In recent times, Sri Lanka has come under increased criticism internationally for its failure under the Rajapaksa regime to uphold well established basic international norms such as the Rules of Natural Justice and respect for the necessary independence, jurisdiction and role of the judiciary.
The latest controversial order comes from a District Court, where an Additional District Judge under the regime has cast aside the diplomatic immunity that under international law is available to foreign diplomats in a country of good standing among the community of nations.
Here is the text of the controversial order.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF COLOMBO-COURT NO. 08
In the presence of Mrs. Amali Ranaweera Addl.
Case No. 03438/2011 D.M.R.
Recorded by M.M.C. Renu Stenographer
The Plaintiff has prayed from his Plaint as the first cause of action t he recovery of a sum of Rs.57,169,452 jointly and severally together with 12% annual interest until payment in full from 1st to 10th Defendant representing the Norwegian Foreign Ministry, as the second cause of action recovery of a sum of Rs.28,259,837.08 joint and severally together with legal interest of 12% until payment in full from 1st to 10th Defendants representing the Norwegian Foreign Ministry as the third cause of action the recovery of a sum of Rs.2,542,198.15 jointly and severally together with legal interest of 12% until payment in full from 1st to 10th Defendants representing the Norwegian Foreign Ministry, costs and other and further reliefs the Court shall seem meet. The Plaintiff has prayed for the above reliefs on three causes of action.
Accordingly the Agreement marked P2 attached to the Plaint which is the first cause of action had been in operation from 01-05-2009 to 14-11-2009 and as there is a right to recover the relevant funds through the officers of the Norwegian Foreign Ministry at least till 14-11-2009, it is required to recover a sum of Rs.57,169,452/together with 12% annual interest till payment in full from 1st to 10th Defendants, a sum of Rs.28,259,837/08 together with interest 12% annual legal interest from 1st to 10th Defendants representing the Norwegian Foreign Ministry being the amounts payable by the Plaintiff to the Staff and authorities employed by the Plaintiff due to the sudden malicious and mala fide termination of the Agreement as their EPF and ETF bonus and other taxes and a sum of Rs.98,528,065.69 as the Plaintiff had to obtain a Bank draft of Rs.2,542,198.15 and 12% annual interest had to be paid on it and the Agreement marked P2 had to be maintained till its last date and also due to the delay in payment and some payments not settling at all by the Norwegian Foreign Ministry officers.
Dr. Kumar Rupesinghe
Accordingly the above causes of action have been filed to recover damages from the 1st to 10th Defendants representing the Norwegian Foreign Ministry. When drawing attention to the caption of the Plaint it appears that it has named Hilde Haraldstad Ambassador Norwegian Embassy as the 1st Defendant, Erik Solheim, Minister of Environment and Cooperation as 2nd Defendant, Jonas Gahr Store Minister of Foreign Affairs as the 3rd Defendant, Ingrid Fiska, State Secretary, Secretary to the Ministry of Environment and International Development as the 4th Defendant, Espen Barth Eide State Secretary, Ministry of Foreign Affairs as the 5th Defendant; Kjersti Anderson, Assistant Director General, Ministry of Foreign Affairs as the 6th Defendant, Vigdis Wathne past Chief Secretary, Norwegian Embassy as the Defendant, “Edle Hamare Past Consular Officer Norwegian Embassy as the 8th Defendant, 9th Erik Glenne Director Foreign Service Administration Unit as the Defendant and Tire Hattrem Past Ambassador Norwegian Embassy as the 10th Defendant.
British High Commission
In addition four representatives of the British High Commission have been named in the caption. They are H.E. Joh Rankin, High Commissioner, British High Commission as the 11th Defendant, Tom Owen Edmunds, Head of Political and Development Division, British High Commission as the 12th Defendant, William Hague State Secretary Overseas and Commonwealth Office as 13th Defendant and Russel Crane, South Asian Group Overseas and Commonwealth Office as 14th Defendant.
