|
|
|
Friday, March 07, 2008 - 9.43 GMT |
|
|
Back |
|
Presidential Commission and AG’s Dept reject IIGEP reasons |
|
|
|
|
Both the Presidential Commission of Inquiry into
Serious Violations of Human Rights and the Attorney
General’s Department have rejected the reasons given
by the International Independent Group of Eminent
Persons (IIGEP) for terminating its operations in
Sri Lanka - that of observing the functioning of the
Commission of Inquiry and offer suggestions to bring
its work in line with international norms and
standards of transparency.
In rebutting the statement by the IIGEP, the
Presidential Commission states it regrets that the
IIGEP has unilaterally decided to withdraw from its
activities in Sri Lanka and also rejects some of the
assertions made in the public statement by the IIGEP.
The Attorney General’s Department states it is clear
the IIGEP is seeking to cater to an international
agenda in the release of its latest Public
Statement, in that this time too it has timed it to
coincide with the ongoing Session of the United
Nations Human Rights Council in Geneva.
The IIGEP in its public statement has said it has
decided to terminate its operations in Sri Lanka as
it no longer saw how it could contributes further to
the protection and enhancement of Human Rights in
Sri Lanka. Among the reasons it adduces for
withdrawal are that “Most of [its] suggestions have
been ignored or rejected” and that “the proceedings
of inquiry and investigation have fallen far short
of the transparency and compliance with basic
international norms and standards pertaining to
investigations and inquiries.”
The Commission of Inquiry states that any
shortcomings pointed out by the IIGEP have been
promptly addressed and speedily remedied to the
extent possible. With regard to the failure of some
witnesses to appear before the Commission, it states
that positive action was held back due to
ambiguities in the Commission of Inquiry Act, and
these have now been cleared by amendments to the Act
adopted in February 2008.
With regard to the IIGEP’s criticisms regarding the
participation of counsel from the Attorney General’s
Department to assist in the inquiries, the
Commission states it has consistently maintained
that their services are essential and that excluding
them was never an available option.
The Attorney General’s Department states “It will be
recalled that on previous occasions too, the IIGEP
coincided the release of its Public Statements with
sessions of the UN Human Rights Council and other
important meetings such as the meeting His
Excellency the President had with the UN High
Commissioner for Human Rights.”
It adds that ‘the timing of the release of the
current Public Statement together with its contents,
clearly manifests the true intentions of the
majority of the current membership of the IIGEP, in
that what the eminent persons appear to be
interested in, is to ensure an international
condemnation of Sri Lanka through the expression of
certain views prejudicial to the interests of Sri
Lanka based on certain untested hypothesis and
distorted facts and circumstances.”
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
 |
 |
^ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
