That the third United States resolution, this time calling for an international investigation into alleged war crimes, would sail through last Thursday’s sessions of the UN Human Rights Council was a foregone fact. However, there was a shocker. India called the resolution an “intrusive approach” undermining Sri Lanka’s “national sovereignty and institutions” and abstained from [...]



What went wrong in Geneva, diplomatic blunders must be rectified


That the third United States resolution, this time calling for an international investigation into alleged war crimes, would sail through last Thursday’s sessions of the UN Human Rights Council was a foregone fact.

However, there was a shocker. India called the resolution an “intrusive approach” undermining Sri Lanka’s “national sovereignty and institutions” and abstained from voting. At least one prominent member of the Sri Lanka delegation, now in Geneva, seemed aware. He remarked to some delegation members last Wednesday to await “the surprise” and was to remark the next day he was right in his forecast. Yet, during arrival in Switzerland, a note on the voting pattern prepared by him included India as supporting the resolution. Nevertheless, in the days before, publicly Indian diplomats listened more than speaking. Even during the March 18 informal consultations convened by the United States, a junior Indian diplomat was at one of the final rows taking down notes.

That was the highlight of Thursday’s drama at Palais de Naciones in Geneva. Now armed with a mandate from the Council, UN Human Rights High Commissioner Navanethem Pillay will be busy in the coming weeks assembling the investigative mechanism which is estimated to cost around US $1.5 million (Rs . 180 million). Diplomats in Geneva say it would comprise a small group of experts and Special Mandate Holders. According to them, she wants to provide the investigators “a framework” and “get them to take the process forward.” Some diplomats say she wants to maintain a “firewall” or keep the OHCHR from being directly involved in the investigations. The idea is to avoid any form of criticism of that office whilst undertaking an investigation in accordance with the latest resolution.

In the light of the requirement that the Human Rights High Commissioner give an oral update in September, or in just five months, the process is to begin without delay. It will be Pillay’s successor, yet to be named, who will give such an update during the 27th sessions from September 8 to 26. She is due to go on leave in July prior to retirement in August. That oral update will provide an outline of the investigations and how it is proceeding. Thereafter, a written update that will contain the outcome of the investigations will be provided at the 28th sessions in March next year.

In Colombo, President Rajapaksa who is directing most matters which should have been handled by the Ministry of External Affairs wants to spearhead a new diplomatic initiative. He is to despatch special envoys to the 12 countries that voted in favour of Sri Lanka. In addition, envoys will also travel to selected countries that abstained too. They will express the President’s appreciation and urge further support at the Human Rights Council. He was also thrilled that Pakistan’s Ambassador to the UN in Geneva had vigorously defended Sri Lanka. Ambassador Zamir Akram sought to know from where the funds would come for the investigation since the UNHRC votes were depleted. If it was from the backers of the resolution, that proved their political motive, he declared. “Mey apey minihata pana nehe ney. Ara Pakistan karaya koi tarang api wenuven bat karada (Our man has no life. How much did that Pakistani person bat for us),” remarked Rajapaksa. Later, he asked a telephone call be put through to Pakistani Premier Nawaz Shariff to thank him for his envoy’s role. Aides later said that the Pakistani Premier was on a visit to Britain.

The speech by India’s Ambassador to the UN in Geneva, Dilip Sinha, came as a bombshell. That the move appears to have caught even the United States by surprise was reflected in the remarks of one of its diplomats in Colombo. Much ahead of the vote, he declared that his country was in “constant touch with India over the draft resolution. We consult them regularly.” Last Thursday, however, asked about India’s abstention, he snapped in apparent anger “you must ask them that.” A broad hint came during a media briefing on Friday by US Ambassador Michele Sison when she remarked in a written statement, “The text (of the resolution) was discussed at length with UNHRC member and observer states, as well as with other stakeholders.” State Department spokesperson Marie Harf told Friday’s media briefing, “It is disappointing to us that India abstained from voting on this resolution when they voted yes for the last two years. We have made our disappointment known to Indian officials. Beyond that, I’d refer you to them in terms of how they voted.” Between the drafts and the voting there seemed a change of heart.
Equally terse were comments from Indian diplomats in Colombo. “We do not accept the principle of intrusions in our backyard by others. This is why Asian nations with the exception of (South) Korea, for obvious reasons, voted against the resolution,” he said.

