Focus on Rights

International rights and domestic accountability
Thursday, 29th October, 1.30 pm. Palais de Nations, Geneva - Meeting the members of the United Nations Human Rights Committee in an informal briefing session, a day prior to consideration of Sri Lanka's Fourth Periodic Report, is an exhilaratingly forcible reminder of one of the greater achievements of the United Nations. International monitoring of a country's domestic human rights situation in this manner, would have been unheard of, not so many decades ago.

Now, it is commonplace, brought into being by international treaties that bind countries to certain domestic obligations that need to be reflected on the international level. And while nationalists may well look askance at outsiders critiquing internal situations, it is a hard truth that this is - perhaps - the last bulwark against internal stubborness to accountability.

One may wish that the monitoring mechanisms of the UN would work a little bit more harshly, particularly when it comes to self-aggrandizing policies of countries such as the United States. However, in the absence of a better alternative, this system projects a certain measure of unifying sanity in a world that is, for the most part, quietly going mad in its extreme xenophobia and intolerance.

It is for this reason, that the monitoring mechanisms put into place under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), become important. The ICCPR enshrines 27 substantive articles that set down common standards with regard to, most importantly, the right to life, the prohibition against torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment and the right to liberty and security of persons.
Under Article 2, every State that accedes to the Covenant is obliged to implement legislative, judicial and administrative measures to give effect to the Covenant rights. It is on this primary basis that the Human Rights Committee, an elected body of eighteen experts, deliberates on the periodic reports of states parties, normally submitted once in every four years.

Since its accession to the Covenant in 1980, Sri Lanka has presented three Periodic Reports to the Committee in 1983, 1990 and 1994. While its Fourth Periodic Report was presented in September, 2002, (five years past the normal reporting time), it is due to be considered by the Committee on Friday, October 31 and Monday, November.
The October-November 2003 deliberations of the Committee on Sri Lanka's Fourth Periodic Report have a singular importance. The Report has been met with a list of issues that the Committee has put to the Government this Wednesday, that reflect the concerns of the Committee regarding the manner in which Sri Lanka has implemented the provisions of the Covenant.

The issues address the question of impunity of State agents guilty of human rights violations. In other words, the State is put on inquiry regarding the steps that have been taken concerning the prevention, prosecution and punishment of perpetrators of torture, extra judicial executions, disappearances and other violations of human rights. In that context, the Government has also been called upon to answer regarding the protection of human rights during the implementation of the Peace Agreement reached between the LTTE and the Government in February, 2002.

These questions would undoubtedly be among the hardest for the Government to meet during the forthcoming sessions. Foremost among them would be the startlingly problematic fact that despite the passing of the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Teatment or Punishment Act No 22 in 1994, (commonly referred to as the CAT Act), not a single conviction has yet resulted in terms of the provisions of this Act.

A serious mistake in this regard in the Government's Periodic Report is its statement that ten individuals have been convicted for transgressing the provisions of the CAT Act. While it is difficult to envisage as to how such a grave misrepresentation could have passed unchecked in what is, after all, a key document of the Sri Lankan State, the lapse is all the more severe given that the non-implementation of the CAT Act symbolises the culture of impunity that is yet prevalent with regard to human rights abusers.

The Shadow Report relating to Sri Lanka, (which is a critique of the Government Report), presented during the briefing sessions with the Committee members by the Geneva based World Organisation Against Torture (OMCT) and the Hong Kong based Asian Legal Resource Centre (ALRC) details efforts that are needed to address substantive problems in the policing and prosecution systems in the country as well as the breakdown of people's faith in the institution of the judiciary. Politicisation of all three institutions have been identified as a major concern.

Recommendations addressing these concerns include review of the implementation of the CAT Act No 22 of 1994, the establishment of an independent public prosecutor's department, serious police reform including improving competence in criminal investigations.

Widespread criticism of the judiciary in Sri Lanka, as manifested in the reports of the UN Special Rapporteur on the Independence of the Judiciary, the case of Tony Michael Fernando and recent developments relating to the judiciary including the premature retirement of Justice Mark Fernando and issues concerning the administration of justice in Sri Lanka were also among the primary issues discussed.

As to what would transpire in the days ahead during the substantive consideration by the Committee of Sri Lanka's periodic report, remains to be seen. For the moment, one can be glad that, imperfect as they may be, there are still forums before which the grievances of this country's citizens can be fairly put. These are small consolations indeed but invaluable in the process of finally returning a measure of accountability to our functioning as a nation.

Back to Columns