Experts of the Committee on Enforced Disappearances Welcome Sri Lanka’s Law on Enforced Disappearance, Ask about Reports of Arbitrary Detentions and Intimidation of Victims’ Families
The Committee on Enforced Disappearances today concluded its consideration of the initial report of Sri Lanka on its implementation of the International Convention on the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance. Committee Experts commended the State’s law transposing the Convention, while raising concerns regarding reports of arbitrary detentions and intimidation of victims’ families.
Olivier de Frouville, Committee Vice-Chair and Country Co-Rapporteur, said Sri Lanka had been particularly affected by enforced disappearance; there had been waves of disappearances in the 1980s and 1990s, and throughout the conflict period until 2009. He welcomed that the State party had taken some positive steps in response, ratifying the Convention, integrating it into national legislation, and establishing the Office on Missing Persons. The law on enforced disappearance was a good transposition of the Convention, he said.
Mr. de Frouville said there were several cases of arbitrary detention and “short-term” disappearances reported in recent years, including cases of people being taken in white vans and held in secret detention for extended periods. How did the State ensure that the police enforced the zero-tolerance policy for such detentions?
Carmen Rosa Villa Quintana, Committee Expert and Country Co-Rapporteur, said the families of victims of enforced disappearance were reportedly threatened with intimidation or surveillance by the State and, in some cases, police had refused to accept complaints. How did the State party ensure that victims’ families could submit complaints without fear of reprisals?
Introducing the report, Harshana Nanayakkara, Minister of Justice and National Integration and head of the delegation, said the International Convention for the Protection of all Persons from Enforced Disappearance Act of 2018 was enacted to give effect to the Convention and operationalise it domestically. This Act provided for an absolute prohibition of enforced disappearance.
On arbitrary detentions, Mr. Nanayakkara said the Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka was mandated to monitor places of detention. This envisaged regular visits without prior notice to police stations, prisons, and childcare facilities. The delegation added that there were three cases of “short term” enforced disappearance currently being investigated by the Office on Missing Persons.
The police had a zero-tolerance policy on the suppression of complaints, the delegation said. Disciplinary action was taken against officers who refused to record complaints. There were free telephone lines and a website persons could use to lodge complaints to the inspector general. The national police commission also accepted complaints against the police.
In concluding remarks, Mr. Nanayakkara, said the Government believed in securing justice for the victims of enforced disappearance and finding truth and closure, in line with its commitment with human rights and fundamental freedoms. It heard the pain of missing citizens and their families and would continue to uphold its promises to them.
In his concluding remarks, Juan Pablo Alban Alencastro, Committee Chair, thanked the delegation and Committee Experts for their participation in the dialogue. The common goal of the Committee and the State party was to ensure implementation of the Convention in Sri Lanka. The Committee worked with all States parties, victims and stakeholders towards the eradication of enforced disappearance.
During the meeting, newly appointed Committee Expert Yakouma Jean de Dieu Bambara (Burkina Faso) made his solemn declaration.
The delegation of Sri Lanka consisted of representatives of the Ministry of Justice and National Integration; Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Foreign Employment and Tourism; the Ministry of Defence; Ministry of Public Security and Parliamentary Affairs; Ministry of Women and Child Affairs; the Attorney General’s Department; Sri Lanka Police; the Department of Probation and Child Care Services; National Child Protection Authority; the Office on Missing Persons; the Office for Reparations; the Office for National Unity and Reconciliation; and the Permanent Mission of Sri Lanka to the United Nations Office at Geneva.
The Committee will issue its concluding observations on the report of Sri Lanka at the end of its twenty-ninth session, which concludes on 2 October. Summaries of the public meetings of the Committee can be found here, while webcasts of the public meetings can be found here. The programme of work and other documents related to the session can be found here.
The Committee will next meet in public on Monday, 29 September at 10 a.m. to hold its annual meetings with States and civil society organizations.
Report
The Committee has before it the initial report of Sri Lanka (CED/C/LKA/1).