The diplomat claimed India’s abstention gave New Delhi more leverage to urge the Government to implement the 13th Amendment to the Constitution and address other issues affecting the Tamil community in Sri Lanka. In what seemed a way of saying thank you, President Rajapaksa on Friday reciprocated the gesture. He directed that all Indian fishermen held in remand prisons be released immediately. That included 19 fishermen arrested on Friday together with four boats and remanded by the Mannar Acting Magistrate H. Paldano until April 4. The Attorney General’s Department faxed instructions on Friday to Prison authorities in Mannar to carry out the executive order.

The move had mixed reactions within the Government itself. Though it was with good intentions, some said it should not have been done hurriedly. They argued that the move gave credence to claims that the arrests of the Indian fishing boats poaching in Sri Lankan waters were a political exercise and raised issue over future acts of poaching. Some argued that such a move, if inevitable, could have been done, by the Ministry of Fisheries and not the President. There were others who said the release met Tamil Nadu Chief Minister, Jeyaram Jeyalalithaa’s demand that all arrested fishermen should be released before the stalled fisheries talks between those in the trade in the two countries began.

In Geneva, Ambassador Sinha during “India’s explanation of the vote before or after the vote” called upon the Government of Sri Lanka to “make purposeful efforts to fulfil its commitments, including on the devolution of political authority through the full implementation of the 13th Amendment of the Constitution of Sri Lanka and build upon it.” That said, Sinha heaped praise on the Rajapksa administration. He said the Government of Sri Lanka had honoured its commitment to the international community to hold elections to the Northern Provincial Council. Further, he said, it had taken steps to implement some of the important recommendations of the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC), such as Trilingual Policy, promoting the official use of the Tamil language and the upgrading of schools in the Northern and Eastern provinces. He noted that Human Rights Commissioner Pillay’s report “rightly acknowledges the progress made in reconstruction, resettlement and implementation” of some of the recommendations.

He charged that in asking the OHCHR (Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights) ‘to investigate, assess and monitor the human rights situation in Sri Lanka, the resolution ignores the progress already made by the country and places in jeopardy the cooperation currently taking place between the Government of Sri Lanka and the OHCHR and the Council’s Special Procedures.” He declared that the resolution is “inconsistent and impractical in asking both the Government of Sri Lanka and OHCHR to conduct investigations simultaneously.” He also said that any external investigative mechanism with an open-ended mandate to monitor national processes for protection of human rights in a country is not reflective of UN General Assembly resolutions which created the Human Rights Council.
Sinha then set out India’s position of seeking a “consensual way” forward “towards a lasting peace” by implementing the LLRC report. That, he said, should include those pertaining to “missing persons, detainees, reduction of ‘high security zones,’ return of private lands by the military and withdrawal of security forces from the civilian domain in the Northern Province.” He noted that India is therefore “concerned that the resolution has the potential to hinder the efforts of the country rather than contribute constructively to its efforts, and hence inadvertently complicate the situation.”

In real terms, India’s abstention, though very significant, will not bring about a change of course in the OHCHR investigation. The parliamentary elections in India begin on April 7 and an elected new Government will be known officially after May 12. With the Bharatiya Janatha Party (BJP) strongly tipped to come to power, both the oral update and the final report on the investigation would come before the UNHRC with a possible new Government in place. Thus a lot will depend on the BJP’s attitude towards Sri Lanka. Its leaders have criticised their Congress counterparts in the past for being too lenient on Sri Lanka.

The Tamil National Alliance was unhappy over the Indian move. “We are naturally disappointed that India has abstained from voting. This is because the Sri Lankan state has not complied with any one of the commitments made to India. Further India is aware of the true ground situation,” Rajavarothayam Sampanthan, leader of the Tamil National Alliance told the Sunday Times. However, he said, India was a regional power “which has to maintain some principles and we respect that.” He added, “India still has a role to play and we are confident it will address our needs.” The blow on the TNA was worse because five of its parliamentarians were in Geneva canvassing support for the resolution. They held news conferences for this purpose. The MPs are Suresh Premachandran, Mavai Senathirajah, S. Shritharan, M.A. Sumanthiran and Selvan Adaikalanathan.

