Judicial process before the National Human Rights Commission

Background and mandate

Despite the reputation for inefficiency acquired by the National Human Rights Commission, ACF presented a request to its regional office in Trincomalee, on 4th September 2006, to carry out all available legal proceedings that could help uncover the whole truth on the Muttur tragedy.

According to its constitutive act, Sri Lanka’s Human Rights Commission is mandated to investigate complaints relating to human rights violations. The Commission may conciliate and arbitrate, but it is not empowered to take constraining decisions. As a last recourse, facts established by the commissioners may be transferred to the Attorney General who may then conduct a criminal investigation and proceed with criminal charges.

ACF was dismayed by the complete inefficiency of, and the lack of cooperation from, the Commission, from the very first months following the commencement of the inquiry and until the present time. Due to the inaction of this institution, the background of the proceedings and the conclusions reached are particularly brief.

Main critiques

The independence and efficiency of this institution have recently been seriously questioned by members of the Sri Lankan civil society, as well as by the international community. This institution has often been accused of failing to respect the “Paris Principles”, which are widely accepted norms and standards relating to the status and functioning of national institutions for the protection and promotion of human rights.

• Lack of independence of the judicial system
The most scathing criticism was expressed following the appointment of commissioners by the Sri Lankan president in May 2006. These appointments were made without the agreement of the constitutional council, which is normally required by the Constitution. Following this incident, at the end of 2007 the status of the Commission was downgraded to the rank of observer by the International Committee for the Coordination of National Institutions in charge of promoting and protecting human rights (which henceforth will only allow it a restricted participation in international meetings).

• Lack of efficiency
The Commission only started its investigation into the killings of the 17 aid workers in January 2007.  A number of interviews were conducted; however ACF was unable to have access to the Commission’s interim reports, despite numerous requests and promises. Although it is difficult to render judgement on the real activities of the Commission, ACF seriously doubts that more than a year of investigation by this institution will yield any concrete results.