By Mary Fitzgerald | Irish Times
.............................................................................................................................................................................................
“Sri Lanka has been forgotten, despite the staggering violations of human rights, the war crimes and the crimes against humanity that took place there,” he said. “All this has been ignored.”
Mr Halliday was speaking following the second of two public meetings in Dublin at which he presented new evidence of alleged war crimes and human rights abuses in the south Asian state.
Video footage showing extra-judicial killings, the desecration of corpses and the bombing of hospitals was screened at last night’s event at Trinity College. Also in attendance was Mary Lawlor, director of human rights group Front Line.
Mr Halliday and Ms Lawlor served as members of the Permanent Peoples Tribunal on Sri Lanka which met in Dublin in January. The tribunal is a body of academics, jurists and campaigners who have investigated allegations of human rights violations in several countries including Vietnam and Guatemala.
The tribunal on Sri Lanka heard from more than 20 witnesses and received hundreds of written affidavits from people directly affected by the conflict.
It found the Sri Lankan government guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity. The tribunal also declared that the UK and the US shared responsibility for the breakdown of the 2002 peace process between the Sri Lankan government and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE).
The two meetings were organised by the Irish School of Ecumenics at Trinity College and the School of Law and Governance at Dublin City University along with the Irish Forum for Peace in Sri Lanka.
Sri Lanka’s parliament yesterday revoked the seat of Gen Sarath Fonseka, who led the army against the Tamil Tigers but was later jailed after being found guilty of misappropriating funds.
© Irish Times
Friday, October 08, 2010
Inquiry urged into Sri Lankan rights violations
Friday, October 08, 2010
Sri Lanka Army stops volunteer teachers’ demonstration in Ki’linochchi
Tamil Net
.............................................................................................................................................................................................
Sri Lanka government which had been appointing the volunteer teachers in all parts of the country permanent in a systematic procedure had completely ignored the volunteer teachers in Vanni saying that Vanni was not in their control.
The protesting volunteer teachers said in their appeal that they should be given permanent appointments or be appointed as Assistant Teachers with salary.
© Tamil Net
Friday, October 08, 2010
Buddhist monks seek release of jailed ex-army chief in Sri Lanka
Deutsche Presse-Agentur | Earth Times
.............................................................................................................................................................................................
An estimated 1,000 monks plus members of the public held a prayers in Kandy, 117 kilometres from the capital, and offered flowers at a Buddhist temple for the release of Sarath Fonseka.
"We are holding a pooja (ceremonial offering) so that the former army chief who saved the country from terrorism is released from custody," Ven Maduluwawe Sobitha, who led the meeting, said.
Fonseka was jailed for 30 months after he was found guilty by a court martial of favouring his son-in-law in military tenders. He was also found guilty in August by another court martial of engaging in politics while serving in the army and was dishonourably discharged.
Fonseka fell out with President Mahinda Rajapaksa after the defeat of the Tamil rebels in 2009. He ran against Rajapaksa in the presidential elections in January but lost. He was elected to parliament in April.
The parliament informed the courts on Thursday that Fonseka had lost his parliamentary seat following his conviction.
"We have been informed that in view of the conviction Mr Fonseka has been unseated and therefore the next member eligible should be appointed," a spokesman for the Commissioner of Elections Department said.
Fonseka's party, the Democratic National Alliance, said it would challenge the decision to expel him from parliament in the courts.
The ex-army chief faces three more cases in the civilian courts.
© DPA
Friday, October 08, 2010
Sri Lanka's jailed ex-army boss loses parliament seat
By Ranga Sirilal | Reuters
.............................................................................................................................................................................................
Fonseka last week was sentenced to 30 months' hard labour by a second court-martial, after a first ruled he be stripped of his rank and pension for conducting politics in uniform.
It marks yet another low moment for the career soldier, who was glorified alongside the president after leading the army to victory over the Tamil Tiger separatists, ending 25 years of civil war, in May 2009.
Fonseka later fell out with Rajapaksa, blaming the president for falsely accusing him of plotting a coup, and he soon quit the army to run against his former commander-in-chief.
