As far as I know, it's satisfactory. But there is a precedent. The Nepalese government contributes a lot more troops to peacekeeping. Actually, it's a prestige thing for the Nepalese army, but it's also a significant income earner. I think it's not a significant income earner for the Sri Lankan government.
In the Nepalese case, there was an attempt or a sense back in 2006 when there was agitation and mass street protests to have the king resign that the army would be called on to the street. It looked like it was really going south, as they say. There was a small human rights office that was run by the UN in the country, and they wrote to the Secretary General of the United Nations, with a copy to the Nepalese army, indicating that any officers implicated in that.... Of course, that would then affect the Nepalese army's standing as legitimate troops to use on UN peacekeeping missions.
The perception from those close to that event suggested that this had an enormous impact on the Nepalese army. It had a big impact. They actually saw that this was going to affect their prestige internationally, but also affect something they looked forward to doing, because there are thousands of Nepalese troops deployed.
So this might be one area to consider. The further down the road we go of any lack of accountability for the abuses that did happen, somebody might want to look at this issue.