Subcommittee on International Human Rights Committee on Nov. 1st, 2011

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

To what extent do you think, after the recent Commonwealth meeting in Perth, and given the fact that Sri Lanka is to host the next one, that Sri Lanka will be more forthcoming regarding accountability mechanisms now? Will they allow, for example, an international commission of inquiry to visit Sri Lanka, both in terms of oversight of the LLRC but also in terms of an overall inquiry into the violations of human rights that have been committed?

[Elaine Pearson]

I think the Sri Lankan government has made its position very clear. Even just reading the newspapers this morning after the Commonwealth heads of government meeting, we see that the local pro-government papers were declaring it a victory for Rajapaska. They have been fighting tooth and nail against any type of international mechanism, any type of international accountability.

Even during the time when the war was going on and organizations like Human Rights Watch were concerned about the level of abuses, we were fighting for a UN human rights office presence to monitor what was happening in the field. The government fought that. There was never any High Commissioner for Human Rights presence able to do that monitoring. We've seen the same kind of approach again now against an international commission of inquiry.

I think we really need to recognize that the government isn't necessarily going to cooperate, but that there are a lot of effective ways in which such an international mechanism can still conduct its investigations, even if it doesn't have cooperation from the Sri Lankan government.

[The Chair, Conservative, Scott Reid]

You have another minute, Mr. Cotler.

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Do you think there's any problem with an international investigative committee getting consent to go into Sri Lanka to begin with?

[Elaine Pearson]

Well, this was actually an issue with the UN panel of experts report. I think they were granted some permission to go to Sri Lanka, but it was under such conditions that would not allow them to do independent kinds of questioning, so they were not able to visit Sri Lanka.

As you would well know, a large proportion of people have left the country. There's enough information now available to be able to conduct investigations, and to conduct interviews among the Tamil population outside the country, and there are other ways of also conducting interviews with people inside.

Obviously, it's far better for any commission of inquiry to have access to the country, but there are still ways to conduct an effective investigation.

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Scott Reid]

Thank you very much.

We're down to the five-minute rounds now, and Mr. Sweet is next.

[David Sweet, Conservative, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for being with us today. Just to capitalize on the last question of my colleague, Mr. Cotler, are there also sources of Sinhalese Sri Lankans who have left and who you can interview as well?

[Elaine Pearson]

Yes. Human Rights Watch has been able to conduct a lot of interviews since the conflict ended, and while some of these have taken place inside the country, a lot of them have taken place outside.

There are people who you're able to interview. For instance, even in the Channel 4 documentary, The Killing Fields, they interviewed a number of members of the Sri Lankan military who have now left the country. So there are certainly other Sinhalese sources who you would be able to interview.

[David Sweet, Conservative, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON]

Did you monitor the recent local elections? Did you observe whether they were free and fair?

[Elaine Pearson]

We didn't observe the local elections, but we did notice that back in June there was a particular incident we were concerned about, concerning the activities of the Tamil National Alliance. They had been campaigning in Jaffna, and members of that group had actually been attacked by army personnel who were wielding batons, rods, and sticks.

So we are still quite concerned about restrictions on political space and restrictions on political activities for some groups and in some parts of the country.

[David Sweet, Conservative, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON]

So your observations have been that the Sri Lankan government has been really disingenuous as far as any efforts are concerned. It's not just a case of omitting; they really are active in making sure that any human rights activists, any contrarian political opinions, are actually wiped out.

[Elaine Pearson]

Yes. Freedom of expression has come under severe attack. At one point during the conflict, I think Sri Lanka was number two compared to Iraq in terms of being one of the most dangerous places for journalists to work. We saw that at least a dozen journalists disappeared and, in some cases, were murdered. We haven't seen any accountability for that.

We've also seen a lot of censorship of international and independent media. While there is a little bit of space for civil society, there are certain topics and certain issues about which any kind of criticism of the government is quite harshly dealt with. We've seen a number of cases of intimidation, of threats. Again, there has been no accountability for the murders and disappearances of journalists and others.

[David Sweet, Conservative, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON]

Has there been any continuation of any human rights abuses to date in Sri Lanka?

[Elaine Pearson]

Yes. Just this year, we've documented several cases of independent journalists who have been harassed or beaten up. In one case, the brother of a newspaper editor who was killed during the final stages of the conflict also received what amounted to a verbal threat from President Rajapaksa. In his own words, he said he was basically threatened and told that if he continues to personally attack the president, he also will find himself the subject of personal attacks.

We haven't seen perhaps quite the same level of disappearances of journalists, but there are fewer people who are actually willing to speak out now about the situation. A lot of those who were very critical of the government have had to leave the country, have had to seek asylum abroad. There really is quite a shrinking space in terms of the ability to criticize and speak publicly about these problems.

[David Sweet, Conservative, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON]

Thank you.

For my final question--I'm thinking about our report--you mentioned in your opening remarks that you have satellite evidence: could you just share with us briefly what the nature of that is?

