By Jehan Perera –

The Chemmani mass grave site has today become a focus of public concern in the North and a challenge to the government’s credibility among the Tamil people. After months of excavation and the recovery of more than 580 human skeletons, a report by Sri Lanka’s leading forensic archaeologist, Prof Raj Somadeva, has concluded that the site bears greater similarities to a formal burial ground than to clandestine burial sites with signs of criminal activity and non-conventional burial. The report acknowledges that the available evidence is insufficient to establish conclusively the nature and circumstances of the burials. Its findings, which are markedly different from two previous interim reports by Prof Somadeva have caused dismay among Tamil political parties, civil society organisations and families of the disappeared. Establishing the scientific truth is essential, but so is ensuring that the investigation is seen to be fair, independent and transparent.

The controversy recalls the still inconclusive investigation into the Mannar mass grave, discovered in March 2018 at a construction site in the heart of the town. Radiocarbon dating of some samples at a laboratory in Florida indicated that they were approximately 600 years old. The legal teams representing the families of the disappeared argued that this finding could not establish the age of all the remains, pointing to untested sections of the site and relatively recent objects recovered during excavation. These reportedly included a biscuit wrapper from the 1980s and a skeleton found with its hands chained and manacled. The controversy demonstrated the dangers of drawing conclusions about an entire burial site from limited scientific evidence. The same danger exists at Chemmani. A finding that some remains resemble those in a conventional burial ground cannot establish that all the people buried there died naturally.

The mass grave discovered at the Matale District General Hospital in 2013 provides another troubling example of the difficulties Sri Lanka has faced in establishing the truth about suspected mass graves. The recovery of 154 skeletal remains was followed by conflicting forensic interpretations concerning the period of burial, including findings that reportedly pointed to the late 1980s and later radiocarbon results suggesting an earlier historical period. Questions were also raised about the selection and handling of samples and the adequacy of the investigation. These unresolved issues reinforce the need for independent scrutiny of forensic evidence, transparent procedures and a credible explanation of discrepancies between competing findings. The lessons from Matale, Mannar and Chemmani should inform a national framework for investigating all suspected mass graves.

No Follow-up

More than 15,000 disappearances during the war have been registered with the Office on Missing Persons (OMP) and the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), and many more are believed to have gone unreported. Identifying those responsible remains an even greater challenge. There are many documented cases in which witnesses identified those who took people away before they disappeared, but the authorities have failed to follow up by questioning those who are alleged to have caused the disappearances. One such incident occurred at the refugee camp at Eastern University in September 1990, when people who had sought refuge were taken away. Witness accounts have identified those responsible. Similar incidents occurred in May 2009, when the war ended and many people who surrendered to the military in the presence of others were never seen again. Disappearances also occurred at other times during the conflict, including the period surrounding the military recapture of Jaffna in 1995.

Chemmani came to public attention following the rape and murder of schoolgirl Krishanthi Kumaraswamy in September 1996, nine months after the government regained control over Jaffna. Her mother, brother and a family friend who went searching for her were also killed. The soldiers responsible were prosecuted, and six people were sentenced to death in 1998. One of the convicted soldiers, Lance Corporal Somaratne Rajapakse, alleged that hundreds of Tamil civilians who had been arrested and forcibly disappeared during the mid-1990s had been executed and buried in the Chemmani area. Exhumations at that time recovered 15 skeletons. Successive governments, however, failed to pursue these allegations adequately. The convicted soldier’s evidence could now prove important in resolving the present controversy, as is being done successfully today with others in custody in regard to the Easter bombing. His allegations should be investigated alongside the archaeological findings, forensic evidence, witness accounts and historical records.

Prof Somadeva’s report points to the positioning of some skeletons, possible coffin fittings and the concentration of children’s remains. It suggests that the burials may be associated with formal burial practices and raises the possibility of an epidemic or natural catastrophe. Yet it identifies no specific epidemic or disaster, neither the Covid epidemic of 2020 nor the Tsunami of 2004, establishes neither the date of death nor the cause of death, and does not rule out unlawful killings. In a court case filed last week, families of the disappeared challenged the report’s conclusions and called for the evidence to be examined more comprehensively. Personal belongings, including school bags and children’s items, have been recovered with some remains. Allegations that certain skeletons were found with their hands bound must also be assessed against excavation records and forensic observations. The objective of investigations must be to establish the truth through rigorous investigation and to pursue accountability wherever the evidence leads.

HRCSL Framework

The findings of the Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka (HRCSL) provide an important framework for addressing these questions. In its report, the HRCSL identified weaknesses that threaten both the quality of the investigation and public confidence in its outcome. These included inadequate forensic expertise, limited access to scientific dating and DNA analysis, funding difficulties and the absence of an adopted standard operating procedure for mass grave investigations. These recommendations need to be implemented. Independent international expertise should be obtained where necessary to undertake scientific dating, including carbon-14 testing, and credible DNA analysis. A DNA bank should be established so that relatives can voluntarily provide samples for comparison. Ground-penetrating radar surveys should be extended to determine whether further remains lie beyond the excavated area. A formal procedure for mass grave investigations, developed in consultation with experts, lawyers and civil society, should ensure the preservation of evidence and regular public updates.

The Human Rights Commission also recommended an independent institution empowered to investigate and prosecute serious crimes by state officials. This is particularly important where allegations concern institutions whose own conduct may come under scrutiny. Investigations must be sufficiently independent to ensure that evidence is neither overlooked nor suppressed and that responsibility is established wherever the evidence leads. At Chemmani, as at Mannar and Matale, competing explanations must be tested through independent scientific examination. An inquiry into missing persons must be non-partisan, empathetic and attentive to the historical context. Families who have spent decades seeking answers must be kept informed and given meaningful opportunities to participate in the search for truth.

People of all communities who lost their loved ones in the past need to trust that the investigation seeks to uncover what happened to their loved ones and not be yet another government cover up as in the past. Their frustration also arises from decades of institutional failure. A credible process must address that history rather than simply ask them to trust a new investigation. For many families, the central question remains not only what happened to those who disappeared, but who was responsible and why those responsible have not been held accountable. Their demand for answers deserves to be treated as a legitimate claim of justice, not merely as a challenge to government credibility. Sri Lanka cannot build lasting reconciliation by asking families to move on while the fate of their loved ones remains unknown.