• Room for improvement in HR not only in SL, but also in other countries
• SL has improved; different to what is portrayed by certain western parties
• Some actions of Govt. not due to UNHRC pressure, but in best interest of people
• Govt. wants to engage with UN; doesn't mean it accepts Resolutions 46/1, 30/1
• Certain appointments by Prez were made in line with Constitution
• Govt. must focus not only on independent commissions, but institutions too

By Yoshitha Perera United Nations (UN) High Commissioner for Human Rights Michelle Bachelet last week presented an oral update to the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) on a variety of human rights (HR) issues in Sri Lanka, including the Government’s controversial de-radicalisation regulations, militarisation of the civilian administration, and the continued use of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act (PTA) to arrest and detain people such as Attorney-at-Law Hejaaz Hizubullah and teacher and poet Ahanf Jazeem. The Sri Lankan Government had also expressed its stance to the Council regarding the human rights situation in the country. In an interview with The Sunday Morning, State Minister of Regional Co-operation Tharaka Balasuriya gave more insights into the Government’s views with regard to the HR situation in the country and its stance on the oral update given by Bachelet at the 48th UNHRC Session. Following are excerpts from the interview. What is your view on the oral update delivered by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights? Do you agree with it? We had already rejected certain aspects stated in the UNHRC report but also agreed to certain aspects, and we are working with the UN to achieve those tasks. We expressed our opinion through the Foreign Minister’s speech in response to the oral update delivered by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights. We had expressed our concerns on the UNHRC’s intervention in the affairs of a sovereign nation. I must state that some of the things we wish to do in the country are not because the UNHRC is pressuring us; rather, we believe it is in the best interests of Sri Lanka and its citizens. For example, with regard to the PTA, we feel that there are certain provisions in the PTA which are draconian and we want to change them. We are not revisiting it because the UN and the European Union (EU) are concerned. As leaders, we feel that we have to change that law. How does the Government plan to effectively address Resolution 46/1? Will it fully address the concerns therein? As I said, we are addressing certain concerns the UNHRC raised through Resolution 46/1. They have raised concerns over the emblematic cases and also over the democratic space, which, they feel, is shrinking due to the emergency situation in the country. Certain aspects are related to the ground situation of the Covid-19 pandemic. Things such as movement of people have to be restricted for the greater good of the country and its people. We are deliberating with the Core Group and we have regular meetings with them. We want to engage with the UN, but that doesn’t mean we accept Resolutions 46/1 or 30/1 of the UNHRC. We will work on certain aspects stated in Resolution 46/1 to do things that are best for the country. What is your response to concerns raised at the UNHRC over the alleged militarisation and the presidential pardon of a convicted criminal? Like I said, we are following certain things mentioned in their report, but we are not adhering to certain aspects. The decision on the pardon was at the sole discretion of the President, and it is within the rights of the President to do that. I think, given the nature of the case, the President made the correct decision to pardon former MP Duminda Silva. When it comes to the militarisation accusation, again, we have to say that certain appointments were made by the President in line with the Constitution. It is not that the President had abused his powers. The UK, Japan, and several countries responded to the Government’s statement. How do you respond to the sentiments expressed by members of the international community? We feel that there is room for improvement in human rights, not only for Sri Lanka but for all countries, and it is an ongoing process. What we reject is these country-specific resolutions developed by the UNHRC. Whatever the concerns, these have to be discussed with the support of the relevant country through reviews and negotiations. However, if you have country-specific resolutions and the country concerned is not interested in falling in line with those resolutions, then I don’t think anything will ever get done. Certain things have to be implemented after considering what is best for us. What’s the progress on the investigations on alleged human rights violations after the resolution was passed in March 2021? What we committed to through the resolution was that we would appoint a Commission of Inquiry (CoI) to investigate alleged human rights violations. Accordingly, we had appointed the CoI and they would submit a final report at the end of the year. The Commission had already submitted an interim report to the President. We are closely working with the Office on Missing Persons (OMP), the Office for National Unity and Reconciliation (ONUR), and the Office for Reparations. We also observed that these institutions are working independently, but there must be co-ordination among these three institutions. What are our long-term plans and institutions that we are maintaining as a country to protect human rights and also to investigate human rights violations? In my opinion, certain institutions such as the OMP need to have an end date. You don’t find that the OMP is going on forever in countries that had a war. After a certain period, the role of the institution has to come to an end. So, I’m of the view that we have to strengthen the capacity of these institutions while focusing on an end date. As the Government, we also have to make certain institutions in Sri Lanka more independent. The previous Yahapalana Government was only concerned about independent commissions, but we have to focus on independent institutions as well. For example, the previous administration was concerned about an independent police commission, but as the Government, we have to focus on making the Police independent as well. Is there any time-bound action plan on reforms with regard to the human rights situation that we are maintaining as a country? Yes. When making certain reforms, we have a time-bound action plan. When it comes to revising the provisions in the PTA, we appointed a cabinet subcommittee to revisit the PTA and to do it in line with international norms and best practices. There is a particular time frame for them to submit their suggestions. What confidence-building measures does the Government plan to take to improve local and international trust in Sri Lanka’s commitment to ensure justice? Certain perceptions about Sri Lanka tend to be overexaggerated by certain parties. The best mechanism is that we ask people to come to Sri Lanka and observe the situation in the country. When people come to Sri Lanka, they will understand that we have improved much more than what was said about us by certain parties in the West. Some people are trying to deliver a negative impression about the country and compare it with some countries that have an extreme level of violence. We have certain deficiencies, and we have to improve them, but we don’t have an extreme level of violence in the country as mentioned by some parties. How has the dialogue progressed between Sri Lanka and Core Group members? I would say the discussion between Sri Lanka and Core Group members progressed well. We have periodic meetings with them and we are informing them of what we are doing. We had already expressed our plans to the Core Group, and I think meetings with them were going well. There is also pressure from the EU on improving human rights and the commitment to international treaties. How is the Government addressing this issue? The EU’s concern is on the PTA, and, as I mentioned, we already appointed a cabinet subcommittee to revisit the Act. We are quite confident that revisions can be done to the PTA in line with international norms and best practices without jeopardising national security of the country. What more does the Government plan to do in relation to accountability, reparations, and reconciliation? The Government is confident that our local mechanisms are strong enough to take forward any issues that arose during the last stages of the war. Some international agencies and parties say that war crimes had taken place during the end of war, but they are not substantiating it. We had asked them to provide such evidence to the law enforcement authorities to investigate. Those who are questioning us on accountability have to substantiate the things they claim happened during the end of war. When it comes to reparations, it is going forward, and the Government has allocated a large sum of money to assist the families of the victims. There is a process for this. The Office for Reparations has to check on the status of the victim – whether they had died or whether they are being included by the OMP or under another category. Once that process is completed, the President clearly instructed to provide reparations for families of those victims. With regard to reconciliation, there are short and long-term steps that we have to initiate. We also have to respect one another’s culture. I must say that reconciliation and accountability are intertwined.