming back to us? Perhaps that could be explained here, as there was so much faith in Justice Bhagwathi, so this is relevant to interaction between India and SL.

Prof Rajiva Wijesinha, Secretary General of the Peace Secretariat, responded as follows:

It is certainly a very relevant question. I don’t know if everyone is at all familiar with the IIGEP but essentially what happened is that there were a number of cases, such as a military action that it was alleged was an attack on civilians, and the government thought it best to set up a commission of inquiry. There were people who wanted an international commission of inquiry. But the government point was this was inappropriate. We had perfectly good people in Sri Lanka, and they appointed a panel of 8 commissioners and no one has ever impugned their integrity or questioned them, except I think today, we saw in the papers, someone from the government has said one of these commissioners should not be there for a particular reason. I should add that the man’s integrity is beyond question.

But because some parts of the the international community kept saying no, this is not enough, the government decided to set up a panel of eminent persons to observe the inquiry to make sure that nothing untoward happens. And for this purpose it asked what it considered concerned countries and people to nominate eminent persons, and some extremely eminent persons were nominated including Justice Bhagwathi.

The current French Foreign Minister, (who was then not Foreign Minister) was nominated. Professor Yokota of Japan and Mr Darusman who was the former Atorney General of Minister of Justice for Indonesia – but the problem was that they were so eminent that they couldn’t really come for all the hearings. In fact, when a lot of criticism occurred, the Minister for Disaster Management, whose initiative this was, had actually made a study of how often they attended these inquiries and it was very infrequently. Now, in what is obviously one of the most controversial cases, it seems there are only two of them there.

So what did they do? They set up assistants and those assistants became observers. But unfortunately most countries can’t afford assistants. Justice Bhagwathi cannot afford an assistant. Professor Yokota does not have one and Mr Darusmann does have an assistant because she was nominated by the IPU but his assistant – who has been deeply engaged and concerned – just cannot attend because she is actually a functionary of the IPU. So in actual fact there have been only 4 or 5 assistants. And (this makes me sound racist) but surprise, surprise they are all white! They all come from countries that have been for various reasons critical of us. This does not mean that they would necessarily be so but many of them from the outset started a confrontation and one of their big points was they did not want the Attorney General’s Department involved. But many of them did not realise that in Sri Lanka the Attorney General’s Department is not as it is, let us say, in Britain where the Attorney General is a member of the Cabinet. Or in Indonesia. Even in India where he is not a member of the Cabinet, it is an appointment, I believe, that a new government makes whereas here in Sri Lanka the present Attorney General was the No. 2 in this department in the last government. It is not that he belonged to either government, he was independent. In Sri Lanka the Attorney General’s position has never been politicized – except perhaps in the bad old days of the 80s but we won’t go into President Jayawardene now – except to say that that Attorney General, who faithfully represented a racist government, now represents the LTTE. And on the whole no one has ever questioned the integrity or the capacity of Attorney Generals. And the Attorney General’s Department was quite furious because they said this is inappropriate. But they also said, look, we don’t have to be here. If the Commission does not want us, we will go away. But the Commission said no, we need you, but to make the position clear, in certain instances like for instances in some controversial cases, we will go to the private bar. So it wasn’t that the Government said no, the AG’s Dept must do it. But this turned into a bone of contention.

The second thing they said was that Sri Lanka needs a Witness Protection Act. And when I was first asked to comment on the report, I said yes, certainly we do. We should expedite it.

