The Sri
Lanka
Government
will
firmly
resist
any
endeavour
negative
to her
interests
posed
from any
quarter.
This was
stated
by
Foreign
Minister
Rohitha
Bogollagama
at a
media
briefing
today on
the
public
statement
by UN
Special
Rapporteur
Phillip
Alston
on the
Channel
4 video.
The
minister
added
that the
GOSL
remains
committed
to
continued
engagement
and
dialogue
with the
UN,
including
on
matters
relating
to the
further
protection
and
preservation
of human
rights.
Referring
to
Alston’s
statement
and the
procedure
followed
by him,
Minister
Bogollagama
said:
“It
should
be
emphasized
that the
least
that
could
have
been
done
would
have
been to
first
share
with the
Government
of Sri
Lanka
the
opinions
of the
independent
experts.
Thereafter
the
Government
should
have
been
afforded
adequate
time to
examine
the
same.
The
views of
the
Government
should
then
have
been
among
the
factors
determining
what
further
action
is to be
taken.
This did
not
happen
and
instead
what
took
place is
violative
of all
accepted
procedures
of the
United
Nations
and the
norms of
justice
and fair
play.
This is
exactly
what my
Ministry
Secretary
said to
Prof.
Alston.”
He added
that
“Special
Rapporteur
Alston
without
resorting
to fair
practice
went
ahead
and made
a Public
Statement
as
scheduled
on 7th
January.
While
his
statement
concludes
that (I
quote)
“most of
the
arguments
relied
upon by
the GOSL
to
impugn
the
video
have
been
shown to
be
flawed”,
(unquote)
he has
done so
ignoring
that his
own
position
as
articulated
is
contradicted
in the
context
of the
opinions
expressed
by the
experts.”
Here is
the full
text of
the
statement
made by
the
Minister:
1.
Special
Rapporteur
Alston
had by
his
letter
of 5th
January
2010 to
Sri
Lanka’s
PRUN/Geneva
informed
that he
intends
to make
a Public
Statement
in New
York on
7th
January
2010.
The said
communication
was
received
by PRUN/Geneva
after
office
hours on
5th
January
and in
turn
sent to
Colombo
on 6th
January
2010
when it
came to
their
attention.
2. The
matter
of the
Statement
is the
content
of the
Technical
Note
comprising
the
opinions
of three
“independent
experts”,
who had
been
“retained”
by the
Special
Rapporteur
on the
so
called
Channel
4 video
tape
that
purportedly
shows an
incident
of
extrajudicial
killings
in Sri
Lanka.
3. The
justification
by the
Special
Rapporteur
of the
Public
Statement
in this
regard
was on
the
grounds
that
there
had been
a very
public
exchange
of
comments
on this
matter.
It was
pointed
out by
Secretary,
Foreign
Affairs,
when he
spoke to
him over
the
phone in
New York
on 6th
January
that
this is
not an
acceptable
rationale
since
once the
UK based
Channel
4
telecast
the
footage
the
Government
of Sri
Lanka
was
compelled
to
refute
the
issue in
the same
manner.
In fact
it may
be
recalled
that
when
Channel
4
aired
this
footage
there
was a
public
pronouncement
by the
Special
Rapporteur
on its
authenticity.
This
rationale
of the
Special
Rapporteur
used to
justify
his
Public
Statement
in New
York
therefore
is
questionable.
4.
Moreover,
the
space
between
the
receipt
of the
Technical
Note in
Colombo
in
the
evening
hours of
6th
January
and the
scheduling
of the
Public
Statement
in New
York
in the
morning
hours of
7th
January
hardly
afforded
a
reasonable
amount
of time
for a
considered
response
from the
Government
of Sri
Lanka.
5. It
should
be
emphasized
that the
least
that
could
have
been
done
would
have
been to
first
share
with the
Government
of Sri
Lanka
the
opinions
of the
independent
experts.
Thereafter
the
Government
should
have
been
afforded
adequate
time to
examine
the
same.
The
views of
the
Government
should
then
have
been
among
the
factors
determining
what
further
action
is to be
taken.
This did
not
happen
and
instead
what
took
place is violative
of all
accepted
procedures
of the
United
Nations
and the
norms of
justice
and fair
play.
This is
exactly
what my
Ministry
Secretary
said to
Prof.
Alston.
6.