"Parliamentarian Sarath Fonseka's seat fell vacant under... the constitution and we requested the elections commissioner to fill the vacancy," Dhammika Dassanayake, parliament's acting-secretary general, told reporters.
Fonseka's party, the Democratic National Alliance (DNA), vowed to challenge the move, arguing that the constitutional provision for removing a member of parliament convicted of a civilian criminal offence does not apply to a military verdict.
"We will take legal action against this," said Vijiith Herath, a legislator and DNA spokesman.
The general still faces two civilian criminal cases.
Fonseka won his parliamentary seat after losing to the veteran politician Rajapaksa in the January presidential poll.
© Reuters
Friday, October 08, 2010
18th Amendment: Making a mockery of democracy in Sri Lanka
By Gulbin Sultana | The Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses
.............................................................................................................................................................................................
1. The President can seek re-election any number of times;
2. The ten-member Constitutional Council has been replaced with a five-member Parliamentary Council;
3. Independent commissions are brought under the authority of the President; and,
4. It enables the President to attend Parliament once in three months and entitles him to all the privileges, immunities and powers of a Member of Parliament other than the entitlement to vote. In short, it is all about arming the President with absolute power.
It was hoped that after winning the secessionist war with the Tamil militants, which troubled the island nation for 26 years, the government would accord top priority to finding a political solution to the ethnic issue. But the government had other things in mind. The Cabinet of Ministers chose to certify the proposed 18th Amendment Bill as urgent and approved it on August 30, 2010. The Supreme Court, to which the bill was referred as per the constitutional requirement, came out with its views on September 7, that the amendment was consistent with the provisions of the Constitution and did not require a referendum. The bill was then debated and enacted by Parliament the following day (September 8). The bill was thus put on fast track and enacted within 10 days without offering the Sri Lankan public any chance to air their views.
Provinces were totally sidelined during the process. According to the Standing Order 46 (A) the Provincial Councils should have been consulted on any Bill that provided for matters affecting their affairs.2 Provincial Police and Public Service Commission, which has been made defunct under the 18th amendment, did affect the provinces and thus, ideally, the bill should have received the approval from the Provincial Councils.
The government argued that the amendment was essential to strengthen and enlarge the democratic and sovereign rights of the people. In reality, however, the amendment has concentrated all powers in one individual – the president. It has removed the restrictions on two terms for an elected President, who now also has the power to call for a Presidential election after four years of his second term. Earlier, under Article 17A, the President was obliged to obtain the recommendation of the Constitutional Council for appointments to the independent commissions. According to Minister of Finance Basil Rajapaksa, such a council was “riddled with flaws, which led to a gridlock”3 and affected the appointment of members to the independent commissions. Therefore, the 18th Amendment was needed to replace the Constitutional Council with a Parliamentary Council, which now consists of the Prime Minister, the Speaker, Leader of the Opposition Party and two Members of Parliament to be nominated by the Prime Minister and Leader of the Opposition. In case they fail to name their respective nominees within the stipulated time of one week after the amendment became effective, the Speaker has the power to appoint the two members to the Parliamentary Council.
Under the present Amendment, the President has the power to appoint the Chairman and members of the Election Commission, Public Service Commission, National Police Commission, Human Rights Commission, Permanent Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery and Corruption, Finance Commission, Delimitation Commission, Chief Justice and Judges of the Supreme Court, the President and Judges of the Court of Appeal, Members of the Judicial Service Commission, Attorney General, Auditor General, Ombudsman and Secretary General of Parliament.
The President shall seek the observation of the Parliament Council while making the appointments, who in turn have to convey their observations within a week of such communication. Failing that, the President can go ahead with the appointments. He/she is not bound by the observations of the council. He/she also has the power to remove members of the Independent Commissions. Moreover, he/she can remove the two nominated members appointed by the Prime Minister and the leader of the Opposition from the Council. Already, Mahinda Rajapaksa’s relatives are holding all the important positions in Sri Lanka.4 Analysts in Sri Lanka believe that this appointment may ensure that more relatives will be given plum appointments in the independent commissions and the judiciary.