When I said this, I was told by someone that it sounded as though I were critical of the government. Maybe I was, but I have no problem about being critical if criticism is required, and this was not with regard to policy, it was speed. The government’s policy was clear, The Presiident had said very clearly he wanted a Witness Protection Act, and though I know sometimes things move slowly, my point was that we could have been quicker about it. My belief is that if you should do something, do it the day you realize you have to. But unfortunately this does not happen, in Sri Lanka or anywhere in the world. As you know the Bloody Sunday inquiry in Britain is still going on. Inquiries take a long time. So I think the COI worked quite well and nobody impugned their integrity but the IIGEP assistants have got this confrontational attitude. I think the secret of what was going on emerged when the first report of the IIGEP was due. The government had asked for quarterly reports, and said show them to us, we will respond and try to have joint reports, if there is no consensus then both versions. The first report was given to the Commissioner who said we can’t respond immediately because one of us will be away, but the assistants said, “No, we need your responses at once, since we must present the report to the Human Rights Council meeting in Geneva.” And the Commissioners said, “But that is not part of the mandate”, this has nothing to do with the HRC, but the assistants obviously had a different idea.

So you understand what I mean? These assistants had assumed that their job was to produce a report every three months to coincide with the Human Rights Council in Geneva so that someone could get up and say ‘ Ah! How bad you are.’ So this was the June report. In September the report appeared without the responses of the Commission. I happened to be in Geneva at the time, and I asked the assistant to Mr Darusman, why the Commissioners’ response was ignored when it had been sent in time. And what she told me was that the Assistants claimed that they had never got the report. Why? Because the Commission sent it to the eminent persons, Justice Bhagwathi etc. These assistants did not bother to check with Justice Baghavathi whether he had got a response. They said, ‘No one sent it to our Secretariat’. I mean, the Government was not dealing with a Secretariat of assistants, it was dealing with eminent persons. So you see, I could see a little bit of bad faith in all this.

Then, when an assistant was suggested for Justice Bhagwathi, an assistant who is himself a very distinguished lawyer, it turned out that there was no money to pay him. I think some Europeans were asked and they said they had no money to pay him. But they had money to pay the salary of these young gentlemen of dubious virtue and distinction who have been hanging around Sri Lanka for the last year but they did not have money to pay an absolutely distinguished jurist who worked for the UN. And to me the proof of what I would call bad faith is that.

Of course, Europeans have every right to pay only for their own people, we have no right to ask them to pay for others, our poverty is not their fault, but at the same time we should recognize that he who pays the piper calls the tune, and because of their wealth, it is the perspectives of some of the countries which had eminent persons serving which dominated.

But let me give you another example of bad faith. I was very concerned about Witness Protection. Our legal director who has been involved in this was also very concerned and she set up, with the assistance of the New South Wales police a training program for two policemen, one commissioner, one member of the AG’s department, to have 3 weeks of training for this in Australia. Those who were trained were very grateful because the Australians it seems did a fantastic job. But do you know that one of these young gentleman wrote a letter to the Commission complaining about our Legal Director, saying that one of them had set up another program and this woman was interfering. What was his training program? Taking just one policeman from Sri Lanka to Australia. We had set up a program which included that component, and that senior policeman was also part of the group. So here you have a patronizing approach which was very destructive.

Now we have to accept that, all of us, though sometimes perhaps in Sri Lanka this does not happen, when our assistants do something wrong, we stand by them. So the IIGEP will not, cannot, repudiate the reports that are written for them, they cannot but stand by their assistants’ actions.

Anyway, all this was between September and December. In December what happens? At Geneva, when the Human Rights Council is going on, the Dutch Deputy Ambassador gets up and says ‘And I must tell this Council that the international eminent persons have resigned forthwith.’ Very strange. How did he know? We did not know? It turned out that he had been informed of a letter sent by them, in time for this HRC meeting. Fortunately we were able to check, and the letter was faxed to us, saying the resignation would only be in March. So these people decided in December that they were not going to renew their contract because nothing was happening – they have obviously not studied what happened in Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo or anything like that – and they send this letter so that a Dutchman can read it out at the HR Council. So you really begin to see that there is a political agenda attached, by these assistants who of course, as Ambassador Rodrigo described in another context, spend most of their time in the social world of Colombo which is a very pleasant world for those who like that sort of thing. So I think that is part of the problem.

