VZCZCXRO4263
OO RUEHBI RUEHLMC
DE RUEHLM #1358/01 2751236
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
O 021236Z OCT 07
FM AMEMBASSY COLOMBO
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC IMMEDIATE 6908
INFO RUEHRL/AMEMBASSY BERLIN PRIORITY 0544
RUEHKA/AMEMBASSY DHAKA PRIORITY 0442
RUEHIL/AMEMBASSY ISLAMABAD PRIORITY 7429
RUEHKT/AMEMBASSY KATHMANDU PRIORITY 5567
RUEHLO/AMEMBASSY LONDON PRIORITY 4052
RUEHNE/AMEMBASSY NEW DELHI PRIORITY 1421
RUEHNY/AMEMBASSY OSLO PRIORITY 4105
RUEHKO/AMEMBASSY TOKYO PRIORITY 3191
RUEHCG/AMCONSUL CHENNAI PRIORITY 8023
RUEHBI/AMCONSUL MUMBAI PRIORITY 5649
RUEHON/AMCONSUL TORONTO PRIORITY 0409
RUEHGV/USMISSION GENEVA PRIORITY 2352
RHHMUNA/HQ USPACOM HONOLULU HI PRIORITY
RHEFDIA/DIA WASHINGTON DC PRIORITY
RHEHAAA/NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL WASHINGTON DC PRIORITY
RUEHBS/USEU BRUSSELS PRIORITY
RUEHLMC/MILLENNIUM CHALLENGE CORPORATION PRIORITY

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 03 COLOMBO 001358 
 
SIPDIS 
 
SENSITIVE 
SIPDIS 
 
DEPARTMENT FOR SCA/INS 
MCC FOR D NASSIRY AND E BURKE 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: PGOV PREL PTER PHUM MOPS CE
SUBJECT: SRI LANKA: GOVERNMENT CRITICIZES EMINENT PERSONS; 
INTERNATIONAL PANEL NEARS END GAME 
 
REF: A. COLOMBO 1171 
     ¶B. COLOMBO 966 
     ¶C. COLOMBO 835 (AND PREVIOUS) 
 
¶1.  (SBU)  SUMMARY:  The International Independent Group of 
Eminent Persons (IIGEP) submitted its second Interim Report 
to the President on September 18 and released its third 
public statement on September 19.  The Commission of Inquiry 
(COI) and Attorney General's (AG) office sent strongly-worded 
letters to IIGEP Chairman Justice P.N. Bhagwati this week, 
objecting to the substance of the statement and the process 
by which it was released.  On September 25, Ambassador and 
other Heads of Mission of the IIGEP donor countries discussed 
the GSL's reaction to IIGEP's third public statement, UN High 
Commissioner for Human Rights Louise Arbour's upcoming 
October visit, and the future of IIGEP.  The Ambassadors 
agreed that Arbour's advice about the future of IIGEP and the 
views of the Eminent Persons (EPs) themselves would be 
significant factors in determining how long to extend 
funding.  IIGEP's efforts have yet to produce significant 
results in clearing up the cases under investigation. 
However, IIGEP's suggestions for improving the draft witness 
protection law, if incorporated into the final legislation, 
may yet provide a return on the donor countries' considerable 
investment.  End Summary. 
 
¶2.  (SBU)  On September 18, IIGEP submitted its second 
Interim Report to the President.  There has been no response 
to date from the President's office to this report, or to the 
first Interim Report submitted in June 2007.  IIGEP released 
its third public statement on September 19.  As required, the 
statement was submitted to the COI and the AG's office two 
weeks in advance.  Neither office responded to the statement 
in writing within the 2 week deadline. 
 
GSL Letters Criticize IIGEP 
--------------------------- 
 
¶3.  (SBU)  The COI and AG's office subsequently sent 
strongly-worded letters to IIGEP Chairman Justice P.N. 
Bhagwati, which were made public, objecting to the substance 
of IIGEP's most recent public statement as well as the 
process by which it was released.  The AG's letter, dated 
September 22, noted that the release of the statement 
appeared timed to coincide with the 6th Session of the UN 
Human Rights Council and implied that the EPs had intended to 
influence the deliberations of the HRC.  The AG reiterated 
his previous defense of his office's role within the COI, 
saying the AG does not direct investigations, but merely 
advises COI investigators.  As a result, he said, there is no 
conflict of interest.  He noted that the COI is not entitled 
to financial independence because it is not a permanent body. 
 Instead, it must continue to rely on the Presidential 
Secretariat to approve all funding requests.  He added that 
 
SIPDIS 
new legislation on providing assistance and protection to 
victims of crime and witnesses will likely be presented to 
the cabinet soon and will likely be in place within the next 
two months.  Therefore, he said, IIGEP should not make public 
statements that undermine public confidence in the GSL's 
ability to protect witnesses.  He urged the IIGEP to engage 
with the Commission in a more constructive manner. 
 
