VZCZCXRO2529
OO RUEHBI RUEHLMC
DE RUEHLM #0835/01 1631243
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
O 121243Z JUN 07
FM AMEMBASSY COLOMBO
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC IMMEDIATE 6236
INFO RUEHKA/AMEMBASSY DHAKA 0184
RUEHIL/AMEMBASSY ISLAMABAD 7165
RUEHKT/AMEMBASSY KATHMANDU 5272
RUEHNE/AMEMBASSY NEW DELHI 1067
RUEHKO/AMEMBASSY TOKYO 2975
RUEHNY/AMEMBASSY OSLO 3889
RUEHOT/AMEMBASSY OTTAWA 1122
RUEHLO/AMEMBASSY LONDON 3818
RUEHCG/AMCONSUL CHENNAI 7751
RUEHBI/AMCONSUL MUMBAI 5412
RUEHON/AMCONSUL TORONTO 0238
RUEHBS/USEU BRUSSELS
RUEHGV/USMISSION GENEVA 2112
RHHMUNA/HQ USPACOM HONOLULU HI
RHEFDIA/DIA WASHINGTON DC
RHEHAAA/NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL WASHINGTON DC
RUEHLMC/MILLENNIUM CHALLENGE CORPORATION

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 04 COLOMBO 000835 
 
SIPDIS 
 
SIPDIS 
SENSITIVE 
 
DEPARTMENT FOR SCA/INS 
STATE PASS USAID FOR ANE/SAA, DCHA/DG, AND DCHA/CMM 
 
E.O. 12958:N/A 
TAGS: PHUM PGOV PREL CE
SUBJECT:  SRI LANKA: IIGEP'S FIRST PUBLIC STATEMENT CRITICAL OF GSL 
PERFORMANCE 
 
REF: A.  COLOMBO 742 
 
¶B. COLOMBO 563 
¶C. COLOMBO 525 
¶D. COLOMBO 511 (AND PREVIOUS) 
 
¶1.  (U) SUMMARY: The first International Independent Group of 
Eminent Persons (IIGEP) public statement, released on June 10, 
outlines the group's key criticisms of the Commission of Inquiry's 
(CoI) progress to date and notes that the Government of Sri Lanka 
(GSL) has done little to address IIGEP's concerns.  IIGEP argued, as 
it has since February, that the role of the Attorney General's (AG) 
office and the CoI's financial dependence on the Presidential 
Secretariat threaten the independence of the CoI.  IIGEP was 
 
SIPDIS 
critical of the CoI's lack of progress on investigations and on 
establishing witness protection mechanisms.  IIGEP emphasized that 
the CoI and IIGEP cannot substitute for comprehensive solutions, 
including human rights monitoring, to Sri Lanka's human rights 
problems.  The CoI countered that setting up internal procedures and 
a witness protection scheme to meet international standards takes 
time.  The AG's office also defended the CoI's slow start and 
objected to the IIGEP's suggestion that human rights monitoring 
might be appropriate for Sri Lanka.  Both the CoI and AG office 
asked that the EPs spend more time in-country.  Ambassador met on 
June 12 with a prominent Muslim activist and member of the CoI who 
commended the leadership of the Commission, but lamented the weak 
support of the GSL. End Summary. 
 
¶2.  (U) IIGEP's first public statement, released on June 10, 
outlines key criticisms of the CoI's progress to date and notes that 
the GSL has done little to address IIGEP's concerns.  In compliance 
with the IIGEP terms of reference, the text of the statement was 
submitted to the Chairman of the Commission of Inquiry and the 
Attorney General for comment two weeks prior to the release.  Both 
the CoI and the AG's office issued responses countering IIGEP's 
criticisms. 
 
Concerned about Role of Attorney General 
---------------------------------------- 
 
¶3.  (U) IIGEP argued, as it has since February 2007, that the role 
of the Attorney General's (AG) office as legal counsel to the CoI is 
a conflict of interest since the CoI may very well end up examining 
the AG's office performance in previous investigations.  IIGEP also 
noted that the Presidential Secretariat's control of the CoI's 
finances may threaten its independence.  IIGEP expressed concern 
that investigations and inquiries did not start until May 2007, 
halfway through the CoI's one-year mandate.  IIGEP also raised 
concerns about the lack of witness protection provisions and the 
impact that will have on the willingness of witnesses to share 
information.  IIGEP noted that GSL statements are creating the false 
impression that the CoI and IIGEP have wide mandates to address the 
overall human rights situation in the country, and emphasized that 
the CoI and IIGEP are not a substitute for "robust, effective 
measures including national and international human rights 
monitoring." 
 