It is interesting to note that during the election campaign Rajapaksa talked about the abolition of the Executive Presidency, but soon after his win he has made the post stronger than ever. Actually, he has realised that the time is opportune for him to acquire greater powers through necessary revisions in the constitution. His popularity, following the success in the Eelam War IV, is at its zenith. His party dominates the parliament. The major opposition party, the UNP, is going through an internal crisis. With all his relatives in major positions, he can easily sideline the opposition. It seems he is in a desperate hurry to grab this opportunity to install himself as the permanent ruler of Sri Lanka. That is why the bill was projected as a bill of “national urgency” though he has had more urgent national issues to solve.
Beyond doubt, the amendment has made the president all powerful without any sound mechanism of checks and balances, which is absolutely necessary for a responsive democracy. The 17th Amendment had, to some extent, provided for limited checks and balances, but it was never implemented. The 18th amendment has removed them completely. It gives the President full control over the executive, legislature and judiciary. It is the first amendment to the current constitution under Rajapaksa since November 2005. The easy passage of the bill must have given him the confidence to initiate other such amendments. He is now reportedly planning to amend the Local Government Elections Ordinance, Municipal Councils Ordinance, Urban Council Ordinance and the Pradeshiya Sabha Act.
In short, Sri Lanka seems to be headed towards nepotism and dictatorship which will certainly have disastrous consequences. And such a change seems inexorable. So far, except for the US, no external power has reacted to the amendment. The Rajapaksa government has rebuffed US remarks and declared that this is an internal Sri Lankan affair. If Sri Lanka under Rajapaksa could carry on its war against the LTTE in spite of international concerns about human rights violations, it is unlikely that it would pay any heed to such reactions from the outside after its victory.
The Sri Lankan opposition, led by the United National Party (UNP), which could have done something, has allowed itself to be turned into a helpless spectator. It did oppose the bill and conduct protest demonstration outside the parliament. But it failed to engage in detailed discussions about the bill and boycotted the debate on the bill in the parliament. This irresponsible act drew sharp criticism in some sections in Sri Lanka who have charged the UNP of indirectly supporting the Government.5 However, given the triumphant mood of the Rajapaksas, any opposition is unlikely to have had any impact.
For example, the Tamil National Alliance (TNA), Democratic National Alliance (DNA) and Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP) participated in the debate and vehemently criticised the bill. It was a fact that they did not have enough numbers with them. Moreover, six UNP dissidents and eight SLMC members voted with the government. Had these 14 MPs cooperated with the UNP, TNA, DNA and JVP, the 18th amendment could have been defeated in the parliament. The Civil Rights Movement, the Organisation of Professional associations and the Bar Association of Sri Lanka opposed the bill. TNA MP M.A. Sumanitharan commented that the 18th Amendment is the final nail in the coffin of democracy in Sri Lanka.6
In this context, a Sri Lankan observer rightly avers that there are two potential pathways ahead for post-war Sri Lanka. One is the path of “pacifism, resolute adherence to democracy-cum-rule of law, and industriousness of the kind pursued by Germany and Japan which made them economic powerhouses in the world within a short span;” and the other is the path of post-Khmer Rouge Cambodia which is “dogged by democratic deficit, corruption, nepotism and low-intensity authoritarianism, and thereby continues to be one of the poorest countries in the world.”7 Mahinda Rajapaksa seems to be following Cambodia’s example.
.............................................................................................................................................................................................
1. By the 18th Amendment Act, Articles 31, 32, 54, 55, 71F, 65, 91, 103, 104B, 107, 109, 111D, 111E, 153, 154, 154R, 155A, 155G, 155K, 156 of the Constitution were amended and Chapter VIIA (Art. 41A to 41H), 155H, 155J, 155L, 155M were repealed. Three new articles 41A, 155FF and 155FFF were inserted. For more details see the Full Text of (Proposed) “An Act to Amend the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka,” L.D.O 19/2010 at http://www.thesundayleader.lk/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/Proposed-18th-A....