Also unhappy was the London-based Global Tamil Forum (GTF), the largest Tamil diaspora group. Suren Surendran of the GTF told the Sunday Times, “We are thoroughly disappointed and hurt by this ‘let down’ by India. However, one must critically analyse the action taking emotions away. We shouldn’t see this abstention this year in isolation. When viewed collectively through the past, in major international forums, India has shown cold shoulder to President Mahinda Rajapaksa. In 2012 and 2013 India voted against Sri Lanka at the UNHRC, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh boycotted the CHOGM in Nov 2013. It is diplomatically naïve and immature to interpret abstentions as being somehow supportive of the Government of Sri Lanka. The same logic could be applied to argue the opposite.”

Despite their lament, Tamil groups both in Sri Lanka and abroad cannot afford to antagonise India. Hence, the guarded responses.
Several other countries also spoke for and against the resolution. Two different motions were moved at the Human Rights Council on Thursday ahead of the US sponsored resolution. One was a “no-action motion.” As the title implies, it was not to pursue action. It was rejected with 25 voting against, 16 in favour and six abstentions. The other was a motion to delete operative paragraph ten which called for an international mechanism to investigate alleged war crimes. Voting against the motion were 23 member nations whilst 14 opposed it and ten abstained. In both these motions, India as well as Indonesia voted in favour of Sri Lanka.
The US resolution (see full text in box story on this page) was co-sponsored by 38 countries — Albania, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Cyprus, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Mauritius, Montenegro, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, St Kitts & Nevis, Sierra Leone, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and United States of America.

The final text was the draft handed into the Human Rights Council Bureau on March 26. This was based on the US convened informal consultations on March 18 where views of participating countries and NGOs were obtained, as exclusively revealed in these columns last week. The only new addition was the lines “Reaffirming its commitment to the sovereignty, independence, unity and territorial integrity of Sri Lanka.” Also retained despite protests from some countries is a call to “demilitarize the north of Sri Lanka.” Ironically, the preamble to the resolution also made reference to the arrests of two human rights activists when the Council sessions were under way. It expressed “deep concern at reported intimidation and retaliation against civil society members who engage with the United Nations human rights mechanism……” Even US Secretary of State John Kerry said in a statement soon after Thursday’s vote at the UNHRC, “We are deeply concerned by recent actions against some of Sri Lanka’s citizens, including detentions and harassment of civil society activists. Further reprisals against these brave defenders of human rights and the dignity of all Sri Lankan citizens would elicit grave concern from the international community.”

Voting in favour of the resolution were 23 countries — Argentina, Austria, Benin, Botswana, Brazil, Chile, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Czech Republic, Estonia, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Mexico, Montenegro, Peru, Republic of Korea, Romania, Sierra Leone, The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, the United Kingdom and the United States of America.Voting against were 12 countries — Algeria, China, Congo, Cuba, Kenya, Maldives, Pakistan, the Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Venezuela and Vietnam.Twelve countries abstained. They are: Burkina Faso, Ethiopia, Gabon, India, Indonesia, Japan, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Morocco, Namibia, Philippines and South Africa.

External Affairs Minister, G.L. Peiris told a hurriedly summoned news conference in Hambantota on Friday that the majority vote at the UNHRC was against the United States. He said that the votes in favour of Sri Lanka (12) and abstentions (12) totalled one less than the votes received for the US resolution (23). So this was a victory for Sri Lanka. The Government Department of Information transported media personnel on Thursday morning, giving them barely an hour’s notice, for the news conference at the Peacock Beach Hotel the same afternoon. Though he was originally expected to travel to Geneva to make the Sri Lanka statement during voting time that did not materialise. Presidential Secretary Lalith Weeratunga who was in in the Swiss city was overheard telling members of the Sri Lanka delegation that “all support should be given to Ambassador Aryasinha who would deliver the statement.” He said that was important since he was the person on the ground. Weeratunga had earlier turned down a request by Aryasinha to do so.

