HRCSL writes to ICC:

Biased conclusions irk HR Commission

“It is respectfully submitted that the downgrading of The Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka (HRCSL) is most unreasonable and done without an impartial inquiry and is thoroughly biased and the conclusion is based on the expartes, false and exaggerated reports of the NGOs,” stated a letter to the Chairman, International Co-ordinating Committee, by the HRCSL. The full text of the letter by the HRCSL to the ICC Sub Committee stated:

The ICC Sub Committee had proposed that Sri Lanka be downgraded from Status A to B, due to three reasons.

i. Legality and Constitutionality of appointment of present Commissioners

ii. Not inquiring into 2000 cases of disappearances from 1980-2000 (This was inquired into and a report was submitted on 15.10.2007)

iii. Non-issue of annual reports. These reports have been published upto end 2005 and issued to required parties. But not presented to Parliament due to certain procedural problem of printing the Sinhala and Tamil versions amounting to 350 copies in each language.

A report was called on these grounds before 30th November 2007 and the Commission readily responded. It is almost like a charge sheet made without even a preliminary inquiry.

They called for responses only after arriving at a decision of downgrading which is contrary to the principle of Audi Alteram Partem. It is an ex-parte and pre-judged decision against all cannons of fair and impartial inquiry.

The relevant rules under which recommendations and explanation were sought were not provided and they appear to be working on some unwritten and unapproved regulations. Still they are in the process of revising the accreditation procedure.

The Commission is unaware of the rules and regulations which are known only to the members of the ICC Sub Committee.

The ICC Sub Committee now we understand has recommended that the Commission be downgraded to Grade B. But earlier we were informed that the ICC meeting will be held in March or April 2008 to decide on this matter.

The recommendation is not valid for the following reasons:

The ICC is the foremost representative body of NHRIs established for the purpose of providing a collective body and voice for NHRIs and strengthening their capacity promoting regional co-operation and to work collectively.

The ICC Sub Committee is not legally Constituted but formed to monitor human rights activities and it is not a disciplinary authority and therefore they cannot arrive at this conclusion. For this purpose presumably they have obtained shadow reports from the NGOs, INGOs etc.

We have noted that such a report had been made in October 2007 by 31 NGOs, out of which only 5 NGOs are registered with Director of Non Government Organisations which are permitted to operate in Sri Lanka.

We also understand that these NGOs are not registered with the Director, NGOs and is illegal to operate in Sri Lanka. Hence their representations cannot be accepted or acted upon.

They have equalised civil society within NGO’s and INGO’s which is not correct. Civil Society means citizens of this country. NGO’s and INGO’s which are funded by foreign organisations are biased.

This Commission is independent not only of the Government but also from NGO’s and INGO’s and other interested national and international pressure groups.

The ICC Sub Committee is trying to intimidate us an obtain reports on the threat of downgrading to prevent donor aid and this Commission will not barter its independence.

The NGOs think by preventing aid to the Commission, they could thrive on it by obtaining more funds for their activities. They are no better than political parties. They want to influence the HRCSL and not to co-operate with it.

The recommendations of ICC is based on hearsay evidence. They had made the recommendations without any consideration of the representations made by the HRCSL. They have not considered the positive contribution made by the HRCSL.

The aid received for the years 2006 and 2007 are as follows. In 2006, Rs. 24.5 m approximately and in 2007 18 m approximately. If the Government Treasury could give us another 25 m approximately this work could be undertaken quite satisfactorily instead of awaiting receipt of funds from Donor Agencies on reimbursement basis.

Repeated requests for revision of cadre and additional funds have not been considered by the Treasury as the role of HRC has not been properly apprehended.

The MGO’s make unreasonable requests such as to appoint co-ordinators to Regional Offices.

There is no provision under the Act of delegate powers to outsiders other than Commission employees - The Commission will not act illegally to subvert the independence of the Commission.

To open a detention house for surrendees. The question of security arises. The Army is prepared to look after outer security and inner security by prison staff. The detention house will have to be gazetted as a detention centre.

There are legal implications. If any thing happens like Bindunuwewa, they will blame the Commission.

To be continued

To: International Co-ordinating committee of National Institutions for the promotional and protection of Human Rights

Sub-Committee on accreditation

Review of HRCSL

Reference the note by 33 NGOs to you dated 24.10.2007, which was brought to our notice recently, we wish to state that Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka came into operation by HRCSL Act. No.21 of 1996 but the 17th Amendment to the Constitution of the Republic of Sri Lanka brought in the Constitutional Council in 2002.

Before 2002 the Human Rights Commission members were appointed in terms of section 3 of the HRC Act No. 21 of 1996 and there was no allegation that it was not in conformity with the Paris Principle.

After 2002 the Constitutional Council was in operation and appointments were made in accordance with the Constitution.

In 2006 no Constitutional Council was constituted and therefore in effect section 3 of the HRC Act No. 21 of 1996 is in operation for such appointments. We see no deviation from the Paris Principle.

There is an allegation that “none of the Members appointed by the President had a human rights background and the criteria for selection are not known. Persons of integrity with human rights experience declined to be appointed, including some former Commissioners of HRC”.

We cannot see in what way the former Commissioners had better human rights background. This allegation is baseless and unfounded.

“Persons of integrity with human rights background declined to be appointed including some former commissioners”, some of whom have confessed that they overlooked Section 3 of HRC Act No. 1996 with their “excellent human rights background”.

Reference is made to “the specific acts of HRC, one in 2006 and the other in 2007”. The investigation into about 2000 enforced disappearances was not proceeded with as they happened during the period 1980 - 1999 before the previous Commission and before HRC was constituted.

Hence the previous Commission wanted special mandate from the President as the present mandate did not cover that period. Where were those people then who now cry for inquiry into these 2000 cases when it was not done by the former Commissions and why put the blame on the present Commission.

As to the time limit imposed by our Circular No. 7 of 20.06.2007, it is common knowledge that there is no time limit prescribed by the Act 21 of 1996 and the former Commission limited it to 1 year but the present Commission limited it to 3 months as evidence was not forthcoming for such belated inquiries.

However the present Commission had mentioned that it would consider complaints even beyond 1 year period if they merit investigation and no complaints older than 3 months had so far been rejected.

In fact many complains have been admitted even beyond 2 years for inquiry. This was explained to many NGOs who contacted us for clarification. Why was there no cry when 1 year limit was imposed.

The agenda appears to make HRCSL scape-goat for their desire to bring a UN monitor here under UNHCHR. What follows if the present Human Rights Commission is dissolved and no Human Rights Commission is appointed. Probably that gives more excuses for a UN monitor. Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka.

To: International Co-ordinating Committee of National Institutions for the promotional and protection of Human Rights

Sri Lanka National Human Rights Commissions Downgraded for failure in Human Rights responsibilities.

Ref: TIC statement of 18.12.2007

It is a matter for regret to note that the Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka is downgraded from A (voting member) to B (observer status) without knowing what the Commission has done and is doing, and relying on the report of some NGOs operating the country.

First of all the ICC sub-committee did not observe protocol and addressed the letter to one of the Commissioners. This alone indicates how ignorant they are about the HRCSL.

Secondly many representatives of international human rights institutions or organisation who called on us did not spend much time (mostly they talked for about 30 minutes) to know the working of the Commission but their replies do not touch on many topics they discussed with us but focused on matters not addressed to us. To be continued