[Elaine Pearson]

This was not our satellite imagery but the UN satellite imagery, particularly of the areas during the final stages of the conflict. By analyzing that satellite imagery, we were able to estimate the numbers of the population. During the final stages of the conflict, the government continually said that the number of civilians trapped in that area was much smaller than what was being presented by others.

Our independent analysis of that showed that actually the number was quite significant--in the hundreds of thousands. I have reports here. I had presented some written testimony, but I understand that it couldn't be translated in time. I'd be very happy to also submit to you those written materials, if that's possible.

[The Chair, Conservative, Scott Reid]

Thank you.

We would be grateful for that. One of the restrictions we have here is that we are obliged by our rules to ensure that everything is translated into both English and French prior to distribution. In addition to your material, I have some material from the Transnational Government of Tamil Eelam, as well as from the Sri Lankan government, which we haven't yet been able to distribute to our members. We'd be grateful for anything you submit to us. We'll take care of translating it once we receive it.

Before I turn the floor over to Mr. Marston, who has the next round, could you tell us if it would be possible to include in your package of information to us the satellite imagery that you're referring to?

[Elaine Pearson]

Yes, I can send you the links to the satellite imagery.

[The Chair, Conservative, Scott Reid]

That would be very, very helpful for us.

Mr. Marston, please.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. After I get into this, I'm going to give a minute to Ève.

Mr. Daniel spoke about the abuses of the LTTE. I want to be very clear: nobody is trying to minimize the abuses. This was a most unfortunate situation. You had civilians crowded between two warring factions. I want to reiterate that the purpose of this hearing is to put us in a position where we can recommend to our government to call on the United Nations to proceed with a transparent, independent investigation, which has been called for by your organization and others.

We're not attempting to assign guilt one way or the other. It looks like there's plenty of guilt to go around in these particular circumstances.

But beyond requesting that the United Nations has its own investigation, do you have any specific suggestions for other things Canadian parliamentarians could do to aid in this cause? There's a human tragedy that took place. When you watch the Channel 4 video, and with your remarks about the satellite imagery, it is shown very clearly how the people were crowded into different areas. Could you suggest anything else specifically that could we do?

[Elaine Pearson]

Well, obviously, an investigation into these abuses is the number one demand now from organizations like us so that the victims of these abuses are able to have some measure of justice. At the same time, I think we are quite concerned about the current human rights situation and the way in which things have developed.

I think, in its relationship with Sri Lanka, that Canada could express concern over a number of these issues, such as the recent constitutional amendments that concentrate a lot of power with the president. One of our requests is that there should be a restoration of the previous constitutional provisions that would guarantee a separation of powers.

Secondly, it's also about ensuring a restoration of the ability of journalists, civil society,and other actors to freely express themselves and their commentary in the media and other places. One way is to ensure that there's accountability for the criminal attacks that have occurred on journalists, members of the political opposition, and so on.

Again, in a number of these cases where there has been quite clear evidence about who is responsible, we haven't seen any real progress in those prosecutions.

I think that raising these specific cases with the Government of Sri Lanka and inquiring about the progress in conducting criminal investigations would be a very helpful way of bringing these issues to the spotlight.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Thank you.

[Ève Péclet, NDP, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

I am trying to understand the situation. The United Nations recommends the creation of an independent committee to carry out an investigation. There may be other impartial processes that could be used. For instance, people are talking at this time about an investigation to be carried out by the United Nations, but we know that other mechanisms might also be feasible.

Sri Lanka has not ratified certain treaties, in particular the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Would it be impossible, under article 5 of the Rome Statute, which deals with personal responsibility, to bring to trial the leaders of the rebel groups or of the government? Could the Security Council not adopt a resolution to that effect? Is there a country that opposes the adoption of such a resolution?

I would like to know if other impartial mechanisms might be brought to bear if the United Nations General Assembly refuses to adopt a resolution. If the international community adopted that resolution through the United Nations General Assembly, would Sri Lanka be bound by that decision? Or would acceptance of that resolution still be at the discretion of the government?

There are several parts to my question; I am sorry about that.

[Elaine Pearson]

When the war ended, the UN Secretary-General made a visit to Sri Lanka. In a joint communiqué that was issued with the president, the Government of Sri Lanka committed to address accountability as well as the violations of international humanitarian law and human rights law that were committed during the conflict.

The government made an assurance that it would submit to accountability. However, in the time that has passed, what they have done is set up a Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission.

The failure to address these issues is what led the Secretary-General to set up his own panel of experts to advise him on next steps towards accountability. That very panel of experts recommended that the domestic avenue, the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission, was deeply flawed, lacked independence, and was not a proper accountability mechanism.

In that report, the UN panel of experts recognized that, when a government fails in its duty to establish a genuine accountability mechanism, there is a duty for the international community to step in. That's why it really needs to be the UN, whether it's through the Human Rights Council or the General Assembly, that should take the next action.

The Secretary-General submitted the report of the panel of experts to the Human Rights Council in September of this year. In doing so, he said that he would welcome a mandate to set up a commission of inquiry.

A lot of the ability to do this is there, but what's really needed is the mandate from the Human Rights Council. That means states like Canada and other countries need to mobilize for effective action at the Human Rights Council.