Among other matters, Aryasinha noted in his speech that “we are disappointed to observe that a key imperative driving this resolution is not genuine concern for the welfare of the Sri Lankan people but electoral compulsions of some States at the behest of certain extreme elements with links to the LTTE. Such biases and extreme ideologies ignore the ground realities, the legitimate aspirations of the Sri Lankan people, and trivialize the price paid by all Sri Lankans to defeat a 30-year brutal terrorist conflict and consolidate peace……Sri Lanka categorically and unreservedly rejects this draft resolution, as it challenges the sovereignty and independence of a Member State of the UN, violates the principles international law, based on profoundly flawed premises, and is inimical to the interests of the people of Sri Lanka…”

The remarks were a far cry from those of EAM Peiris who rejected the resolution outright and called it illegal.In adding the votes of those who abstained together with the ones Sri Lanka received, and making a public declaration of it, Peiris has forgotten some important facts. Among the countries that had chosen to abstain last Thursday were three that voted in favour of Sri Lanka last year — Indonesia, Kuwait and the Phillippines. Do their abstentions therefore mean they are still supporting Sri Lanka? There was also another story behind those abstentions. These three countries were visited by President’s special envoys – Minister Dilan Perera (Jakarta), D.E.W. Gunasekera (Manila) and Rauff Hakeem (Kuwait). State media reported that the three countries had expressed support. Both Kuwait and Indonesia, the world’s largest Islamic country, had been concerned about attacks on Muslims, their establishments and places of worship. Similarly, the Philippines had been concerned about attacks on churches. In addition, the Sri Lanka diplomatic missions in Jakarta and Manila have been without ambassadors for months now.

According to official sources, there had been a lot of confusion over despatching special envoys. When the names of some ministers were given and appointments were sought, replacements were decided upon leaving little time to inform hosts. In some cases, ministers had to be persuaded to travel. “All of them went without any competent officials. As a result they were unable to answer questions raised by their hosts,” said one official. Another added, “There were no calls made from External Affairs Minister to other Foreign Ministers. There was no Operations Room and there was no co-ordination of any sort.” Even during his visit to Britain when the Human Rights Council was in session, Minister Peiris did not engage his counterparts there nor did the mission there make any arrangements.
That apart, once more, EAM’s pet project — Look Africa — turned futile. Of the 13 African countries, only two — Kenya and Congo — voted against the resolution. Botswana which voted against (or in favour of Sri Lanka) last year voted for the US resolution on Thursday. The other African countries to support the resolution were Benin and Sierra Leone. Burkino Faso, Ethiopia, Gabon, Namibia and South Africa abstained. The vote by Benin was to cause some concern at the highest levels of the Government. A senior official said Prime Minister Pascal Coupaki, who was in Colombo for the Commonwealth Summit in November had assured during talks with President Rajapaksa that he would support Sri Lanka.

This is not the first time Peiris has introduced new maths to matters international. After the first US resolution was adopted in 2012, Peiris told China’s national news agency Xinhua “In all, 24 countries voted for the resolution, 15 against it and eight abstained. The Sri Lankan government said it was a matter of great satisfaction that 15 countries voted with Sri Lanka, despite the intensity of pressure, in a variety of forms, exerted on them. Peiris also said that with 15 countries voting with Sri Lanka, and eight countries abstaining, the final result was that 23 countries, out of a total of 47 members of the Human Rights Council, did not support the resolution, while 24 supported it and so the margin was narrow.” An extension of that logic would mean that the latest US resolution has now been defeated and hence there would not be an international investigation mechanism probing alleged war crimes in Sri Lanka.

Peiris has added some comedy to an otherwise diplomatic tragedy over the years in Geneva. It is time for the UPFA Government to take a dispassionate look at what went wrong. Otherwise the litany of failures would continue to cause irreparable harm.