According to paragraph 43 of the Plaint the right that the Plaintiff had to file action against the 11th to 14th Defendants is said to have been voluntarily withdrawn as a mark of appreciation of service given to the Plaintiff by the British High Commission. According to Journal Entry NO.1 Summons had been served to all the Defendants on 15-092011 by Registered Post and through Ministry of Foreign Affairs. On 25-05-2012 lawyers appeared representing all parties and argued that as Defendants are High ranking officers and Ambassadors of Foreign States they have immunity in this country. As no relief has been sought for 11th to 14th Defendants they have been released from the case.
A panel of lawyers had appeared on behalf of 1st to 10th Defendants under Section 41 of the Judicial Service Act No. 02 of 1978 to assist the Court. In terms of Sub Section 41(1) of the Judicial Procedure Act it is stated that every lawyer has the entitlement to tender replies and implement them in all Courts that have been established to assist and advise clients. Also in terms of Sub Section 41(2) any person exercising half Judicial Power has the entitlement to represent any party through an Attorney-at-Law. If it is so on behalf of 1st to 10th Defendants under Section 27 of the Civil Procedure Code Submissions had been made 1ston behalf of parties without filing a proxy to appoint a lawyer on behalf of 1st to 11th Defendants appearance had been made in Court without filing a proxy to assist Court (Amions Curaie).
In Case Seneviratne Vs. Attorney General (71NRL 439) and Seetha Vs. Sharmananda and others (1989 105 Sri Lanka Law Report 94) the possibility of lawyers appearing as helpers to court had been taken into consideration. As Defendants 1 to 10 have foreign sovereignty a request has been made to provide judicial assistants on their behalf due to the fact that when proxies are filed making them Defendants they are regarded to have waived off immunity entitled to them till such time the judgment is given. Drawing attention to Superintendent Government Soap Factory, Bangalore V Commissioner of Income Tax (43 NRL 439) in Taylor V Best (14GB 487) it is mentioned “where the Ambassador had voluntarily appeared as one of several Defendants and defended the Section to Judgment he had waived his privilege”. As Defendants 1 to 10 are representatives of the Norwegian Government and Ambassadors and as they are claiming for immunity by way of filing proxy in this case, the said immunity is regarded to have been waived. Submissions had been made in this manner representing as judicial assistants.
Certain primary objections have been made on behalf of 1st to 10th Defendants. That is according to Section 6 in Diplomatic Privileges Act No.9 of 1966, a certificate has been issued by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of this country where it is stated that Defendants 1 to 6 have immunity and it is said to be conclusive evidence. It is stated that 3rd Defendant is the present Minister of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and previously he had been the Minister of Health of the Norwegian Government. Also it is stated that the 5th Defendant is presently working as the Ministry of Defence in the said State and previously he had functioned as the Minister of Foreign Affairs. Second Defendant at the time of filing the case had been working as the Minister of International Development and 6th to 9th Defendants are Senior Officer of the Foreign Ministry of the Norwegian Government.
Accordingly it is argued that Defendants 6 to 9 have immunity under the Conventional International Law. It is shown that the said Defendants 1 to 10 have been included to the case not on personal level but for an act done on their duty level. Also these Defendants have no connection whatsoever to the Agreement P2 and is representatives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Norwegian Government and they are entitled for immunity for performing an official duty under the conventional International Law. It has also been argued that Agreement P2 is not an Agreement concerning commercial transactions and even parties not connected to the Agreement have been added as Defendants to this case.
In that connection the primary objection of the Defendants had been based on the fact that Defendants are entitled for immunity in accordance with the Conventional International Law or Diplomatic Immunity and also on the fact that persons not parties to Agreement P2 have been included to the case. In reply to the above primary objection the Plaintiff has argued that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of this country has issued a number of certificates of various kinds but as by way of condition 10.4 of the Agreement P2 filed in action immunity has been expressly waived Defendants 1 to 10 have no entitlement for immunity. At the Oral Submissions both parties had given attention to various local and foreign judgments and books on international law and Agreement law.
Accordingly in the first instances the attention of this Court is drawn as what kind of immunity is entitled to the Defendants. Defendants 1, 7 and 10 mentioned in the Caption of 1st
the Plaint are officers representing Norwegian Embassy. Defendant is the present Ambassador of the Norwegian Embassy in this country and the 7th Defendant is the past Chief Secretary of the Norwegian Embassy. International Law governing diplomatic relations between States is enumerated in Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations 1961 Law 31 of the Convention states that Embassy officials are waived from Criminal Law procedure and entitled for immunity subject to certain limitations.
