VZCZCXRO0885
RR RUEHAT
DE RUEHGV #0515/01 1891135
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 071135Z JUL 08
FM USMISSION GENEVA
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 6688
INFO RUEHZJ/HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL COLLECTIVE
RUEHLM/AMEMBASSY COLOMBO 0539
RUCNDT/USMISSION USUN NEW YORK 2782
RUEHBS/USEU BRUSSELS

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 GENEVA 000515 
 
SENSITIVE 
SIPDIS 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: PHUM PGOV UNHRC CE
SUBJECT: NGOS CONTINUE TO USE UPR PROCESS TO PRESS SRI 
LANKA HUMAN RIGHTS ISSUES 
 
REF: GENEVA 489 
 
 ¶1. (SBU) SUMMARY:  Both the government of Sri Lanka and its 
critics implemented the same strategy in the plenary session 
of Sri Lanka's Universal Periodic Review (UPR) as they had in 
the working group phase of that newly-created mechanism. 
Defending itself against criticism leveled at it in both 
sessions, the government and its allies in the Human Rights 
Council (HRC) tried to present Sri Lanka as pursuing a 
cooperative spirit in the UPR and as making progress on its 
human rights record.  Among the noteworthy aspects of the 
plenary was the activism of NGOs, both during the plenary and 
on the margins.  The Sri Lanka review again highlighted the 
importance of UPR for independent human rights NGOs, and the 
important role that they, in turn, play in the process.  END 
SUMMARY. 
 
¶2. (U) Like all the countries that had undergone an initial 
UPR session at working group level in previous months, Sri 
Lanka underwent a one-hour UPR plenary session on June 13, as 
part of the HRC's Eighth Session (reftel).  This culminated 
in the adoption of a resolution concerning Sri Lanka's UPR 
review. 
 
REITERATED PRAISE, CRITICISM 
---------------------------- 
 
¶3. (U) The session featured much the same combination of 
praise and criticism of Sri Lanka as during the working group 
phase.  Algeria and Indonesia used their interventions to 
praise the GoSL for its commitment to human rights, with the 
latter stressing that change could not be expected overnight. 
 Denmark and Canada were among those who voiced criticism, 
with the former expressing regret that the GoSL had not 
accepted 26 of the recommendations made in the working group 
phase and that the recommendations did not cover the full 
range of problems.  Japan took the middle ground, stressing 
the GoSL acceptance of 45 recommendations but hastening to 
add its concerns about the human rights situation on the 
ground and expressing its desire to help make improvements. 
 
CIVIL SOCIETY TAKES THE STAGE 
----------------------------- 
 
¶4. (U) NGOs, which had not been allowed to speak in the 
working group phase, used all the time available to them to 
express concerns.  One NGO echoed the concerns raised by 
Denmark about the incompleteness of recommendations.  Others 
focused on those recommendations that already had been made 
and which Sri Lanka had not accepted.  Criticism focused 
heavily on the lack of independence of Sri Lanka's election 
commission, as well as on impunity for forced disappearances. 
 With only twenty minutes for all NGOs to speak, several 
coordinated their activity, with Amnesty International (AI) 
and Human Rights Watch (HRW), for instance, making a joint 
statement. 
 
NGO-HOSTED MEETINGS 
------------------- 
 
¶5.  (SBU) Despite having minimal time to speak in the actual 
UPR plenary sessions, NGOs were highly visible on the margins 
of the sessions of a number of countries, with Sri Lanka 
being perhaps the most notable.  Activists, including several 
who had come from Sri Lanka for the occasion (in many cases 
after having come for the earlier working group sessions as 
well), were active in the corridors before and after the 
actual review.  They also organized several side-events.  One 
panel, hosted by AI, HRW, and the International Commission of 
Jurists, included representatives from national human rights 
institutions but also a representative of the GoSL, Deputy 
Solicitor-General Shavindra Fernando, who presented the 
GoSL's response to issues related to witness protection and 
the Constitutional Council.  (NOTE:  Several of our 
interlocutors who were otherwise critical of Sri Lanka 
praised it for sending a representative to a session at which 
it knew it would come under criticism.  Few other governments 
showed any willingness to do so.  END NOTE.) 
 
¶6. (SBU) At another side event, Sri Lankan NGOs led the 
discussion on how best to push their concerns through the 
many filters of the UPR process.  They focused on the 
structural problems in Sri Lanka today, emphasizing that the 
country has plenty of lawyers, who have no scope, however, to 
exercise the rule of law.  The NGO activists argued that 
webcasting of the UPR review allowed those lawyers, and 
others, to better press for human rights on the ground, as 
well as keeping the international community focused on Sri 
 
GENEVA 00000515  002 OF 002 
 
 
Lanka's situation.  The UPR also could lead to greater 
grassroots efforts back home. 
 
COMMENT 
------- 
 
¶7.  (SBU) NGO participation in the Sri Lanka UPR process has 
been valuable in painting a more comprehensive picture of 
human rights in that country for Geneva delegations, as well 
as for a potential international community that can access 
the proceedings through webcasts and by virtue of media 
coverage.  As the Sri Lanka review demonstrated, NGOs have 
made impressive progress in finding their place in the UPR 
and coming together to share best practices on maximizing the 
impact of their presence.  Their eagerness to travel here and 
participate energetically highlights the hope that the UPR 
process can be a force multiplier for on-the-ground activism 
-- even in a state that obstinately rejects the criticism of 
its peers.  Further coordination among NGOs in discussing 
best practices and strategies for advocating their interests 
and the interests of civil society in the UPR process could 
result in more NGOs, most notably smaller NGOs who have 
previously not been able to speak in Geneva, having a 
stronger and more effective presence in the UPR process. 
STORELLA