2. Daily Mirror, September 8, 2010, at http://www.dailymirror.lk/print/index.php/news/front-page-news/20891-pcs-have-to-ratify-18th-amendment-sumanthiran-.html.
3. Daily Mirror, September 9, 2010, at http://www.dailymirror.lk/print/index.php/news/front-page-news/20995-161-in-favour-and-17-against-.html.
4. See the “Family Tree” of Mahinda Rajapaksa in Post War Sri Lanka: Democratic Rights Under Pressure, Report Prepared by Sanchal Foundation in Collaboration with South Asia Forum for Human Rights, September 2010.
5. “United National Party (UNP) dissidents Lakshman Seneviratne and Earl Gunasekara said the absence of the United National Party (UNP) amounted to indirectly supporting the government to enact this legislation,” Daily Mirror, September 9, 2010, at http://www.dailymirror.lk/print/index.php/news/front-page-news/20995-161-in-favour-and-17-against-.html.
6. See M.A. Sumanitharan’s Speech during Parliamentary Debate on 18th Amendment Bill on September 8, 2010, Hansard: 193, at http://www.groundviews.org/2010/09/20/hansard-on-18th-amendment-debate-8-september-2010/.
7. Muttukrishna Sarvananthan (2010), “Economic Freedom: The Path to Economic Cum Political Emancipation of the Conflict Region in Sri Lanka” in Raghavan, V R (ed.), From Winning the War to Winning Peace: Post War Rebuilding of the Society in Sri Lanka, Chennai: Centre for Security Analysis: 26-27.
© IDSA
Thursday, October 07, 2010
ICJ report accuses Sri Lankan government of violating human rights
By Sampath Perera | World Socialist Web Site
.............................................................................................................................................................................................
In the wake of the LTTE’s military defeat in May 2009, the Sri Lankan military herded the entire population of LTTE-controlled areas—more than a quarter of million men, women and children—into so-called welfare villages. Inside these mass detention camps, young people were questioned by military intelligence and special units of the Terrorist Investigation Division (TID) and Criminal Investigation Division (CID).
Those accused of being “LTTE suspects,” along with others who surrendered directly to the military, were taken off to secret prisons for further interrogation and “rehabilitation”. Thousands have now been held for more than a year without charge or trial under the country’s draconian emergency regulations and Prevention of Terrorism Act. Such detention centres have been notorious for the use of torture to forcibly obtain confessions.
The ICJ report, entitled “Beyond Lawful Constraints: Sri Lanka’s Mass Detention of LTTE Suspects,” is cautiously written and is aimed at putting pressure on the Sri Lankan government to take “corrective measures”. Nevertheless, it makes clear that the systematic abuse of the basic democratic rights of “surrendees” and “rehabilitees” is a fundamental breach of international law.
According to the report, the arrests of LTTE suspects continued until at least December last year. It points out that even the number of detainees is not known with certainty, and highlights obvious inconsistencies. Last November, Sri Lanka’s Commissioner General for Rehabilitation (CGR) stated that 10,992 people had “surrendered” and stated at a later press conference that the number was 10,732. In February, the former CGR said that 12,000 had been detained. None of the figures tally.
The ICJ estimates that 12,000 people have been arrested. Of those, 1,300 have been categorised as “hard-core LTTE” and face criminal prosecution. At least 8,000 others are being held for “rehabilitation” in at least a dozen camps. About 3,000 have been released over the past year.
The report states that the exact condition of the detainees is unknown and it could not verify whether they have been subjected to torture. Even the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) has been denied access to some detention camps. The ICJ was refused permission to visit any of the prisons. On the basis of the little information available, the report states that conditions are “cramped and unhygienic” and only limited medical facilities are provided.
The ICJ challenges the government’s claim that the detainees surrendered to government forces, and questions the voluntary nature of surrenders that did take place. The report cites a UN report that many parents encouraged their children to “surrender,” even if their links to the LTTE were minimal, in order to avoid later repression. As the ICJ notes, given the LTTE’s “policy of conscription and forced labour”, many civilians had some sort of link with the organisation inside its territory.