Presentation of Report
HARSHANA NANAYAKKARA, Minister of Justice and National Integration and head of the delegation, expressed Sri Lanka's firm commitment to safeguarding and protecting the human rights of all citizens. The principles of freedom, equality, justice, fundamental human rights and the independence of the judiciary were assured to all the people of Sri Lanka under the Constitution. As a State party to all nine core human rights conventions, Sri Lanka had demonstrated an unwavering commitment through decades of meaningful engagement with the United Nations human rights mechanisms.
After regaining independence from centuries of colonial rule in 1948, Sri Lanka experienced its darkest period during 30 years of conflict resulting from terrorism. The country had also gone through periods of political and civil unrest, and devastating natural disasters such as the tsunami in 2004. In 2024, the people of Sri Lanka elected a new Government in a free and fair election followed by a peaceful transition of power. The current Parliament was one of the most inclusive in post-independent Sri Lanka. The Government was committed to bring in a new political culture to ensure that racism, extremism and corruption were addressed robustly, and the rule of law applied equally to all people. It sought to ensure that the domestic reconciliation mechanisms established to address challenges emanating from the conflict were allowed to continue their work independently, strengthened by additional financial and human resources.
Following Sri Lanka’s ratification of the Convention, no cases of enforced disappearance had been reported in the State during the reporting period of 2017 to 2023. Even prior to the formulation of the Convention in 2006, Sri Lanka had a long-standing practice of investigating complaints of disappearances. Successive Governments sought to address this issue through the establishment of dedicated national mechanisms, including several commissions of inquiry, mandated to receive complaints, investigate cases, and recommend appropriate action in respect of missing and disappeared persons.
The Constitution of Sri Lanka contained provisions guaranteeing that individuals whose fundamental rights had been infringed due to executive or administrative action could seek relief before the Supreme Court. It also had a provision for a party to invoke the writ jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal with regard to the writ of habeas corpus.
The International Convention for the Protection of all Persons from Enforced Disappearance Act of 2018 was enacted to give effect to the Convention and operationalise it domestically. This Act provided for an absolute prohibition of enforced disappearance, did not permit any justifications or mitigating circumstances, and superseded all other written laws.
Recently, the Government had initiated action to introduce new counter terrorism legislation. The Cabinet-appointed committee in this regard was finalising draft counter terrorism legislation that aligned with international standards and best practices. The Government expected to gazette the new legislation very soon, repealing the current Prevention of Terrorism Act.
The Office on Missing Persons Act of 2016 acknowledged the existence of incidents of missing persons, including those unaccounted for in connection with the conflict, political unrest, and civil disturbances. It further recognised that relatives of missing persons were entitled to know the circumstances under which such persons went missing and their fate and whereabouts.
The Cabinet of Ministers had recently approved an additional 375 million rupees to the Office on Missing Persons to expedite the investigation of missing person allegations. Its broad mandate encompassed searching for and tracing missing persons irrespective of the period of disappearance, making recommendations to competent authorities for redress and protection, developing and maintaining a centralised database, and supporting and informing families of their rights and entitlements. To date, the Office had successfully traced 23 missing persons, issued Certificates of Absence and made referrals to the Office for Reparations for the provision of reparations.
Sri Lanka had a strong and vibrant governance structure and an independent judiciary, further strengthened by the vigilance and oversight of independent commissions. The Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka, a national human rights institution with “A” status, was mandated to investigate fundamental rights violations, including monitoring places of detention. This envisaged regular visits without prior notice to police stations, prisons, and childcare facilities. Further, attorneys had the right of access remanded and detained persons and to make representations on their behalf, while such persons had the right to communicate with their relatives.
The Government continued to strengthen the domestic reconciliation mechanisms by guaranteeing their independence and making the necessary resource allocations. Other initiatives that had been undertaken by the Government included drafting a national policy and action plan on reconciliation, and initiating work towards the establishment of an independent public prosecutor’s office.
The Government was working to introduce a new system to compensate victims’ families which would provide long-term support and enable fair financial compensation, along with vocational education, livelihood opportunities, health facilities, psychosocial care and restoration of social dignity. By ensuring transparency and accountability, the Government sought not only to heal wounds but also to strengthen trust, and to foster reconciliation and the State’s shared future as one nation in a sustainable manner. The outcome of the dialogue would positively contribute to Sri Lanka’s ongoing national efforts on reconciliation and accountability to address past occurrences of enforced disappearance.
