By JS Tissainayagam – Asian Correpondent,
Jun 17, 2015
New
questions about wartime and post-war disappearances in Sri Lanka emerged
following a bombshell revelation that the Government hs only 273 political
detainees in its custody. Families of the disappeared believed the numbers are
much higher. This announcement also hardens doubts if a Sri Lankan-led judicial
process into mass atrocities, such as disappearances, will bring justice to the
victims.
Sri
Lanka’s civil war between the numerically larger Sinhalese and smaller Tamils
came to an end when government forces crushed Tamil rebels – the Liberation
Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) – in May 2009. The war’s 30-year history was
fraught with atrocities, including disappearances, and the torture and rape of
political prisoners. In the final few months alone, at least 40,000 people –
mostly Tamil civilians – were killed, with
both the government and rebels accused of committing war crimes and crimes
against humanity.
Throughout
the conflict and after, the issue of arrests under security laws such as the
Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA) and disappearances were conflated. Some of those abducted
were said to have been arrested and many of those taken into custody
by the state later disappeared. Hence the government’s announcement of 273 is
important.
Details
of the 273 political detainees in government custody emerged in The
Island newspaper on June 8, in which Minister of Justice Wijedasa Rajapakshe
said: “Fifty four persons who had been convicted on terrorism charges were
serving prison terms; indictments were being prepared against 85 persons; cases
were pending against 134 persons; eight given bail and 45 convicts released
through courts after rehabilitation.”
He
continued “[T]housands of LTTE cadres as well as those who had been apprehended
during the conflict and in the immediate aftermath … had either been
rehabilitated and set free or released through courts.”
Rajapakshe’s
words “apprehended during the conflict and in the immediate aftermath” refer to
two different contexts / environments where both LTTE cadres and Tamil
civilians were detained by Sri Lankan authorities. The first group were those
arrested at various times during the 30 years of armed hostilities for alleged
acts of terrorism, or aiding and abetting it under the PTA. The PTA has the
power to detain people without charges for long periods purely on suspicion.
Those
apprehended in the “immediate aftermath” refers to Tamils civilians and LTTE
cadre who were detained after moving into government-controlled territory in
May 2009. As armed hostilities were coming to an end, an entire mass of the
population – almost all Tamil – who were living in areas controlled by LTTE
rebels, were taken into the custody of the Sri Lanka government. Those who the
government deemed as LTTE cadre were then sent to what the Government called “rehabilitation” and the
rest were corralled into camps for the internally displaced (IDPs), numbering
300,000.
There
are countless testimonies of people who were present when their loved ones were
taken into custody but who have gone missing now. One of them is Northern
Provincial Council (NPC) member Ananthy Sasitharan whose husband Elilan, an
LTTE commander, has not been heard of since.
There
are also instances where those who were in the custody of the Government but
have now disappeared were photographed alive in rehabilitation camps or
elsewhere. For example Jeyakumari
Balendran says she believes her son is alive because she saw a photo
of him in a rehabilitation camp published in a government booklet, and the Selvanayagam family says
his picture appeared in an election propaganda leaflet.
Finally,
Minister Rajapakshe’s announcement glosses over people who continued to be
arrested and sent for ‘rehabilitation’ by the Government using the PTA although
there was “inadequate
or no evidence” to frame charges till at least January this year.
The
haphazard arrests, detentions, killings, disappearances and the impunity that
prevailed during the former President Mahinda Rajapakse’s (no relation to the
justice minister) government led families of the disappeared to live in
ignorance as to whether their loved ones were dead or held incommunicado in
Government custody.
The
presidential election of January 8 saw the defeat of Mahinda Rajapakse. Maithripala
Sirisena was elected president instead, supported by a coalition of parties
from the opposition. Among them was the Tamil National Alliance (TNA), the
largest Tamil party in parliament, which also forms the government in the
Northern Provincial Council.
The
TNA, as a coalition partner that elevated the new Government to office, claimed
it would negotiate the release of these detainees with Sirisena as a matter of
immediate importance. However, confusion with the numbers and the definition of
those in Government custody is causing difficulties. In an interview to the Ceylon
Daily News TNA parliamentarian, M. A. Sumanthiran says there are
approximately 300 Tamil political detainees. But in this statement he refers to
those arrested under anti-terrorism laws and known to be in a prison. His
definition makes a difference between political prisoners and “rehabilitees.”