The blanket detention without trial of thousands of people is sanctified by the continuing state of emergency and the use of the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA). After winning office in late 2005, President Mahinda Rajapakse continued the state of emergency and strengthened its regulations after renewing the war against the LTTE in mid-2006. More than a year after the end of the war, the emergency remains in force.
Emergency regulations allow the security forces to detain a person whom they “believe may commit offences,” for up to one year as a preventive measure. The report explains the draconian nature of the measures: “While magistrates are to be informed of such detentions, the regulation excludes judicial review, declares all such detentions lawful, and denies the magistrate power of bail without consent by the Attorney General.”
The only change to the emergency regulations, made in May this year, is that the period of detention was reduced to three months. The report declares that the detention of about 8,000 people under these emergency regulations could be the “largest mass administrative detention anywhere in the world”.
Even outside the state of emergency, the PTA allows the government to detain a person for up to 18 months without charge. The military and police have the power to arrest people merely on suspicion of a “connection” to “unlawful activity”. The ICJ says this law leads to the arrest of people “no matter how attenuated or remote from the activity and irrespective of the detainee’s intent to participate in or even have knowledge of the occurrence of the activity”.
The report reveals that the army “promised that, once registered, those who ‘surrendered’ would be released, but surrender instead triggered continuing indefinite detention without charge or trial.” It is unclear whether all detainees signed a written surrender statement. Even the detainees who did sign could not have understood the content as the statements were in Sinhala. The detainees are Tamil speaking and the majority cannot read Sinhala.
The report observes that arbitrary arrests “have become the norm and have led to widespread abuses and undermined the normal criminal justice system.” It states that the “emergency regulations and counter-terrorism legislation… fall short of international law” and leave detainees in a “legal black hole”.
The ICJ argues that international human rights law is the “applicable legal regime” for Sri Lanka and that the government is violating human rights. The government had ignored the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and its Optional Protocol, which it had ratified.
Citing the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, the report states that “imprisonment or severe deprivation of physical liberty in violation of fundamental rules of international law” amounts to a “crime against humanity” when committed “as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population”.
The ICJ report provides an authoritative account of one aspect of the Sri Lankan government’s systematic abuse of basic democratic rights. It highlights the sham character of the so-called Commission on Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation set up by Rajapakse to justify his government’s conduct of the war, cover up its responsibility for war crimes and deflect continuing international criticism.
The government has dismissed the ICJ report out of hand. Deputy economic development minister Lakshman Yapa Abeywardena told the BBC that LTTE suspects could not be treated like ordinary criminals. “The detainees are providing us with information about others who are still at large. The authorities need to keep them for longer to extract more information about the rebel activities and people involved,” he said.
This “explanation” not only contradicts official propaganda that LTTE suspects are being “rehabilitated” but demonstrates that the Rajapakse government will continue its regime of interrogation and torture indefinitely. Under the pretext of waging a “war on terror”, the security forces are establishing what amounts to a permanent military occupation in former LTTE-held areas. The system of arbitrary detention in secret prisons is a necessary adjunct.
© WSWS
Thursday, October 07, 2010
Sri Lanka: Power first
By B. Muralidhar Reddy | Frontline
.............................................................................................................................................................................................
Thanks to the substantial majority the ruling combine obtained in the April parliamentary election – it secured six seats short of a two-thirds majority – and divisions in the ranks of the dispirited Opposition, the passage of the 18th Amendment was no extraordinary feat. It will make President Rajapaksa vulnerable to the charge of consolidating his own power ahead of working for the much-needed reconciliation in post-LTTE Sri Lanka.
The executive presidency in Sri Lanka is considered to be one of the most powerful institutions in the world. “Barring conversion of a man into a woman and vice versa, I can do anything under the 1978 Constitution,” former President J.R. Jayewardene, the author of the 1978 Constitution, had said. Contrary to the arguments of Rajapaksa's political managers, the 18th Amendment will further strengthen the all-too-powerful President.