¶4.  (SBU)  The COI's letter, dated September 24, expressed 
"shock" at the IIGEP's decision to release the third public 
statement "in grave violation" of the procedures outlined in 
the Presidential Invitation to IIGEP.  The COI said it 
explained its objections to the public statement in a meeting 
with Japanese Eminent Person Yozo Yokota on September 18 and 
on the same day sent a letter to the Eminent Persons 
outlining COI's concerns. (Note: The IIGEP Secretariat was 
 
COLOMBO 00001358  002 OF 003 
 
 
not copied on this e-mail "letter," which was sent just 
before midnight on September 18.  IIGEP released its 
statement before it became aware of the letter's existence.) 
The release of the public statement, despite the COI's 
objections, is "disrespectful of the COI and contrary to your 
mandate contained in the Presidential Invitation," according 
to the COI's letter.  The COI claimed the IIGEP has taken "an 
adversarial role vis-a-vis the COI and its work" which 
"probably reflects the IIGEP's mindset that they have a 
monitoring role."  The COI noted that the international 
community has committed substantial resources to support the 
IIGEP's work, which is "lost when the IIGEP are not 
physically present to observe" COI's proceedings.  COI also 
complained that the IIGEP had failed to promptly pass on 
third party information to the COI in violation of the 
Presidential Invitation. 
 
Heads of Mission Discuss IIGEP's Future 
--------------------------------------- 
 
¶5.  (SBU)  On September 25, Ambassador attended an IIGEP 
donors' meeting hosted by the Dutch Ambassador, including 
Heads of Mission of Australia, the European Union, and 
Canada, as well as IIGEP Assistant Dennis Milner.  The group 
discussed the GSL's reaction to IIGEP's third public 
statement, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Louise 
Arbour's upcoming visit (October 9 to 13) and the future of 
IIGEP.  Participants agreed that the recent exchange of 
letters between IIGEP, the GSL, and the COI was unlikely to 
help the situation.  They noted that the COI and AG letters 
addressed procedural problems while ignoring the substance of 
IIGEP concerns.  Canadian High Commissioner Angela Bogdan, 
who had recently met Arbour (a Canadian) in Geneva, reported 
that Arbour's goal for her visit is GSL permission for the UN 
OHCHR to expand its presence in Sri Lanka.  IIGEP Chairman 
Bhagwati, Canadian Eminent Person (EP) Bruce Matthews, and 
European Union EP Jean-Pierre Cot plan to be in Colombo 
during the Arbour visit.  Heads of Mission agreed that 
Arbour's advice about the future of IIGEP and the views of 
the EPs themselves would be significant factors in 
determining how long to extend funding.  Milner observed that 
the EPs have differing opinions on this subject.  European 
Commission Head of Delegation Julian Wilson said that the EU 
would fund IIGEP until the end of June 2008 and would 
consider extending funding as late as 2010, albeit on a much 
reduced basis.  Bogdan said Canada's funding would expire in 
March.  Dutch funding will stop at the end of 2007. 
 
Formal Extension Not Yet Granted 
-------------------------------- 
 
¶6.  (SBU)  The COI has yet to ask the President formally for 
an extension of its mandate, which is set to expire on 
November 3.  However, the COI has informed IIGEP that the 
President likely will extend the mandate for six months or a 
year.  The date of the next IIGEP Plenary has not been set, 
but is planned for mid-November. 
 
¶7.  (SBU)  COMMENT: Donor countries' considerable investment 
in IIGEP has not yet produced results in terms of clearing up 
the serious abuses under investigation, or holding those 
responsible accountable.  It is likely that during the 
November Plenary, the COI will announce the extension of its 
mandate and request that IIGEP extend as well.  Embassy 
believes that unless considerable progress is forthcoming in 
the next few weeks, the Eminent Persons may well decide to 
decline this invitation.  (Note: It is not clear that there 
is sufficient donor support to carry on the work of IIGEP 
even if the EPs were prepared to continue.)  If the visits of 
Louise Arbour and UN Special Rapporteur on Torture Manfred 
 
COLOMBO 00001358  003 OF 003 
 
 
Nowak (October 1-8) do not go well, the GSL may be tempted to 
blame IIGEP for the failings of the COI.  If the IIGEP 
decides to end its work on schedule, EPs and Assistants will 
have to make tough decisions about what to do with the 
information they have gathered from witnesses, who have much 
to fear should their identities be revealed.  The IIGEP's 
most enduring legacy may turn out to be its contribution to 
the new witness protection law.  However, it is uncertain at 
this point how many of the IIGEP's suggestions the Justice 
Ministry will incorporate into the final legislation. 
BLAKE