On
February 20, Sumanthiran’s colleague, TNA Parliamentarian Suresh Premachandran
told the Colombo Mirror that
the Government was running secret detention centres or black sites where 700
Tamil detainees were incarcerated. An
independent media organisation also affirmed the existence of such sites. While
the Justice Minister Rajapakshe has denied there being such black sites, Sri
Lanka’s Prime Minister, Ranil Wickremesinghe, did not. He told theNew
York Times “if there is any secret camps, you can close it down and
get these people.”
The
question then remains what is the TNA negotiating? The release of 300 prisoners
only? What about the thousands of others whose families believe are in
Government custody? What is the TNA going to tell their families? If there are
no black sites, what steps will the TNA take to confirm / refute this?
The
TNA will ask the vote of the Tamil people before the forthcoming parliamentary
elections. It will be a pity indeed if the Tamil electorate does not use the
opportunity of the elections to ask pointed questions as to TNA’s position on
the political detainees and how it hopes to negotiate their release. And, in
the event the government names only 300 in identified prisons, what concrete
steps it is going to take with Colombo to elicit the truth about the fate of
the others and ensure justice for the victims’ families.
The
TNA and the government as a whole have a responsibility to all citizens to
investigate disappearances. Simply because someone who has disappeared is not
in an authorised prison does not mean that the government’s responsibility is
over. However this appears to be Prime Minister Wickremesinghe’s position when
he told the New York Times interviewer, “‘there are people who are
missing whose names are not found anywhere,’ which, he said, means they either
“are not among the living, or they left the country. That’s all.’”
If
it indeed turns out that there are only 300 political detainees in authorised
prisons the government cannot simply wash its hands off by presuming the others
are dead and say “that’s all”. It is the right of the families of the
disappeared, whether their loved ones are in a prison or dead, to expect the
Government conduct a proper investigation, and if the disappeared are found to
have been killed provide the details of the deaths to the next of kin. If the
government is unable or unwilling to fulfill its obligations, the international
community must step in.
The
issue of justice for the families of the disappeared is tied to the larger
question of justice for war crimes and crimes against humanity of which Sri Lanka’s
military and LTTE rebels stand accused. The past five years has seen an
acrimonious contest on nature of the institutions that could best investigate,
try and punish the perpetrators of these crimes.
The
Sri Lanka Government insisted that all stages of this process should be run
only by Sri Lankan institutions. But an outcry by victims, civil society and
the international community that such an investigation would be biased against
the victims, prevented this.
In
March 2014 following a resolution in the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) the
Office of High Commissioner for Human Rights began compiling a preliminary
report. Its findings are expected to be presented at the UNHRC in September. Next
will be to see if there are gaps in the findings and then steps needed to
investigate and select an appropriate court and a system of law to try and
punish the perpetrators.
Once
again the Government has insisted only domestic mechanisms should be employed. But
the victims and sections of civil society have insisted on an international
court and legal mechanisms.
However,
bedazzled perhaps by the West-leaning government established after the January
elections, the US, which has generally set the tone for the western
democracies’ perspective on Sri Lanka, has expressed confidence in Sri Lanka’s
domestic institutions of justice with certain modifications. Speaking in May in
Sri Lanka, US Secretary
of State John Kerry asked Sri Lanka to “to cooperate with the United
Nations as it explores the best way to mount a credible domestic investigation
… that meets international standards…”
The
recent revelation that only 300 prisoners remain in Government custody only
confirms that the crimes committed by the Government are even more heinous than
previously imagined. As such, no Sri Lanka government is going to facilitate
the legal, administrative and political changes that domestic judicial
institutions need to meet ‘international standards.’ The only way is for
international justice to be dispensed by international courts.
So
even as Tamils in Sri Lanka seek answers from the TNA on those who disappeared
from Government custody, it is imperative for the Tamil diaspora to work
relentlessly with US and other western democracies to demonstrate that war
crime trials in Sri Lanka will only work if tried by international mechanisms,
under international law established under UN guarantees.
Photo: AP
Sem comentários:
Enviar um comentário