Questions by Committee Experts
OLIVIER DE FROUVILLE, Committee Expert and Country Co-Rapporteur, said Sri Lanka had been particularly affected by enforced disappearance; there had been waves of disappearances in the 1980s and 1990s, in 2002 and throughout the conflict period until 2009. Reports indicated that there was still enforced disappearance in the country. Some positive steps had been taken – the State party had ratified the Convention, adopted legislation to integrate the Convention into national legislation, and established the Office on Missing Persons. The dialogue would address the remaining issues facing the country.
Had the State party consulted the families of its victims during preparation of the report? The National Human Rights Commission had been accredited with “A” status; this was welcome. However, the Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions had issued recommendations related to the financial autonomy of the Commission. Had these been responded to? The right to visitation for the Commission was not enshrined in law and the Commission’s recommendations were not always enforced. How would the State party ensure that this was done?
Did the State party envisage making declarations relating to articles 31 and 32 of the Convention related to individual and inter-State communications?
The Working Group on Enforced Disappearance had registered 12,600 cases related to Sri Lanka. This number was reportedly much lower than the actual number of disappeared persons, which some estimated as being over 100,000. The State did not have a centralised database of cases of enforced disappearance and the classifications used for the disappeared were not in line with those of the Convention; would this be addressed? Could the State party indicate trends in disappearances in different communities, such as the Muslim community?
How did authorities collect information on cases of enforced disappearances? Did they carry out proactive actions to discover where cases occurred? What measures were in place to match human remains found in mass or unmarked graves with genetic information in databanks? Would the State party share the information it found on missing persons with other States?
The law on enforced disappearance was a good transposition of the Convention. Why had the State party not included the notions of “war crimes” and “crimes against humanity” in its legislation? Certain cases of enforced disappearances could have been considered as such crimes. What was the State party’s position on setting up a specialised court to deal with these crimes?
Could a superior’s order be invoked as a defence in a case of enforced disappearance, removing the responsibility of the perpetrating officer? Did legislation address the responsibility of superiors who ordered or were aware of disappearances?
CARMEN ROSA VILLA QUINTANA, Committee Expert and Country Co-Rapporteur, said the history of enforced disappearance in Sri Lanka was paving the way to the right to truth, justice and reparation. The State party had an opportunity to progress and recognise all the rights of victims.
There was a 20-year period for the statute of limitations, which was counted from the moment of a crime. However, the Code of Criminal Proceedings and the law on enforced disappearance did not establish recognise the ongoing nature of such crimes. Would the State party address this? What resources did the State provide to victims to ensure that they could enforce their rights during the period of the statute of limitations?
What was the maximum period for pre-trial detention? Had the State party detained alleged perpetrators? An investigative court had been established in 2010 to investigate recommendations made by the reconciliation commission. What had this court’s investigations found and why had the military court intervened in its work?
National courts were allowed to exercise universal jurisdiction. What measures had the State party taken to prevent alleged perpetrators of enforced disappearance from avoiding prosecution, for example by fleeing abroad?
How many enforced disappearance cases had been brought to the High Court and what decisions were taken in such cases? There was reportedly a lack of cooperation from the Ministry of Defence to provide the names of alleged authors of enforced disappearances. What measures were in place to ensure access to the archives of the armed forces and the police force? What sanctions were imposed if these forces refused to hand over information? Victims’ families were reportedly threatened with intimidation or surveillance by the State and, in some cases, police had refused to accept complaints. How did the State party ensure that victims’ families could submit complaints without fear of reprisals?
When there was a report of enforced disappearance, did the police take immediate action to investigate? The prosecution service acted as a Government advisor; how was its impartiality ensured? How did the criminal investigation department cooperate with other State departments in investigations?
The Committee welcomed that trafficking was a stand-alone crime in the Penal Code. How did the State party investigate reports of smuggling of migrants? How was it tackling enforced disappearance in the context of migration? Did it have data on disappeared or deceased migrants? Were there capacity building or training programmes on enforced disappearance for border officials?