Full text of Resolution
Here is the full text of the resolution (A/HRC/25/L.1/Rev.1) adopted by the UN Human Rights Council last Thursday. Moved by the United States, it was sponsored and co-sponsored by 42 countries:
Promoting reconciliation, accountability and human rights in Sri Lanka
The Human Rights Council,
Reaffirming the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations,
Guided by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenants on Human Rights and other relevant instruments,
Bearing in mind General Assembly resolution 60/251 of 15 March 2006,
Recalling Human Rights Council resolutions 5/1, on institution-building of the Council, and 5/2, on the Code of Conduct for Special Procedures Mandate Holders, of 18 June 2007,
Recalling also Human Rights Council resolutions 19/2 of 22 March 2012 and 22/1 of 21 March 2013 on promoting reconciliation and accountability in Sri Lanka,
Reaffirming its commitment to the sovereignty, independence, unity and territorial integrity of Sri Lanka,
Reaffirming also that it is the responsibility of each State to ensure the full enjoyment of all human rights and fundamental freedoms of its entire population,
Reaffirming further that States must ensure that any measure taken to combat terrorism complies with their obligations under international law, in particular international human rights law, international refugee law and international humanitarian law, as applicable,
Reaffirming that all Sri Lankans are entitled to the full enjoyment of their human rights regardless of religion, belief or ethnicity, in a peaceful and unified land,
Welcoming and acknowledging the progress made by the Government of Sri Lanka in rebuilding infrastructure, demining and resettling the majority of internally displaced persons, while noting nonetheless that considerable work lies ahead in the areas of justice, reconciliation, land use and ownership, the resumption of livelihoods and the restoration of normality to civilian life, and stressing the importance of the full participation of local populations, including representatives of civil society and minorities, in these efforts,
Welcoming the successful holding of Provincial Council elections on 21 September 2013 and, in particular, the high turnout and participation in all three provinces, while noting with concern reports of election-related violence, as well as of voter and candidate intimidation,
Expressing appreciation for the efforts and cooperation of the Government of Sri Lanka in facilitating the visit of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and providing her with open access, and welcoming the visit of the High Commissioner to Sri Lanka in August 2013,
Expressing deep concern at reported intimidation and retaliation against civil society members who engage with United Nations human rights mechanisms, including those who met with the High Commissioner during her visit,
Expressing serious concern at the continuing reports of violations of human rights in Sri Lanka, including sexual and gender-based violence, enforced disappearances, extrajudicial killings, torture and violations of the rights to freedom of expression, association and peaceful assembly, threats to judicial independence and the rule of law, as well as intimidation of and reprisals against human rights defenders, members of civil society, lawyers and journalists,
Alarmed at the significant surge in attacks against members of religious minority groups in Sri Lanka, including Hindus, Muslims and Christians,
Calling upon the Government of Sri Lanka to fulfil its public commitments, including on the devolution of political authority, which is integral to reconciliation and the full enjoyment of human rights by all members of its population,
Taking note of the report of the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission of Sri Lanka, its findings and recommendations, and acknowledging its possible contribution to the process of meaningful national reconciliation in Sri Lanka,
Recalling the constructive recommendations contained in the Commission’s report, including the need to credibly investigate widespread allegations of extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearances, demilitarize the north of Sri Lanka, implement impartial land dispute resolution mechanisms, re-evaluate detention policies, strengthen formerly independent civil institutions, reach a political settlement on the devolution of power to the provinces, promote and protect the right of freedom of expression for all persons and enact rule of law reforms,
Taking note of the national plan of action to implement the recommendations of the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission of the Government of Sri Lanka and its commitments as set forth in response to the findings and recommendations of the Commission,
Noting that the national plan of action does not adequately address all of the findings and constructive recommendations of the Commission, and encouraging the Government of Sri Lanka to broaden the scope of the plan to adequately address all elements of the Commission’s report,
Noting with concern that the national plan of action and the Commission’s report do not adequately address serious allegations of violations of international human rights law and international humanitarian law,
Emphasizing the importance of a comprehensive approach to transitional justice incorporating the full range of judicial and non-judicial measures, including, inter alia, individual prosecutions, reparations, truth-seeking, institutional reform, vetting of public employees and officials, or an appropriately conceived combination thereof, in order to, inter alia, ensure accountability, serve justice, provide remedies to victims, promote healing and reconciliation, establish independent oversight of the security system, restore confidence in the institutions of the State and promote the rule of law in accordance with international human rights law, with a view to preventing the recurrence of violations and abuses,
