Thursday, 19 February 2015 00:00
-
- {{hitsCtrl.values.hits}}
THE Commission for the Disappeared appointed by the previous Government has had its mandate extended by another six months but its task remains confused and uncertain. As international scrutiny into human rights abuses, particularly those that took place during the war, become microscopic, what role will the commission ultimately play?
Even though the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC) recommended thousands of disappearances should be investigated, it took the Government as many as four years to get the ball rolling. Now with the change of guard and pledges for a credible internal investigation, which many assume will centre on the commission, its future will likely become the barometer for reconciliation.
Another reason investigations could get tricky is the strong allegations of involvement by the armed forces, an entity that has been accorded almost hallowed status by both the Government and the public – a situation the current President has pledged to uphold.
Secondly, will the present administration stick to the Action Plan set out by the previous Government that gave a slack five year deadline? Can a fresh deadline be given? If so under what parameters? When justice delayed is justice denied, it is obvious that the Commission is only the first step in a long process of legal wrangles that may push towards closure for thousands of relatives.
The Commission must guard against such delays whenever possible and insist on independent investigations with transparent and due process, rather than leaving loopholes where strongly Government-backed entities can investigate themselves. Doing so in a credible and timely manner will undoubtedly be the biggest challenge for the Commission.
The full measure of the Presidential decree can only be evaluated once the commission’s report is released and its implementation mechanism revealed. This commission should not run into the same criticism as the LLRC, namely that its implementation is far too time-consuming.
One must also keep in mind that Presidential Commissions are often lacking in transparency, with reports being handed over without being released for public scrutiny. Moreover, the timeframe for the investigations, how charges are framed and whether cases will be filed and fast-tracked through Sri Lanka’s mired legal system is yet to be seen.
It is also questionable whether the country’s beleaguered legal system is capable of handling cases of such complexity. For example, witness protection programs are virtually non-existent in Sri Lanka. This is especially essential given the sensitive nature of the investigations and the fact that it could implicate very powerful people, who could in turn intimidate or threaten witnesses or otherwise sabotage the investigative and trial process. Without such safeguards in place, it is unlikely that the legal process will be considered fair and competent.
Moreover, the Government has also suggested a Truth and Reconciliation Commission. Whether it will become part of the existing commission or function independently has not yet been outlined. With fresh elections around the corner solutions for these knotty issues will take time but with the United Nations report pending Sri Lanka may not have that luxury.