A Committee Expert said the Office on Missing Persons was reportedly not functioning effectively; how would its capacity be strengthened? In a 2008 disappearance case, three Navy commanders had reportedly been involved, but no persons had been charged. What investigations had been carried out into this case, as well as into a recently uncovered mass grave and reported intimidation of a journalist investigating enforced disappearance?
Responses by the Delegation
The delegation said Sri Lanka had passed legislation giving effect to the Convention in 2018. Complementing this act, it had passed legislation on reparations, the Office of Missing Persons Act and an act on the witness protection regime. There had been incidents of missing persons, including persons subjected to abductions or disappearances in periods of conflict. The legal regime addressed such crimes before the act implementing the Convention was passed.
Investigating authorities required reasonable suspicion that persons had committed offences to conduct investigations, and convictions required a standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt.
Government officials obtained information from different agencies in preparing the State party report, some of which engaged with civil society organizations.
The National Human Rights Commission was an independent body. Its functional independence was guaranteed by funds from the legislature based on the amounts requested by the body. State agencies was required to endeavour to give effect to the Commission’s recommendations related to human rights violations and redress by the legislation on the Commission.
There were several commissions established in the past to address disappearances and missing persons, but the roles of these commissions had been taken up by the Office on Missing Persons. The Office had records on 23,300 cases of missing persons, including 3,700 officers missing in action and around 16,000 missing civilians. The Office gave priority to cases reported recently in investigations. Some 93 per cent of missing persons reported were male and 33 per cent of missing persons were aged 19 to 35. A provisional list of missing persons had been published in 2018 and translated into local languages in 2022.
Sri Lanka had declared its commitment to article 32 of the Convention. The Supreme Court had previously ruled that the individual communications procedure of the Human Rights Committee was unconstitutional. However, the Supreme Court would take up a case next week that would clarify the State’s position related to the communications procedures of the human rights treaty bodies.
In recent years, laws had been amended to allow lawyers, the Office on Missing Persons and the National Human Rights Commission to visit places of detention. The National Human Rights Commission had been assigned as the national preventive mechanism for torture. The Supreme Court assessed complaints related to persons not being allowed to visit places of detention.
The act on enforced disappearances rejected superiors’ orders as a defence in terms of criminal liability, and the State’s legislation had recognised this principle before the implementation of this act.
All investigations of mass graves were carried out with judicial oversight in accordance with legal standards. The Office on Missing Persons provided guidance related to the preservation and classification of human remains and international standards in this regard were being implemented. Qualified forensic experts and victims’ families were included in the process. Human remains found in mass grave sites recently were ready for forensic investigations or exhumations, and the State party was working with international partners in this regard.
Formal complaints were not required to commence investigations. Complaints received by local police stations were handed over to the inspector general of the police and the investigative body, which acted depending on the seriousness of the case. The investigative body operated in an impartial manner, carrying out investigations based on the evidence uncovered.
There had been staffing and technical issues related to the Office on Missing Persons, but the Government was working on addressing these challenges. The economic crisis and the COVID-19 pandemic had hindered past recruitment processes. A new recruitment phase would be carried out later this year. The Office had received a higher financial allocation this year. The Office hoped to achieve positive results through its investigations and gain public trust.
The Criminal Procedural Code did not establish a statute of limitations for crimes of murder or treason. The Supreme Court had interpreted certain crimes as continuing violations. This judgement was available to judicial fora if they assessed crimes of enforced disappearance. If there were allegations of torture against the police, the Attorney General refused to allow those persons to participate in investigations. There was currently a case before the courts that the Attorney General had ordered the police to investigate under the enforced disappearance act. The role of the Attorney General had not been compromised by its role as an advisor to the Government.
Regarding the 2008 case involving Navy officials, the aggrieved parties had taken the case to the Supreme Court after the Court of Appeal issued a stay order. This case was still under investigation. In all cases, the Attorney General conducted investigations in an independent manner.