Prof Rajiva Wijesinha

Secretary General
Secretariat for Coordinating the Peace Process

By Prof. Rajiva Wijesinha

The latest report from the Jaffna University Teachers for Human Rights claims to have pieced together the entire story of the killing of 17 ACF staff at Mutur. It now places responsibility for the killings on one Muslim home guard and two policemen, with the assertion that they must have been instructed by more senior policemen. The time of the killings is placed categorically in the afternoon of Friday August 4th, 2006.

UTHR has generally been one of the most hardworking and conscientious of organizations in its defense of human rights, and there is no doubt that it delivers this judgment in all sincerity. It has also taken some pains to explain why it was mistaken in earlier asserting that the killings took place on Saturday August 5th.

Whilst it is understandable that confusion may have occurred about the timing of various visits UTHR cites in its earlier reports, what is not referred to is its earlier categorical assertions that the ACF workers were in telephone contact with associates right up to Saturday morning. To quote some of an earlier report-

a) A professional in Trincomalee received a call from his younger brother among the Mutur ACF staff after he got home from work, about 5.30 PM on the 4th. He said that he had to leave the ACF office and go elsewhere with better reception to get a call through. The professional told his brother to stay in his office and not to court danger by moving around. The brother also said that they were fine, and ACF Trincomalee would be sending a vehicle on Saturday. This professional had spoken to his brother about thrice that day.

b) A relative in Trincomalee said that Ganesh, the ACF driver phoned him late in the evening around 8.00 PM. Ganesh was a native of Mutur who knew the area well. He also said that he went somewhere outside to get the call through, and hoped to be home the next day. Both Ganesh and his daughter Kavitha had cell phones, but there was no phone at home. Their contact with home was through this relative.

We have put these contacts down after repeated checks and are quite confident of their factuality. Even while the fighting was going on during earlier days, the ACF staff had been moving about Mutur distributing food items and water, including to the nearby mosque, and made calls from wherever they could find a signal. There was one contact on Saturday the 5th, which did not connect, and probably two.

c) Ganesh called his relative at 5.30 AM on Saturday morning. Before they could speak the call cut off. Seeing it was from Ganesh’s cell phone, the relative tried dialing Ganesh a few times but failed to connect.

d) A leading member of the community in Trincomalee attended the funerals of the ACF staff on 9th September. There he met Miss. R…a friend of Ganesh’s daughter Kavitha. Miss. R was crying saying something about having spoken to Kavitha. The community leader called her to a side and spoke to her. She said that Kavitha called her briefly around 6.00 in the morning of Saturday 5th and told her the Army had surrounded them and they did not know what would happen. Kavitha was a steady girl who helped in her brother’s shop in Trincomalee that made frames. She was not the type to panic.

The Peace Secretariat will not presume to claim that anyone can be certain that what UTHR claims now is not true. After all, it was because of UTHR’s dogged determination to look at all aspects, that alone of all Human Rights Organizations it drew attention to the culpability of ACF in having sent its workers to Mutur when others were withdrawing, and despite some of them begging for leave so that they should not be forced to go into a dangerous area. It is UTHR which raised the question of the beggarly compensation paid to these workers, and we must respect its commitment to the individuals who suffered and the bereaved.

Certainly they are right in asserting that the matter should be investigated thoroughly and there should be no cover up. We believe they are mistaken in some of their assertions, as with regard to the testimony of Dr Dodd, where they have tied themselves into knots over who used which gun which fired which bullet, but other points they raise should be taken into account in the ongoing investigation.

What should not be done is to assume that everything they say is necessarily gospel truth. We have cited examples of assertions they say were carefully checked, which now they assert are quite wrong. Their account must be seen as possibly part of the truth. It is those who pick what they want from the UTHR accounts to simply attack elements in the government who do no service either to UTHR, or to the victims or war, or to the innocent who are wrongly accused, such as the Special Forces and paramilitaries who were thought guilty by UTHR earlier.

Prof Rajiva Wijesinha
Secretary General
Secretariat for Coordinating the Peace Process

SCOPP Press Release
01 April 2008