Thursday Dec 12, 2024
Thursday Dec 12, 2024
Tuesday, 18 November 2014 01:23 - - {{hitsCtrl.values.hits}}
According to a statement issued by the Ministry of External Affairs, the Minister’s protest to the UN Resident Coordinator focused on the unacceptable way in which the deadline for submission of evidence to the investigation, 30 October, that had been originally set by the OHCHR had been changed unofficially and re-set once again.
“As per the OHCHR’s call for submissions on its website, the deadline, 30 October, was definite and mandatory. However, the Spokesperson of the OHCHR, in response to a question from a local newspaper stated that, although officially the deadline was 30 October and will not be extended, it is understood that some material may take time to arrive and that submissions arriving late, therefore, will not necessarily be refused. Corresponding to this comment, the website of the OHCHR did not announce the closure of the e-mail address for the receipt of submissions even after the official deadline had passed. It was only pursuant to the matter having been taken up very strongly by the Government that the OHCHR later issued a news release announcing that submissions ended on 30 October and that the e-mail address had ceased to exist,” the statement said.
The Minister had pointed out to Nandy that what was particularly disturbing was that this development took place while a campaign to collect fabricated evidence was under way in Sri Lanka with the collusion of both local and foreign parties. During this period, evidence was being concocted fraudulently in Sri Lanka on blank sheets of paper, with signatures procured under false pretences and with financial inducements. One of the main agents in this criminal enterprise was arrested, while another has left the country unlawfully.
The Spokesperson’s comment indicates that, although as far as the general public was concerned, no submissions could be made after 30 October, the investigation remained open to receiving a specific category of evidence which seems to have been anticipated, Minister Peiris noted during the meeting.
Further, the Minister observed that no reasons have been given so far by OHCHR as to what inspired the Spokesperson to make a statement that was entirely inconsistent with the OHCHR’s original deadline and for the insistence much later, and in response to protests by the Government of Sri Lanka, that the submissions had ended on 30 October, the statement from the Ministry added.
Expressing objections to OHCHR’s conduct that is inconsistent with essential standards of objectivity and fairplay, Professor Peiris questioned why such irregular behaviour has to be resorted to in carrying out this investigation which claims to be open, candid and fair, the statement concluded.