Questions by Committee Experts
OLIVIER DE FROUVILLE, Committee Expert and Country Co-Rapporteur, called for specific information on the participation of non-governmental organizations in preparing the report. Were there cases of recommendations by the National Human Rights Commission not being followed that had been submitted to the President? Did the State party intend to table a bill which would allow for the acceptance of the competence of the Committee to receive individual communications?
What was the role of former commissions of inquiry into enforced disappearances? Many of the recommendations of these commissions had not been considered. One commission had asked in 2003 for the prosecution of certain officers, but this had not been carried out. Had there been any referrals of cases from the Office of Missing Persons to the authorities?
Figures from 2004 stated that there were 432 cases of disappearances submitted to the High Court, with only 12 convictions and 130 cases in which the accused was discharged. Could the delegation provide updated figures? Reportedly, there was a lack of diligence from the prosecution service, harassment of families who submitted cases, and courts that lacked independence and failed to pursue cases. Had appeals against court decisions been lodged? A commission set up in 2015 de facto guaranteed impunity for prosecuted persons. Sunil Ratnayake, who had been found guilty of the murder of eight persons, had received a presidential pardon. How was the State tackling impunity?
There were several cases of aggravated arbitrary detention and “short-term” disappearances reported in recent years, including cases of people being taken in white vans and extended periods of secret detention. How were these addressed? There were many examples of legislation such as the Prevention of Terrorism Act being used to repress the families of the disappeared at commemorative events and to legitimise intimidation and reprisals. What progress had been made in assessing a potential repeal of the Prevention of Terrorism Act?
CARMEN ROSA VILLA QUINTANA, Committee Expert and Country Co-Rapporteur, asked how the State party was addressing cases in which perpetrators of enforced disappearance had been identified but not brought to trial. What happened when investigators refused to provide information to victims’ families? Some officials accused of carrying out enforced disappearances had been nominated for high-ranking diplomatic posts. What measures were in place to fight impunity?
Who assisted persons seeking to report disappearances? How was the State party following up on the police’s guidelines on the treatment of the families of missing persons? Many police officers reportedly discriminated against Tamil women seeking to report crimes based on their gender and origin. Had there been criminal trials against members of the security forces?
Were extraditions decided on by a judge or an administrative body? The State party had many bilateral extradition agreements. Had it received requests for extraditions based on these? How were requests for investigations of enforced disappearance processed?
Responses by the Delegation
The delegation said the Government had a zero-tolerance policy for corruption and enforced disappearance. The Office on Missing Persons had been established to address past crimes. The Government did not encourage wrongdoers to hold any public position.
Former Governments had refused to consider repealing the Prevention of Terrorism Act. The current Government had established a committee that would draft a new law to replace the Act; this would be done by the end of this year. Following this, a public consultation process on the draft law would be carried out.
A committee had been appointed to revise legislation to strengthen the independence of the public prosecutor. The criminal procedure code included judicial supervision of investigations, preventing interference by the executive in investigative processes.
A bill on recognising the jurisdiction of the Committee to receive individual communications would need to recognise the sovereign rights of the population.
The Supreme Court was assessing the presidential pardon of Sunil Ratnayake. Presidential pardons had been overturned in the past. Persons could submit complaints to the Supreme Court related to human rights violations.
The extradition act had been amended to address enforced disappearance. It included provisions preventing refoulement.
Sri Lanka was a signatory to the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime and the Palermo Protocol. The State was bound to take action to eradicate trafficking in persons. A national anti-human trafficking taskforce had been established to prevent and prosecute trafficking in persons. The State party had conducted awareness raising campaigns on trafficking and many training programmes for police officers and local administrative officials on preventing trafficking. It also had formed agreements with other States on combatting the crime and supported the return of victims into society. The next national action plan on trafficking for 2026 to 2030 was being developed and the National Human Rights Commission had made agreements with State agencies on information sharing regarding trafficking and disappearances.
Sri Lanka had a strong law on the right to information. Ministries nominated information officers and were obliged to provide information within the provisions of legislation. The act on enforced disappearance provided victims’ families with the right to know about the progress of investigations and the fate of disappeared persons.