One of the key changes made through the 18th Amendment is the removal of the bar on a person who has been President twice to contest for the presidency again. The amendment repeals the existing provision in the Constitution, which states: “No person, who has been twice elected to the office of President by the People, shall be qualified thereafter to be elected to such office by the People.” In other words, Rajapaksa is now eligible to contest the 2016 presidential election. True, it also throws open the field to former President Chandrika Kumaratunga, but the advantages of being the incumbent President are immense. No sitting President who ran for a second term has ever lost in the island nation.
Another important feature of the amendment is the replacement of the Constitutional Council (under the 17th Amendment) with a Parliamentary Council to advise on appointments to key judicial, quasi-judicial and executive posts in the country. The President will head the Parliamentary Council comprising the Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition, a nominee of the Prime Minister (from Parliament) and a nominee of the Leader of the Opposition (from Parliament). The President will seek only the “observations” of this Council in appointing officials listed under the following schedules:
Schedule 1: The Election Commission, the Public Service Commission, the National Police Commission, the Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka, the Permanent Commission to Investigate Bribery and Corruption, the Finance Commission, and the Delimitation Commission.
Schedule 2: The Chief Justice and the Judges of the Supreme Court, the President and the Judges of the Court of Appeal, and the Members of the Judicial Service Commission other than the Chairman.
Schedule 3: The Attorney-General, the Auditor-General, the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration (ombudsman) and the Secretary-General of Parliament.
Existing provisions in the Constitution had debarred the President from making these appointments. The 17th Amendment to the Constitution had vested the power in the Constitutional Council comprising the Prime Minister, the Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition, five persons appointed by the President (on nominations from the Premier and the Leader of the Opposition) and one person nominated upon agreement by the majority of Members of Parliament (excluding the parties the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition belong to). The rationale behind this provision was to ensure that the bodies functioned independently and their heads were selected through a consultative process.
Under the 18th Amendment, the Cabinet will provide for and determine all matters of policy relating to public officers, including policy relating to their appointment, promotion, transfer, disciplinary control and dismissal. In addition, it will also be responsible for the appointment, promotion, transfer, disciplinary control and dismissal of heads of departments.
The amendment vests enormous powers on the President with only one obligation – that he/she attend Parliament once in every three months. The President will be entitled to all the privileges, immunities and powers of an MP except the entitlement to vote. He/she will not be liable for breach of privilege of Parliament. The President will also have the right to address and send messages to Parliament.
The changes were contrary to the promise Rajapaksa had made in the run-up to the 2005 and 2010 presidential elections. In 2005, he had promised to replace the executive presidency with executive prime ministership. His election manifesto in 2005 specifically said, “I expect to present a Constitution that will propose the abolition of the Executive Presidency and to provide solutions to other issues facing the country.… The new Constitution that would be so drafted would be submitted to the People at a referendum.”
His election manifesto for 2010 again stated, “An open discussion on the Executive Presidency will be held with all parties. The Executive Presidency will be transferred into a Trusteeship….”
In the first round of talks with the United National Party (UNP), the main Opposition party, weeks before the 18th Amendment was introduced, Rajapaksa reiterated his resolve to switch over to executive prime ministership.
The unseemly haste of the President to get Parliament to remove the two-term bar can be gauged from the fact that the next presidential election is due in November 2016. Rajapaksa, who got re-elected in January this year after defeating the Opposition combine's candidate and former Army chief Sarath Fonseka, will begin his second innings in office only in November as per the determination made by the Supreme Court of the island nation.
Rajapaksa had advanced the presidential election by two years, as permitted by the Constitution, to cash in on his popularity as the head of state who led the defence forces in the triumphant war against the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE).
It is against this backdrop that serious concerns have been raised about the manner in which Rajapaksa used the strong majority he and his combine got in the January presidential and the April general elections to strengthen his grip on power. The expectation that he would use the historic opportunity arising out of the military defeat of the LTTE to forge a consensus for the much-needed ethnic solution has been dashed to the ground.
The Centre for Policy Alternatives (CPA), an independent non-governmental organisation based in Colombo, noted:
“Given the depth and extent of the changes contemplated in the Eighteenth Amendment Bill, therefore, we find the process adopted for its enactment wholly inappropriate. Once again the procedure for urgent Bills has been engaged, and the conclusion is inescapable that this is to foreclose, or at least attenuate, legitimate public discussion, critique and debate of the substance of the proposed changes.
