|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
| Thursday, 25 November 2004 |
 |
|
 |
News | |
| News Business Features Editorial Security Politics World Letters Sports Obituaries
|
A communication under the first optional protocol to the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights was filed against Sri Lanka at the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, Geneva today. Forty villagers from Akmeemana have challenged the route alterations to the Southern Expressway. The communication alleged violations of the victims' human rights protected by Articles 26 (Equality before the law), 6 (Right to life) and 19 (2) (Freedom of Expression). The communication was filed with the assistance of the Public Interest Law Foundation (Sri Lanka) and the International Public Interest Defenders (Geneva). The Public Interest Law Foundation in a press release said the communication seeks, inter-alia to test whether the right to life enshrined in the ICCPR includes a right to a healthy environment. For this purpose, the communication relies on numerous South Asian and regional human rights decisions. The communication also alleges that the international lending institutions funding the project such as the Asian Development Bank (ADB) and the Japan Bank for International Cooperation (JBIC) have acted in consort with Sri Lankan State Agencies to violate the human rights of the villagers. The case arises out of the Colombo-Matara Expressway that will permanently and involuntarily displace over 1,000 persons. After an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) had been done for the expressway and approval granted for an identified route, the Road Development Authority altered the route in two places - namely Akmeemana and Gelanigama. The villagers in these two villages challenged the route alterations, arguing that the alterations required fresh approval after a supplementary EIA and public hearings. The case went all the way to the Sri Lankan Supreme Court, which held that the alterations were illegal and that fresh approval was required. However the court in a surprise decision decided that the illegality amounted to human rights violations of equality under the Sri Lankan Constitution and granted compensation to the victims. The victims are now arguing before the UNHRC that the Sri Lankan Supreme Court had no option but to enjoin the project when it found that the law had been violated and their human right to equality infringed. Since the victims are still on their lands and in possession of their homes, they argue that the Sri Lanka Supreme Court decided wrongly to give relief in compensation when it should have enjoined the route alterations. The victims in the communication have also asked for interim relief to stay the project until the UNHRC hears and disposes of the communication. The UNHRC will have to decide if the communication is admissible under the first optional protocol and will call upon the Sri Lankan government to respond to the various allegations. |
|
News | Business | Features
| Editorial | Security
Produced by Lake House |