Special
Rapporteur
Alston
without
resorting
to fair
practice
went
ahead
and
made a
Public
Statement
as
scheduled
on 7th
January.
While
his
statement
concludes
that (I
quote)
“most of
the
arguments
relied
upon by
the GOSL
to
impugn
the
video
have
been
shown to
be
flawed”,
(unquote)
he has
done so
ignoring
that his
own
position
as
articulated
is
contradicted
in the
context
of the
opinions
expressed
by the
experts.The
following
are
noteworthy:
• Prof.
Alston’s
very
opening
line of
his
statement
states
that the
(quote)
“reports
by three
independent
experts
strongly
point to
be
authenticity
of a
video
tape
released
by
Channel
4 in
Britain
which
appears
to show
the
summary
execution
of
bound,
blindfolded
and
naked
Tamils
by Sri
Lankan
soldiers”.
(unquote)
However
one of
the
experts
J.
Spivack,
Forensic
Multi-media
Analyst
categorically
states
that (quote)“the
multi-media
file
submitted
for
analysis,
video
DJ. 3 gp,
cannot
be
authenticated
to an
absolute
certainty
without
access
to the
device
purportedly
used”.
(unquote).
Further
Spivack
also
states
(quote)
“that
there is
no way
to
confirm
solely
from
this
recording
the
identity
of the
potential
victims
or the
shooters.
Neither
whether
the
shooters
were
actually
Sri
Lanka
military
members
as
opposed
to
Tamils
dressed
in Sri
Lanka
military
uniforms,
nor
whether
the
potential
victims
were
Tamils
or
instead
innocent
victims
of
another
ethnic
group
can be
determined
from
this
recording”.
(unquote)
Further
there
are
according
to
Spivack
(quote)
“unexplained
characteristics
of this
file,
the most
troubling
of which
from a
file
integrity
stand
point is
the text
which
appears
in the
final 17
frames
of
video.”
(unquote)
•
Further,
another
expert,
Dr.
Daniel
Spitz, a
Forensic
Pathologist
and
Toxicologist,
has
stated
that
questions
remain
following
his
review
of the
material
relating
to, what
accounts
for the
movement
of the
leg of
the
first
victim
at the
time
the
second
is shot.
Further,
Dr.
Spitz
states
that
(quote)
“I would
not
expect
his leg
to
remain
in this
position
(upright
position
with
knee
flexed
approximately
90
percent)
if he
were
deceased”.
(unquote)
Such are
some of
the
ambiguities
in the
opinions
expressed
by the
experts.
It is
therefore
extremely
regrettable
that
Rapporteur
Alston’s
statement
amounts
to the
misrepresentation
of the
said
opinions
and
brings
into
question
his
judgement.
•
Despite
these
qualifications,
the
Special
Rapporteur
has
proclaimed
in his
overview
to the
Technical
Note
that
(quote)
“in
light of
these
conclusions,
and of
the
persistent
flow of
other
allegations
concerning
extrajudicial
executions…..
I called
for
an
independent
inquiry
to be
established
to carry
out an
impartial
investigation
into
war
crimes
and
other
grave
violations
of
international
humanitarian
and
human
rights
law…”
(unquote)
It may
be noted
that
this
position
has been
reiterated
by Prof.
Alston
in his
Public
Statement
and is
the crux
of the
issue.
• Prof.
Alston’s
position
of a
(quote)
“persistent
flow of
other
allegations
concerning
extrajudicial
executions…..”
(unquote)
seem to
emanate
on the
basis
our mere
newspaper
report
quoting
one of
the
candidates
for the
current
Presidential
Election.
• Prof.
Alston’s
rush and
determination
to go
public,
ignoring
accepted
procedure
and the
very
opinions
of the
experts
leads
for
apprehensions
to arise
that he
is
pursuing
a
targeted
campaign
against
the Sri
Lankan
authorities
with the
deliberate
timing
of his
action
to
coincide
with the
current
sensitive
phase of
national
elections.
7. The
Sri
Lanka
Government
will
firmly
resist
any
endeavour
negative
to her
interests
posed
from any
quarter.
Also the
GOSL
remains
committed
to
continued
engagement
and
dialogue
with the
UN,
including
on
matters
relating
to the
further
protection
and
preservation
of human
rights.
|
Contact Information:: Send
mail to