The police had a zero-tolerance policy on the suppression of complaints. Disciplinary action was taken against officers who refused to record complaints. There were free telephone lines and a website persons could use to lodge complaints to the inspector general. The national police commission also accepted complaints against the police.
Questions by Committee Experts
OLIVIER DE FROUVILLE, Committee Expert and Country Co-Rapporteur, asked about efforts to follow-up on the 2003 report of the National Human Rights Commission into enforced disappearance. What data did the State database on disappearances contain? How did the State party ensure that the police enforced the State’s policy of zero-tolerance for secret and arbitrary detentions and “short term” enforced disappearance? Reports indicated that these practices were continuing. Were persons who violated the law on detention sanctioned? There were reports of requests for habeas corpus being denied. How often were they accepted?
Was the State party considering using extra-territorial competences to prosecute perpetrators who were overseas? What was the procedure for appealing an expulsion? Did appeals have a suspensive effect? There was a constant flow of asylum seekers from Myanmar to Sri Lanka, and there were risks of enforced disappearance and refoulement in this situation. How was this being prevented?
What was the State party doing to find children who were victims of enforced disappearance, kidnapping or illegal adoptions? It seemed that article 25 of the Convention had not been well integrated into the law on enforced disappearance; would this be done? There were serious allegations of enforced disappearance of Tamil boys by security forces in 2009. This year, there were exhumations of children found in mass graves in the territory, including babies as young as three months old.
There were several allegations of forced recruitment of close to 7,000 children by the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam. These children were reportedly tortured as part of the “rehabilitation” process, and 24 children had reportedly been killed in this process. Had the State investigated these allegations and held those responsible accountable?
There were allegations that children were victims of illegal intercountry adoptions during the armed conflict in the 1980s and 1990s. Some children had reportedly been kidnapped then adopted in Western countries such as Switzerland. How was the State party investigating these cases?
CARMEN ROSA VILLA QUINTANA, Committee Expert and Country Co-Rapporteur, said some detainees had been placed in pre-trial detention for months without being briefed on their charges or judged. How was article 18 of the Convention enforced in practice? Courts were required under article 16 of the Convention to provide information in disappearances when requested. In how many cases had article 16 been applied? How many cases of denial of information were investigated by the National Human Rights Commission and the Supreme Court? Were courts sanctioned for not providing information?
What were the criteria for eligibility for protection measures? Were they provided for the families of victims of enforced disappearance? Was there a mechanism for assessing the risk of enforced disappearance? How did the State party ensure the independence of the national victim and witness protection authority? What protection measures did the Office of Missing Persons and the reparations office provide, and what resources were devoted to protection measures?
How were armed forced and the police trained on the prohibition of enforced disappearance, arbitrary detention, torture and sexual violence? Had training brought about a change in the activities of the police? There were allegations of torture by the police and arrests conducted without a warrant. What training on human rights and the Convention was provided for medical staff, prison staff and other civil servants?
Had the Office of Missing Persons provided police with information on cases of disappearances it had investigated? When and how did the Office begin searches? Out of the more than 16,000 reports that the Office had received, it had investigated only 19 cases. There were more than 6,500 cases that the Office had clarified – had it provided information to victims’ families on these cases? How did the State party guarantee the independence and impartiality of the Office? Did the State party have an action plan on strengthening search efforts? How many places of depravation of liberty had the Office visited and how many officers had it interviewed at these facilities?
The Office for National Unity and Reconciliation, established in 2015, was promoting social cohesion and tackling ethnic tension. How many people were needed to operate the Office?
Some 22 mass graves had been identified in north and east Sri Lanka on traditional Tamil lands, and five other reports of mass graves had recently been received. Did the State party have a technical team capable of carrying out large scale exhumations and providing dignified deliveries of remains to families? What measures were taken to preserve bodies? What measures had the State party taken to preserve evidence found in exhumations? What happened to the 240 bodies found in Chemmani? Did the State party have a centralised record of anti-mortem data and a DNA database? Had the State party considered requesting international support for exhumations? How did authorities provide victims’ families with information on the progress of investigations?