CoI Denies Conflict of Interest 
and Foot-Dragging 
------------------------------- 
 
¶3.  (U) The CoI countered that the slow start of the Commission was 
necessary to allow time to establish internal procedures in keeping 
with international norms.  CoI expressed confidence that the AG's 
role in the CoI does not represent a conflict of interest, arguing 
that the AG office provides legal advice to the Commissioners, but 
does not actively participate in investigations.  The CoI explained 
that, in the absence of national legislation on witness protection, 
it has been working to establish its own witness protection scheme. 
It noted that the Investigation Unit of the CoI works daily and that 
it hopes the IIGEP will increase the frequency of its presence 
 
COLOMBO 00000835  002 OF 004 
 
 
in-country to observe the CoI's work. 
 
AG Office Offers Additional Defense 
----------------------------------- 
 
¶4.  (U) The AG's office defended the CoI's slow start by noting that 
the CoI could not start until after the nominations of EPs were 
finalized and approved in February 2007.  It countered that the GSL 
is committed to providing adequate funding to the CoI, but did not 
allow for the possibility of an independent budget.  The AG's office 
stated that it is inappropriate for the IIGEP to recommend the 
establishment of international human rights monitoring in Sri Lanka 
and suggested that IIGEP limit its comments to topics within its 
mandate.  It echoed the CoI's request that the EPs spend more time 
in-country. 
 
CoI Member Laments Weak GSL Support 
------------------------------------ 
 
¶5.  (SBU) Ambassador met on June 12 with Jezima Ismail, a prominent 
Muslim activist and a member of the CoI.  Ismail commended the 
leadership of the CoI, commenting that solidarity within the CoI was 
rock solid.  However, she lamented the weak support of the GSL.  She 
noted, for example, that President Rajapaksa has not met once with 
the CoI despite repeated requests from the Commission.  Ismail also 
criticized the weak financial support given the CoI by the 
Government.  She said the Commission members have their individual 
reputations to uphold and are therefore determined to make progress. 
 Ismail said she has already told her fellow Commissioners that she 
will go public if the Commission is not able to fulfill its mandate. 
 
 
¶6.  (SBU) COMMENT: The first IIGEP statement, consistent with the 
work of the CoI to date, dealt primarily with process issues but 
nonetheless marks a stern public rebuke.  The statement and the GSL 
responses contain views that have been exchanged repeatedly between 
the IIGEP and the CoI over the last few months.  The GSL did not 
acknowledge any problems with the performance of the CoI and has not 
offered to make any corrections based on the observations of the 
IIGEP.  It is not the case that the Attorney General's office has 
merely been providing advice on request to the CoI.  In the few 
hearings the COI has held to date, the Deputy Solicitor General has 
dominated the questioning of witnesses, asking leading questions 
that steer away from areas the GSL considers sensitive.  The EPs may 
have little motivation to spend more time in Colombo if their 
concerns are flatly rejected, casting doubt on the usefulness of 
their role and the overall CoI process.  However, as the 
investigations advance - particularly the one into the killing of 17 
Action Contre la Faim workers in Muttur - the IIGEP may feel obliged 
to issue even more pointed criticism, which inevitably will lead to 
greater tensions with the CoI and the GSL. 
 
¶7.  (U) Full Text of the IIGEP Public Statement: 
On 1 June 2007, we, the International Independent Group of Eminent 
Persons (IIGEP), submitted our first Interim Report to the President 
of Sri Lanka. The report contains our observations and concerns 
about the President's Commission of Inquiry to Investigate and 
Inquire into Alleged Serious Violations of Human Rights (the 
Commission). 
 
We reported to the President that the Commission has so far made 
hardly any noticeable progress in investigations and inquiries since 
its inception in November 2006. Moreover, since our formation in 
February 2007, we have identified and raised a number of concerns 
with the Commission and the Government of Sri Lanka. We remain 
concerned that current measures taken by the Government of Sri Lanka 
and the Commission to address issues such as the independence of the 
Commission, timeliness and witness protection are not adequate and 
do not satisfy international norms and standards. 
 