Underlining that truth-seeking processes, such as truth and reconciliation commissions, that investigate patterns of past human rights violations and their causes and consequences are important tools that can complement judicial processes, and that, when established, such mechanisms have to be designed within a specific societal context and be founded on broad national consultations with the inclusion of victims and civil society, including non-governmental organizations,
Recalling the responsibility of States to comply with their relevant obligations to prosecute those responsible for gross violations of human rights and serious violations of international humanitarian law constituting crimes under international law, with a view to end impunity,
Recalling also the High Commissioner’s conclusion that national mechanisms have consistently failed to establish the truth and to achieve justice, and her recommendation that the Human Rights Council establish an international inquiry mechanism to further investigate the alleged violations of international human rights law and international humanitarian law and monitor any domestic accountability processes,
Encouraging the Government of Sri Lanka to increase its dialogue and cooperation with the Office of the High Commissioner, including with regard to technical assistance,
1. Welcomes the oral update presented by the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights to the Human Rights Council at its twenty-fourth session and the subsequent report of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights on promoting reconciliation and accountability in Sri Lanka and the recommendations and conclusions contained therein, including on the establishment of a truth-seeking mechanism and national reparations policy as an integral part of a more comprehensive and inclusive approach to transitional justice;
2. Calls upon the Government of Sri Lanka to conduct an independent and credible investigation into allegations of violations of international human rights law and international humanitarian law, as applicable; to hold accountable those responsible for such violations; to end continuing incidents of human rights violations and abuses in Sri Lanka; and to implement the recommendations made in the reports of the Office of the High Commissioner;
3. Reiterates its call upon the Government of Sri Lanka to implement effectively the constructive recommendations made in the report of the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission, and to take all necessary additional steps to fulfil its relevant legal obligations and commitment to initiate credible and independent actions to ensure justice, equity, accountability and reconciliation for all Sri Lankans;
4. Urges the Government of Sri Lanka to investigate all alleged attacks, by individuals and groups, on journalists, human rights defenders, members of religious minority groups and other members of civil society, as well as on temples, mosques and churches, and also urges the Government to hold perpetrators of such attacks to account and to take steps to prevent such attacks in the future;
5. Calls upon the Government of Sri Lanka to release publicly the results of its investigations into alleged violations by security forces, including the attack on unarmed protesters in Weliweriya on 1 August 2013, and the report of 2013 by the court of inquiry of the Sri Lanka Army;
6. Encourages the Government of Sri Lanka to ensure that all Provincial Councils, including the Northern Provincial Council, are able to operate effectively, in accordance with the 13th amendment to the Constitution of Sri Lanka;
7. Welcomes the visit by the Special Rapporteur on the human rights of internally displaced persons in December 2013, and calls upon the Government of Sri Lanka to facilitate the effective implementation of durable solutions for internally displaced persons, including the long-term displaced;
8. Also welcomes the invitation to the Special Rapporteur on the human rights of migrants and the Special Rapporteur on the right to education;
9. Encourages the Government of Sri Lanka to cooperate with other special procedures mandate holders and to respond formally to their outstanding requests, including long-standing requests;
10. Takes note of the recommendations and conclusions of the High Commissioner regarding ongoing human rights violations and the need for an international inquiry mechanism in the absence of a credible national process with tangible results, and requests the Office of the High Commissioner:
(a) To monitor the human rights situation in Sri Lanka and to continue to assess progress on relevant national processes;
(b) To undertake a comprehensive investigation into alleged serious violations and abuses of human rights and related crimes by both parties in Sri Lanka during the period covered by the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission, and to establish the facts and circumstances of such alleged violations and of the crimes perpetrated with a view to avoiding impunity and ensuring accountability, with assistance from relevant experts and special procedures mandate holders;
(c) To present an oral update to the Human Rights Council at its twenty-seventh session, and a comprehensive report followed by a discussion on the implementation of the present resolution at its twenty-eighth session;
11. Encourages the Office of the High Commissioner and relevant special procedures mandate holders to provide, in consultation with and with the concurrence of the Government of Sri Lanka, advice and technical assistance on implementing the above-mentioned steps;
12. Calls upon the Government of Sri Lanka to cooperate with the Office of the High Commissioner in the implementation of the present resolution.

Share This Post


Advertising Rates

Please contact the advertising office on 011 - 2479521 for the advertising rates.