A Committee Expert asked whether the State party would take up investigations of past mass disappearances, including the disappearance of 184 people from a village in 1989.
Responses by the Delegation
The delegation said the State party had the political will to investigate cases of enforced disappearance. The Office on Missing Persons had a protection strategy and a victim and family support strategy. It had helped 2,700 families to obtain certificates of absence and 370 families to receive psychosocial support. Some 4,700 families had been assisted to seek reparation payments. The Office monitored new cases of missing persons with the support of State institutions and international organizations and analysed patterns in disappearances.
There were three cases of “short term” enforced disappearance being investigated by the Office on Missing Persons. It would work with the Working Group on Enforced and Involuntary Disappearances to develop a definition of such disappearances.
The Office had investigated 17 mass graves. It had a standard operating procedure for investigating those graves and had trained officers responsible for investigating mass graves. There were also suspected mass grave sites that the Office was investigating. The Office was calling on families to cooperate in investigations of mass graves, especially in helping to identify artifacts. Parties could observe the exhumation process, provided that they did not interfere. Investigative bodies had exhumed 15 bodies in Chemmani and arrested five army personnel related to these deaths. There was a lack of evidence related to the bodies found, which was why investigation had taken a long time.
Human rights were addressed in basic training for police officers. The Ministry of Defence had provided training for military personnel on international humanitarian and human rights law.
Sri Lanka was not a party to the 1951 Refugee Convention or the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees. However, it was obligated under other legislation to respect the principle of non-refoulement and did not send people back to places where they could face human rights violations. The State presently hosted 225 refugees and 165 asylum seekers. A boat carrying 120 persons from Myanmar was rescued in December 2024. This group had been provided with basic requirements at an interim care facility. Financial support for uninterrupted food was provided. The group received regular health screenings. The State party had acted against the human smugglers who had facilitated these persons’ access to the country.
The adoption system was legally regulated and prioritised the best interests of the child. There were mechanisms for reviewing arrangements arising from enforced disappearance and returning children who were victims of enforced disappearance. Victims had access to legal remedies and were supported to access identities. The State party respected its obligations under the Hague Convention and the Convention on the Rights of the Child. There were no cases of enforced disappearance in the context of migration carried out by the State. The State party was working to prevent trafficking in children and ensure timely identification of victims and support for those victims. The Government cooperated with Switzerland in investigating illegal adoptions carried out in the 1980s; it had successfully identified the biological families of some adoptees.
Crimes of wrongful confinement could be interpreted as being a continuing violation, applying the Supreme Court’s ruling on continuing violations. The national police commission was the disciplinary authority for police officers, but the State could prosecute officers for violations of criminal law, and there had been cases where officers had been criminally charged for human rights violations.
Questions by Committee Experts
OLIVIER DE FROUVILLE, Committee Expert and Country Co-Rapporteur, asked about the legal status of refugees from Myanmar. Could asylum seekers move freely in the State or were they detained? There were several people who were sent to “rehabilitation centres” after the conflict, some of whom were still unaccounted for. Had the State investigated this issue? It was welcome that authorities had started a search project seeking the families of adoptees living in Europe. How many adoptees’ families had been identified? Did the State party aid victims of illegal intercountry adoptions? Mr. de Frouville thanked the State party for the candid dialogue, and welcomed the State party’s political will to act on the issue of enforced disappearance.
CARMEN ROSA VILLA QUINTANA, Committee Expert and Country Co-Rapporteur, asked how the State party had provided protection to the families of victims. How many reparation payments had been provided to victims of enforced disappearance? What non-financial remedies were provided, and what entity provided psychological support to victims? What resources were available for psychological support services? Reparations needed to include public recognition of crimes by the judiciary and accountability for those responsible. How was the State party working to achieve this? Was there a comprehensive plan on reparations that promoted reconciliation between all citizens? Would the State create a national day on the memory of the disappeared? In 2024, a billion rupees were earmarked for reparation for 5,000 families, but only 4,000 had receive this subsidy. What plans were in place to use the remaining funds?