 
COLOMBO 00000835  003 OF 004 
 
 
Independence: We are concerned about the role of the Attorney 
General's Department as legal counsel to the Commission. The 
Attorney General's Department is the Chief Legal Adviser to the 
Government of Sri Lanka. Members of the Attorney General's 
Department have been involved in the original investigations into 
those cases subject to further investigation by the Commission 
itself. As such, members of the Attorney General's Department may 
find that they are investigating themselves. Furthermore, it is 
possible that they be called as material witnesses before the 
Commission. We consider these to be serious conflicts of interest, 
which lack transparency and compromise national and international 
standards of independence and impartiality that are central to the 
credibility and public confidence of the Commission. 
 
We are concerned that the Commission's finances are managed by the 
Presidential Secretariat. The Commission does not have financial 
independence enabling it to exercise control of its human resources 
and operations. In particular, the Commission should be allocated 
sufficient funds to secure the permanent confidentiality, safety and 
integrity of its victim and witness protection scheme. 
 
Timeliness: We are concerned that the Commission did not commence 
even preliminary investigations and inquiries until May 2007, 
despite being constituted six months earlier in November 2006. To 
date, internal processes have not been transparent; no detailed work 
plan has been announced; essential staff have not yet been fully 
recruited; investigative and witness protection units are not 
functioning; and significantly, evidence already known to be in the 
possession of Governmental bodies relating to the cases has not been 
gathered and transmitted to us. Such unnecessary delays undermine 
public confidence in the ability of the Commission to carry out its 
mandate in a timely manner. 
 
Witness protection: We are concerned that there are no adequate 
victim and witness protection provisions under Sri Lankan law. We 
are of the view that witness protection is absolutely essential in 
order to investigate serious violations of human rights that are 
within the Commission's mandate. Appropriate legislation that 
accords with international norms and standards should be enacted and 
implemented as soon as possible to protect victims and witnesses. 
 
We regret that the Commission still has no functioning victim and 
witness protection mechanism. In the absence of appropriate 
legislation, an effective scheme or functioning protection unit, we 
fail to understand how the Commission could have invited the public, 
as it did as recently as 14 May 2007, to come forward and give 
evidence. As the Commission is operating without witness protection 
legislation, it is unable to guarantee the safety and security of 
witnesses. Summoning and examining potential victims and witnesses 
may create fear in their minds about safety and security, deterring 
them from coming forward to give evidence. 
 
Mandates: The Presidential Warrant limits the scope of the 
Commission to a retrospective and fact finding role. The core work 
of the Commission is to obtain information, investigate and inquire 
into alleged serious violations of human rights arising since 1 
August 2005, including 16 specific cases; and to examine prior 
investigations into these cases. The Commission is required to make 
findings and report to the President on the facts and circumstances 
pertaining to each case; the descriptions, nature and backgrounds of 
the victims; the circumstances that may have led to, or resulted in, 
those persons suffering such deaths, injury or physical harm; the 
identities, descriptions and backgrounds of the persons and groups 
responsible for the commission of deaths and other acts; measures of 
reparation to be provided to the victims; and recommendations in 
order to prevent the occurrence of incidents in the nature of those 
investigated and any other recommendations considered as relevant. 
 
The IIGEP, comprising of 11 Members, has been invited by the 
President to observe the investigations and inquiries of the 
 
COLOMBO 00000835  004 OF 004 
 
 
Commission, in order to ensure transparency and observance of 
international norms and standards. The IIGEP does not have a mandate 
to conduct independent investigations and inquiries; nevertheless, 
we are open to all persons who wish to provide information and 
evidence on the cases under review by the Commission. Although we 
are obliged by the Presidential Invitation to transmit third party 
information to the Commission, it would not be right for us to 
disclose any information without the consent of the third party, or 
which may impair the safety or security of such third parties until 
we are satisfied that effective, functioning and credible witness 
protection measures are in place. 
 
We regret that public statements from State officials are creating 
the misleading impression that the Commission and IIGEP have wide 
mandates and powers and the resources to address ongoing alleged 
human rights violations in Sri Lanka. This is not the case. In the 
current context, in particular, the apparent renewed systematic 
practice of enforced disappearance and the killings of Red Cross 
workers, it is critical that the Commission and IIGEP not be 
portrayed as a substitute for robust, effective measures including 
national and international human rights monitoring. 
 
P N Bhagwati 
 
Chairman, IIGEP 
 
[end text] 
 
BLAKE