Law 32 of the Convention also states of certain instances where Embassy officials are not entitled for privileges. Also in a case where an Embassy official is involved in a case outside his official duties and for private or commercial purpose he will not get the diplomatic immunity.
Further Embassy officials or if there is any specified period of time and after such time will not be entitled for immunity. According to Law 39(2) it is stated that there is an entitlement for immunity for official duties performed during the period of service. By enforcing the terms of Vienna Convention Diplomatic Immunity Act No. 9 of 1996 was approved. It is evident when drawing attention to the preface of the Act. It is said “It is an Act that provided provisions for immunity and privileges to certain officers and representatives of International organizations and their properties.
As Vienna Convention relating to Diplomatic relationship was passed in Vienna on 19-04-1961, and as Sri Lanka is a party to that Convention and as it is necessary to make legal provision to fulfill the responsibility on the part of Sri Lanka, the Parliament of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka has thus declared Rules 31 and 32 of the Vienna Convention have been applied to the Act as well. According to Rule 31 of the Schedule in that Act;
“1. A representative of the Ambassador should get the immunity from the Criminal Judicial power of the State which assumes duty. Further except on the following instances he should enjoy immunity from the Civil and Administrative and judicial power of the state which he assumes power.
Jonas Gahr Store
(a) Except he is in possession of a private immovable property on behalf of the State he is sent for missionary purposes, any case relating to a private immovable property in a state where he assumes duties;
(b) Case relating to succession where he is involved as an Executor, Administrator, heir or testamentary beneficiary on private basis and not on behalf of the State to which he is sent
(c) Case relating to any profession or commercial act outside his official duties as representative to Ambassador in the State where he is sent
2. It is stated that a representative of the Ambassador is not bound to give evidence as a witness. In Sub Section 2(3) of Act NO.9 of 1996 for the purposes of Rule 32 any waiver by the Head of the Mission or any persons acting on his behalf is considered as a waiver by the State. Accordingly to Rule 32 – it is stated
“1. Immunity against the judicial power received by the representative of Ambassadors and persons who get immunity under Rule 37 can be waived off by the sending State.
2. That waiver should always be a declared waiver.” If so, by that Section it is stated that the Head of the Diplomatic Mission or the person who is acting on his behalf can waive the immunity in accordance with Rule 32. As stated in Rule 32 if immunity has been waived by declaration, entitlement for immunity cannot be requested again to the Ambassador. Parties to Agreement P2 were Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs [MFA] and British High Commission [BHC] as Joint Donors and Foundation for co-existence Granters Limited Company) the Plaintiff. 10th Defendant was the person who signed Agreement P2 on behalf of Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs as past Norwegian Ambassador. It is further stated in Agreement P2 that Norwegian Embassy in Colombo, on behalf of Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs is playing a main role with regard to communication matters pertaining to this Agreement. (The Norwegian Embassy in Colombo is, as a part of MFA shall be competent to act on behalf of the MFA. “All communication MFA in regard to the Agreement shall be directed to the Embassy”.
Accordingly the above Defendants should have been included to this case a Norwegian Embassy in this country had acted as a representative of the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs who is a party to Agreement P2. In case G.G. Arulpragasam Vs J.A. Gregory [55 NLR 35] it had been decided that diplomatic immunity is extended not only to an Ambassador but to his wife as well as those who serve under him (“Under the rules of International Community, diplomatic immunity from judicial process is extended not only to a Minister or Ambassador but also to his family, suite and servants. An assistant to a Ministry or Naval Attache if he in fact works in an Embassy is covered by the immunity.
