It is a very difficult problem because the press is so tightly controlled. There are lots of journalists of goodwill trying to work, but they have to self-censor themselves or they will be either disappeared or have to leave.
It is a question of constantly monitoring. I think it is useful if people go on fact-finding missions. The problem is that if you go on a fact-finding mission—and this is very much the problem for us. I can go to Sri Lanka. I can announce that I'm going to go there to try to cover what's going on, but of course I can't meet anybody, because if I do, I know what will happen to them afterwards. Indeed, Navi Pillay found exactly the same thing when she spoke to people. Once you leave, the danger is not actually to the foreign journalist; the danger is to the people you meet.
That is a very difficult situation. There is no simple solution except to constantly raise it, to constantly try to keep informed and to monitor what is happening, and to lend support when necessary.
For example, recently a Tamil writer from Sri Lanka, in exile for several years, went to visit his mother-in-law's grave and was arrested. It's important to raise these issues as soon as they're heard about.
One of the problems we have—and the British media and all the media are guilty of this, as well as government—is that in the past, we have ignored the cries of protest coming from Tamils in Sri Lanka, partly because the government had so very successfully identified all Tamils as Tamil Tigers. Internationally, the justifiable suspicion of the Tamil Tigers meant that nobody listens to the cries of democratic Sinhalese oppositionists or Tamils.
I think international scrutiny is absolutely vital. I know that's a trite and easy thing to say, but in the past, the international community failed to exercise that scrutiny and to listen to the news coming out of there. We have to do it much more carefully in the future.
I appreciate that's a rather platitudinous answer, but I can't think of a better one.