“It might be added that a similar singularity of purpose has nowhere been in evidence with regard to a new post-war constitutional settlement addressing the challenges of unity, diversity and ethnic reconciliation, which is essential to ensuring peace and the future stability of post-war Sri Lanka.”
© Frontline
Thursday, October 07, 2010
Sri Lanka has most number of political prisoners
By Lakna Paranamanna | Daily Mirror
.............................................................................................................................................................................................
“Thousands of Tamil youths who are held in detention for allegedly being LTTE members are not held under a warrant nor any law. Neither have they been produced before a magistrate.
These individuals are political prisoners and Sarath Fonseka is the most well known political prisoner of all,” said Prof. David speaking at a media briefing held at the Hotel Nippon in Colombo yesterday.
© Daily Mirror
Thursday, October 07, 2010
Sri Lankan Army opens ‘luxury’ resort in occupied Tamil land
Tamil Net
.............................................................................................................................................................................................
The ‘holiday resort’ having 9 luxury rooms and 22 semi-luxury rooms was declared open for the public to experience comfort at ‘very reasonable rates’ says the army website.
The army gets money to build tourist resorts in occupied land while the Tamils victimised by them in the war are in internment camps or in shanties.
Donors give money to Colombo to build military cantonments in the occupied land. In fact many of them compete in giving money to Colombo. But when it comes to rehabilitating Tamils they want the diaspora to do it, that too through Colombo.
© Tamil Net
Thursday, October 07, 2010
Sri Lanka trying to suppress anti-corruption work: rights body
Lanka Business Online
.............................................................................................................................................................................................
Hong Kong based Asian Human Rights Commission said TISL had been summoned before the island's Financial Investigation Unit in what it called "the abuse of the criminal justice process to suppress discussions relating to corruption."
TISL has been informed by the investigation unit is probing a complaint on suspicions transactions of Transparency International Sri Lanka under criminal law.
"The FIU inquiry started after TISL commenced monitoring the abuse of state resources," said the Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC), a regional non-governmental organisation monitoring and lobbying human rights issues in Asia.
"According to information available, the investigation was later dropped. TISL issued their final report of the investigations last week. The notice of FIU to TISL to appear before it was issued after that."
The Asian Human Rights Commission has earlier warned that the criminal justice process will be used against all critics of the government.
"The trials against (former army chief and opposition presidential candidate) Sarath Fonseka and (journalist) J Tissasanayagam are test trials in this direction," the statement said.
"Thousands of such cases have been made under anti-terrorism laws in the past. Like in the case of forced disappearances most of the victims of such arrests and detentions were innocent persons."
The Asian Human Rights Commission said the use of courts for political control is a common method used in Burma and Cambodia for silencing political opponents and civil society critics.
"In particular all attempts to discuss problems of corruption are targets of such 'criminal investigations'," it said.
"While the justice process is abused to punish opponents, the government propaganda machinery tries to make it appear that such decisions are taken through the courts and should therefore be respected," the statement said.
"In this way any person may be imprisoned through fabricated charges and by the abuse of criminal justice process."
The AHRC has highlighted a series of cases where Sri Lankan citizens have died in police custody or have made allegations of torture.
© Lanka Business Online
This site is best viewed with firefox
Visit the JDS New Website
Read the urgent alerts - act now!
Sri Lanka's Killing Fields
No Impunity for Enforced Disappearances
UN REPORT ON SRI LANKA
where is prageeth?
Amnesty: Failures of Sri Lanka's LLRC
Permanent Peopls's Tribunal on Sri Lanka - Final Report
Sivaram: A walk down memory lane
Remembering Lasantha
Subscribe to JDS newsfeeds
UN EXPERTS conclusion backs the JDS video
SL Execution Video : The truth comes out
A legacy unforgotten
Post-war justice in sri lanka : International Commission of Jurists
Evidence of Police Brutality in Sri Lanka
A Study of Police Torture in Sri Lanka
