Sri Lanka rejects new UNHRC resolution

Sri Lanka’s Permanent Representative to the United Nations Ambassador Himalee Arunatilaka

Sri Lanka yesterday rejected the latest United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) resolution on the country as an unprecedented and ad hoc expansion of the Council’s mandate, asserting that the Government’s own reconciliation and human rights processes should take precedence over external mechanisms.

Speaking at the 60th session of the Human Rights Council in Geneva, Sri Lanka’s Permanent Representative to the United Nations Ambassador Himalee Arunatilaka, said Colombo participated in discussions on draft resolution A/HRC/60/L.1/Rev.1 – Promoting Reconciliation, Accountability and Human Rights in Sri Lanka “in a spirit of open and constructive engagement” but could not agree to key provisions. “We appreciate the core group’s engagement on language amendments proposed by Sri Lanka. 

We however regret that we couldn’t find agreement on certain key concerns for us,” she said.

The resolution, adopted in Geneva on Monday without a vote, extends the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights’ (OHCHR) mandate on Sri Lanka for another two years.

Sri Lanka’s principal objection is to the continued reference to UNHRC Resolution 51/1 of 2022, which created an external evidence-gathering mechanism within the OHCHR. “In our view, this is an unprecedented and ad hoc expansion of the Council’s mandate,” Ambassador Arunatilaka said. “Sri Lanka does not accept the external evidence-gathering mechanism set up by the OHCHR, which it has labelled as the Sri Lanka Accountability Project.”

She said the initiative undermines Sri Lanka’s domestic reconciliation and accountability efforts, which include strengthening the Offices on Missing Persons and Reparations, the Office for National Unity and Reconciliation, and operationalising a Truth and Reconciliation Commission and an independent Public Prosecutor’s Office.

Arunatilaka also questioned the transparency of the OHCHR project. “After four years of its existence, this Council is yet to see any benefits of this project for the people of Sri Lanka,” she said, adding that extending its mandate “will only serve elements with vested interests seeking to create divisions and polarise communities” and would be counterproductive to national reconciliation efforts.

Ambassador Himalee Arunatilaka’s statement in full is as follows:

“Sri Lanka participated in discussions on this resolution in a spirit of open and constructive engagement that we have demonstrated throughout in our interactions with this Council.

We appreciate the core group’s engagement on language amendments proposed by Sri Lanka. We however regret that we couldn’t find agreement on certain key concerns for us.

While we thank all delegations for their constructive participation on the draft text, Sri Lanka particularly wishes to thank very sincerely, those countries which made positive suggestions during informal consultations and bilateral meetings.

As Sri Lanka had indicated from the beginning to the core group, our fundamental issue with the text is the reference to resolution 51/1 of 2022 denoting the external evidence gathering mechanism on Sri Lanka within the OHCHR, which, in our view is an unprecedented and ad hoc expansion of the Council´s mandate.

Participating in the Interactive Dialogue on Sri Lanka on 8 September, the Foreign Affairs Minister reiterated that Sri Lanka does not accept the external evidence gathering mechanism set up by the OHCHR, which it has labelled as the ‘Sri Lanka Accountability Project’, at a time when the Government is continuing to strengthen the domestic institutions based on its genuine commitment to reconciliation and human rights in the interests of our own people. 

The ongoing domestic processes include strengthening the independent Offices on Missing Persons and Reparations, and the Office for National Unity and Reconciliation, as well as the operationalisation of a Truth and Reconciliation Commission, and an independent Public Prosecutor´s Office.

Sri Lanka, as well as many other countries, have repeatedly questioned the credibility and transparency of how this Project within the OHCHR was set up, its work and the budget allocated to it. After 4 years of its existence, this Council is yet to see any benefits of this Project for the people of Sri Lanka. 

This is clearly evident from the contents of the High Commissioner’s Report as well. The extension of its mandate will only serve the interests of elements with vested interests seeking to create divisions and polarise the communities in Sri Lanka, and will be counterproductive to the Government’s efforts on promoting unity, reconciliation and human rights.

We firmly believe that genuine nationally owned processes are best placed to address matters relating to human rights. National processes are rooted in the local context, allow for greater ownership, recognise unique sensitivities, and make implementation of action more efficient and effective.

The High Commissioner for Human Rights who visited Sri Lanka in June this year had the opportunity to experience first-hand the “momentum of change” across all segments of the Sri Lankan society and the “genuine openness of the Government to address issues”. 

In his report to this Council too, the High Commissioner highlighted that there is a historic opportunity in Sri Lanka to implement transformative reforms. As set out by the Minister of Foreign Affairs in his statement to this Council, within a very short time, the Government has taken a series of tangible and decisive steps on reconciliation and human rights. Therefore, it is only fair that Sri Lanka be allowed to seize this opportunity to advance the rights of its own people through domestic processes.

For these reasons, we do not agree with coercive international action, and we reject resolution 60/L.1/Rev.1 presented to this Council,” Ambassador Arunatilaka said.