Accordingly Courts in this country to have accepted the Diplomatic immunity. According to paragraph 9 of the Plaint 8th Defendant has been included to the Plaint as he was the past Consular Officer of the Norwegian Embassy in Colombo and as he has taken action in terms of Agreement P2 on behalf of the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Vienna Convention on Consular Relations -1963 has been signed. In order to assist to perform their official duties satisfactorily they are entitled for immunity with regard to local judicial power. However consular officers are not entitled for immunity in connection with their activities [International Balancing and Human Rights Law …. Fr. Noel Dias -page 210)
Defendants 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 9 requested for immunity under Conventional International Law. A difference can be seen with regard to immunity under Conventional International Law between Foreign public Administration activities and Government Commercial activities. It is an accepted fact that immunity is limited to commercial transactions done by a Government. Also the representatives of a Government are getting personal immunity within the purview of their duties (Immunity Ratione Personae). In paragraph 739 of International Law -Sixth Edition written by Author Macallum Shove it is said “However, in its judgment in the Congo v. Belgium case, the International Court of Justice stated that, ‘in international law it is firmly established that …. certain holders of high -ranking office in a state, such as the head of state, head of government and minister for foreign affairs, enjoy immunities from jurisdiction in other states, both civil and criminal’.
The Court took the view that serving Foreign Minister would benefit from immunity ratione person on the basis that such immunities were in order to ensure the effective performance of their functions on behalf of their states”.
It states of the immunity enjoyed by a Foreign Minister. In case Percy Mahinda Rajapaksa V United States of America [No.12-S087, Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (No. 1:11-ev-00235)] concluded recently in a High Court of the United States of America it has been decided that the President of this country is entitled to immunity for his acts while remaining in office. (“the Defendant is entitled to Head of State immunity under the Common law while he remains in office “) The judiciary of this country too has taken into consideration of the immunity of foreign states. In case In ress “Arnolda Da Brescia (23 NLR 391) Justice Sampayo has pointed out that the ship Bresia belonging to Italy, although it had been handed over to another charterer for a commercial purpose Sri Lanka Judiciary has no power to arrest it (“A ship belonging to a foreign state cannot be arrested by our Courts. The foreign state does not lose its immunity from being proceeded against by the arrest of the ship, even if it employs the ship in ordinary commerce’. The Court is bound to withhold its hand whenever it appears that it is without jurisdiction and cannot refuse to entertain an objection to the jurisdiction at any, stage of the suit”)
Also in soap factory case it has been decided that the State of Mysore is not an independent sovereign state and therefore it cannot invoke in aid immunities under International Law (“Profits derived from the sale in Ceylon of Goods produced by the Government Soap Factory in Bangalore, which is owned by the State of Mysore, are liable to assessment for Income-Tax. The state of Mysore is not an independent Sovereign State and it cannot invoke in aid immunities arising by virtue of International Law). Accordingly the judiciary of this country also had taken into account about the immunity foreign States have in relation to commercial activities.
When going through the case record it appears that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs has issued certain certificates to all these Defendants to the effect that they have immunity. In Salton Jahor (1894 I OB 149) it was decided that if the Secretary of State certifies with regard to the independent sovereignty that Certificate is decisive for the judiciary of that country. Even under Section 6 of Act NO.9 of 1996 when a question crops up as to whether a person is entitled for immunity, it is necessary to get a certificate certified by the Secretary to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs stating the facts of the case and it is considered as a Final Evidence.
From the certificates issued to the Defendants by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs by way of certificates dated 17-01-2012 and 09-05-2012 under the signature of the Legal Consultant of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs it has been stated that Defendants 1 to 10 are entitled for immunity. However subsequently by certificate dated 11-10-2012 it has been stated that Defendants 1 to 10 are not entitled for immunity and accordingly the original certificate was withdrawn.
This certificate should be issued by the Secretary of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs but as it has been issued by a party that has no legal authority to issue such certificate, it is not valid under law. Subsequently the Ministry of Foreign Affairs has consulted the Attorney General in this connection which is evident from the letter dated 07-02-2013 of the Solicitor General. On a later date Secretary to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs had issued a certificate or two dated 06-03-2013 has been issued to Defendants 1 to 10. According to the said certificates it has been stated that the Defendants 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 9 are entitled for immunity under Conventional International Law and Defendants 1, 7, 8 and 10 are entitled to immunity under Vienna Convention. Accordingly Certificates had been issued with the signature of the Secretary to Defendants 1, 7, 8, and 10 under Section 6 of the Diplomatic Immunity Act No. 9 of 1996. On that occasion it had been argued on behalf of the Defendants that the said certificate is a Final Evidence.