Where were the remains of the disappeared and archives kept? The Office on Missing Persons lacked credibility, independence and impartiality. Some of its members reportedly fulfilled roles that were connected to the police. Would the State party establish a transparent process for appointing members? Was there any initiative underway to strengthen the institutional independence of the Office and the office on reparations, increase their resources, and promote the participation of women? What measures were in place to respond to requests for compensation from Tamil women?
How did the State party ensure that death certificates were issued only when it was certain that the person had passed away? Were there procedures for converting death certificates into certificates of absence? What were the requirements for renewing certificates of absence? Had the Office of Missing Persons conducted awareness raising campaigns on the legitimacy of certificates of absence?
There were threats and acts of intimidation allegedly committed by members of the intelligence service against victims’ family members and human rights defenders working on enforced disappearance. What measures were in place to prevent such acts and punish offenders? How did the State party guarantee women’s right to take part in investigations and truth, justice and reconciliation processes?
Ms. Villa Quintana expressed hope that the concerns that the Committee had raised reached fertile ground in the State party and thanked the delegation for their answers.
Responses by the Delegation
The delegation said that in the past, victims’ families could not conduct memorials, but they were now allowed to if they did not glorify terrorist organisations. Sri Lanka commemorated a national day of enforced disappearance, with human rights defenders and families of victims invited to give speeches at the national commemorative event.
Previous Governments had fostered division in the State, but the current Government promoted unity. The current Government had the political will to move forward on investigating complaints of missing persons.
The members of the Office on Missing Persons were selected by the Constitutional Council and appointed by the President. They needed to have qualifications relevant for carrying out functions within the Office. The Office had financial and functional independence.
Certificates of absence were issued based on voluntary requests from family members. There were no cases in which families were coerced into obtaining such certificates. Families could revoke certificates of absences and obtain death certificates, but the Office of Missing Persons’ mandate was to provide certificates of absence as a priority on request. The Office had produced awareness raising campaigns on the legality of certificates of absence targeting financial and Government institutions. The certificates were valid for a period of two years but could be renewed.
Families had been financially supported through different institutions in different ways. The Government was working on establishing a standardised system for providing financial support. Investigative files were not closed after the provision of reparations.
Investigations of mass graves were carried out under the Code of Criminal Procedure, which was being amended to address such investigations more thoroughly. Exhumed remains were kept in the custody of judicial medical officers in two medical facilities.
A bill had been drafted on the truth and reconciliation commission, but it had not gone forward. The current draft contained overlapping provisions with existing legislation; the Government was attending to this. The State party had worked with civil society organizations to prepare a roadmap on truth and reconciliation and was now working to implement it.
The office of reparations delivered meaningful reparations to victims, which included financial, livelihood and psychosocial support. The office had paid financial support to over 4,000 families. Livelihood support programmes provided training to families to obtain livelihoods; over 500 victims, including 300 women, had received this support. Projects improving access to education, sanitation and the environment had been carried out, as had psychological support programmes.
Closing Statements
HARSHANA NANAYAKKARA, Minister of Justice and National Integration and head of the delegation, said the State party had participated in the dialogue in a spirit of openness and constructive engagement. It had taken careful note of the views and concerns expressed by the Committee. The review had helped to identify the gaps that needed to be addressed. Sri Lanka hoped that the Committee would provide constructive and useful recommendations.
The Government believed in securing justice for the victims and finding truth and closure, in line with its commitment with human rights and fundamental freedoms. It remained committed to the protection of human rights for all Sri Lankans. The State party heard the pain of missing citizens and their families and would continue to uphold its promises to them.
JUAN PABLO ALBAN ALENCASTRO, Committee Chair, thanked the delegation and Committee Experts for their participation in the dialogue. The Committee would develop concluding observations based on the dialogue and continue exchanges with the State party on the implementation of the recommendations it had adopted. The common goal of the Committee and the State party was to ensure implementation of the Convention in Sri Lanka. The Committee worked with all States parties, victims and stakeholders towards the eradication of enforced disappearance.
___________
Produced by the United Nations Information Service in Geneva for use of the media;
not an official record. English and French versions of our releases are different as they are the product of two separate coverage teams that work independently.
CED25.012E