Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, esteemed committee members, for this opportunity to address the issue of sanctions in Sri Lanka specifically. I would first like to begin by expressing the gratitude of PEARL for Canada's ongoing support and commitment to human rights and justice, and for its continued leadership in the fight for accountability in Sri Lanka.
My name is Archana Ravichandradeva, and I am the executive director of People for Equality and Relief in Lanka, PEARL. We are a non-profit organization led by human rights activists concerned about the situation in Sri Lanka. We bring together research, advocacy and activism to promote and protect the human rights of Tamil people in the northeast of the island.
Despite overwhelming evidence of the Sri Lankan government's committing war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide of the Tamil people, especially in the final stages of the 26-year-long armed conflict, Sri Lanka has yet to deliver any justice or accountability. Today the human rights situation in Sri Lanka continues to worsen. Sinhalese-Buddhist nationalism, which we consider to be a root cause of the conflict, continues to drive irrational policies that cause harm to the Tamil community. Issues of militarization remain high in Tamil areas in the northeast, and Tamil politicians, activists and civil society advocating for justice and accountability continue to experience significant constraints on their advocacy.
The few domestic mechanisms that Sri Lanka has—for example, the Office on Missing Persons is often seen as one of its flagship mechanisms—lack independence and impartiality and have lost the trust of victim-survivors. It is in this context that international actions such as sanctions can have a profound impact, especially against bad actors who continue to hold deeply entrenched positions of power and authority within the Sri Lankan government.
Canada has been a strong advocate for the Tamil community by, for example, recognizing the Tamil genocide last year. Canadian sanctions that were implemented in January 2023 on former president Gotabaya Rajapaksa, former prime minister Mahinda Rajapaksa, Staff Sergeant Sunil Ratnayake and Lieutenant-Commander Chandana Prasad Hettiarachchi are some of the few, if not the only, individual actions of accountability against Sri Lankan leaders, which is of symbolic importance in a war that was supposed to be a war without witnesses. The sanctions are the only international individual accountability measures against the Rajapaksa brothers specifically, who orchestrated the violence. Many of the victim-survivors whom PEARL connects to in Sri Lanka almost regularly mention the sanctions as one of the few positive developments in an accountability landscape that often feels bleak and impossible.
However, we must recognize that current sanctions are just a starting point, and it's crucial to expand the list of individuals and entities subject to sanctions, including Magnitsky-style sanctions, to those responsible for the war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide and other human rights abuses committed during the armed conflict. We also have to acknowledge that sanctions are not the be-all and end-all, and that they are likely to be unsuccessful in the absence of other measures. PEARL robustly advocates for sanctions to be supported by Canadian engagement in other areas, such as international justice efforts through universal jurisdiction, international courts, etc., to develop a multilateral approach to justice.
I'd also like to speak briefly about the process in which PEARL engages in advocacy in Canada and about how the system can be made better for other advocacy organizations as it relates to sanctions. We began connecting with representatives and having meetings with Global Affairs Canada several years before the sanctions were confirmed—along with many other Tamil organizations. For example, there's often a lack of clarity about whether we focus sanctions advocacy under the Special Economic Measures Act or the Magnitsky act; about whether our advocacy with Global Affairs has been translated across other departments, including, for example, the Department of Justice; and about what kinds of information needs to be shared or gathered by advocacy organizations to support the efforts.
There is also a greater need to understand the difference between the sanctions regime on one side and the IRPA—which has its own internal mechanisms against allowing individuals accused of human rights violations into the country—on the other. During the process of our advocacy, there was also sometimes a lack of information about what the impact and implementation of these sanctions would be once they were implemented.
I want to take some time to talk, from the perspective of an advocacy organization, about the importance of greater cohesion and consistency in terms of applying the existing sanctions regime and how to work together, with more guidance and a policy framework. I think a witness before spoke about policy information for organizations and activists to engage in advocacy around sanctions and about how to make sanctions more effective in their implementation after the initial proclamation.
Thank you, Mr. Chair and committee members. I'm happy to answer any questions on this.