Plaintiff had instituted this action in order to ascertain why the parties have come to this decision when the Agreement filed as P2 has been terminated illegally. According to document P2 Norwegian Foreign Ministry and British High Commission had provided assistance to the Plaintiff establishment to accomplish the objectives in the first condition of the Agreement.
The objective is to provide financial support to the Plaintiff Establishment to promote peace and co-existence from the year 2008 to 2011. It is stated “The FCE has by letter dated 14 February 2008 requested MFA and BHC for financial support to their project titled “Promoting Peace and Coexistence 2008-2011” On the consideration of such request and the approval of the Consolidated Proposal, the IVIFA and BHC have decided to extend financial support to the project and the three parties have hereby agreed by and between themselves as follows”
In paragraph 24 of the Plaint it has been stated that the Norwegian Foreign Ministry has agreed to provide funds during the aforesaid timeframe. It has to be ascertained whether this Agreement is merely a commercial transaction or a nonprofit gaining transaction. According to Defence parties have reached this Agreement with the intention of getting aid through Norwegian Foreign Ministry. But Court cannot take a decision at this time with regard to the contents in P2. Court has to consider at present whether Defendants 1 to 10 are entitled for immunity under Diplomatic Privilege and according to Conventional International Law. Under Conventional International Law or according to Sub Section 2(3) of Diplomatic Privileges Act and Rule 32 of the Vienna Convention if any foreign State representative has expressly waived immunity no relief on immunity can be requested again. Defendants 1 to 10 have not contested document P2.
According to Condition 104 of the said document “If any dispute arises relating to the implementation or interpretation of this Contract, the Parties shall consult with a view to reaching a solution. Any disputes that cannot be solved amicably shall be referred to the competent Sri Lankan court and settled in accordance with Sri Lankan law. The court venue shall be Colombo” where it is agreed that when any dispute arises relating to the Agreement it should be decided under the law of the country and at a Court in Colombo. Accordingly according to the Plaintiff by way of Agreement P2 the said parties has expressly admitted the judicial power of the Court in this Court. If that is so, Norwegian Foreign Ministry which is a party to the Agreement having signed the Agreement and expressly admitting the judicial power of this country cannot request for immunity at a later stage.
By way of Act NO.9 of 1996 and Conventional International Law if the Foreign Sovereign power expressly waive the immunity there is no possibility of requesting for immunity relief. Although a certificate has been issued by the Secretary to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs under Section 6 of Act no. 9 of 1996 or by issuing a Certificate to the representatives of a Foreign State under the Conventional International Law to the effect they are entitled to immunity if the foreign representatives through document P2 have expressly waived the immunity in such case that certificate is not valid for the parties.
It is important to find out who are parties to Document P2 as they are the persons who have expressly waived immunity. It is the Norwegian Foreign l”1inistry that is regarded as Joint Donors.
Condition 1.1 further states that the Norwegian Embassy in this country is acting on behalf of the Norwegian Foreign Ministry. That means “The Norwegian Embassy in Colombo is, as a part MFA, shall be competent to act on behalf of the MF~ All communication to MFA regard to the Agreement shall be directed to the Embassy”
It was the 10th Defendant who was the Ambassador in this country at that time signed document P2 on behalf of the Norwegian Foreign Ministry. If that is so they should have expressly waived the immunity from document P2 as Norwegian Foreign Ministry as well as representatives of the said Ministry and accepted the judicial power of this country. If so Norwegian Foreign Ministry and the Norwegian Embassy which was acting as its representative will not be entitled to this immunity.
When drawing attention to the caption of the Plaint 1st Defendant is the present Norwegian Ambassador in this country. 10th Defendant has been included to the case as the person who signed the Agreement P2.
Norwegian Foreign Ministry
The relevant party has signed the Agreement as apart of the duty during the tenure of his services and he has no personal binding on Agreement P2. Letters dated 17-06-208 and 11-06-2008 filed by the 8th Defendant with the Plaint had been issued by him. He has issued a letter as a part of his duty on behalf of the Foreign Ministry as the Consular at that time. According to paragraph 8 of the Plaint 7th Defendant was the past Secretary of the Norwegian Embassy of this country.
According to paragraphs 1, 8,9 and 11 of the Plaint, the relevant Defendants were shown as persons who acted on behalf of the Norwegian Foreign Ministry as per document P2. If so, the relevant party also has been included to the case for an act of duty done during the period of his office. Rule 39 of the Convention has been accepted by the Schedule to the Diplomatic Immunity Act. As at present they are neither officers of Norwegian Embassy in this country nor representatives representing Norwegian Foreign Ministry they are not bound for reliefs as prayed for. Second and 4th
and 4th Defendants are Minister and State Secretary respectively of the Ministry of Environment and Cooperation and the said Defendants have not given a clarification with regard to their connection to Agreement P2. Although it is stated that the 2nd Defendant has been included to the case as he is coming under the purview of that Ministry, it has not been shown in what capacity the 2nd Defendant had acted in implementing document P2. Accordingly it is obvious from the Plaint that 2nd and 4th Defendants have been made a party to this case without a clear connection to document P2. It appears from the Oral Submissions of the Defence that 3rd Defendant is the present Minister of Health in the Norwegian Government. If that is so the purview of duties of the 3rd Defendant does not relate to P2.
Therefore the present Norwegian Foreign Ministry has also been included to the case without any connection with that party. 5th Defendant is the present Norwegian Foreign Minister. It has also been admitted that 6th and 9th Defendants are high ranking officers of the Norwegian Foreign Ministry. That is to say the facts in document P2 is relevant to their purview of duties. Only the Defendants 1,5,6 and 9 are as stated in List P2 are parties representing Norwegian Foreign Ministry and parties representing Norwegian Embassy locally who have waived off immunity. Apart from that as Defendants 2, 3, 4, 7, 8 and 10 are personally not bound or privilege officers duties performed by them during their tenure of office they are entitled for immunity. Sometimes they may have been included to the case as the immunity entitled to them will be an obstacle for them to be called before a Court.
According to Section 17 of the Civil Procedure Code a case cannot be dismissed for including parties wrongfully. In case Wahareke alias Moratota Sobhitha Thera Vs. Amunugama Ratnapala Thera (1991) 1 SLR 201 it has been shown that adding parties or dismissing a case by adding parties is preventing a Judge by Section 17 and that the wrong party should be struck off and necessary amendments should be made to the Answer.
Further in John Singho Vs Julius Appu [10 NLR 351] v Fernando Vs Perera [21 Narive 94] it has been said that objections regarding inclusion of parties erroneously should be pointed out in the first opportunity available. According to Section 18 of the Civil Procedure Code during the course of the trial or previously at the request of one party or both parties an Order can be made to delete the name of a party who has been included in an improper manner.
As already the Government has accepted the Plaint and Summons have been issued to Defendants it is not possible for Court to take action as per Section 46(2(e) of the Civil Procedure Code but as shown in Case Edie vs Somasundaram [1 NLR 292] when there is an ex facie case observed by Court there is a possibility of amending the Plaint correcting those mistakes “when a Plaint, defective in some material respect, has been filed, it is not necessary to move that it be taken off the file, but it is duty of the Court, of its own accord, or upon its attention being called, to reject the Plaint or return it to Plaintiff for amendment. If the Plaint is good ex facie, any objection thereto be taken by the answer”
Accordingly on the strength of document P2 as Norwegian Embassy of this country had acted as representatives of the Norwegian Foreign Ministry and its representatives, and as the said party had expressly waived its immunity they cannot request for immunity again. But at this stage it is not possible for the Court to consider whether document P2 is a document that can be enforced before law.
Accordingly it is the conclusion of this Court that as per the Certificate issued by the Secretary to the Foreign Ministry the above mentioned 2nd 3rd 4th 7th 8th and 10th Defendants of the Petition are entitled for immunity.
Therefore acting under Section 18 of the Civil Procedure Code I discharge the above 1st, 5th, 6th, and 9th Defendants from this case. Also I reject the request made for immunity in respect of 1st, 5th, 6th and 9th, and Defendants with regard to immunity. I also inform that accordingly the Plaintiff party can amend the Plaint if necessary.
(Amali Ranaweera) Additional District Judge, Colombo 30-04-2013