15 December, 2017

Blog

UN Expert On ‘Transitional Justice’ On Long Visit To Sri Lanka

By Sanja De Silva Jayatilleka –

Sanja De Silva Jayatilleka

The Special Rapporteur on the promotion of truth, justice, reparation and guarantees of non-recurrence is due to visit Sri Lanka on the invitation of the Government of Sri Lanka, on rather a long visit, from 10th to 23rd October 2017. Almost two whole weeks.

According to the Office of the High Commissioner’s (OHCHR) website, Mr. Pablo de Greiff’s visit is “to examine the progress made in redressing the legacies of massive past violations and abuses, including those that resulted from a conflict that spanned more than 25 years.” 

Describing him as a “UN Expert on Transitional Justice” the news item adds that “In 2015, the Government of Sri Lanka committed itself to designing and implementing a comprehensive transitional justice strategy.”

In September this year, in the Special Rapporteur’s report (A/HRC/36/50) to the Human Rights Council, Mr. de Greiff thanked Sri Lanka for the invitation and “regrets that his requests for visits to Brazil, Cambodia, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Guatemala, Guinea, Indonesia, Japan, Kenya, Nepal and Rwanda are still pending.” Interesting.

He also revealed that “On 16 and 17 May 2017, the Special Rapporteur participated in the inter-agency retreat on the theme ‘United Nations support for transitional justice in Sri Lanka’, held at United Nations Headquarters.”

Transitional Justice

According to Report of the UN Secretary-General in 2004 on ‘The rule of law and transitional justice in conflict and post-conflict societies’, “The notion of ‘transitional justice’ …comprises the full range of processes and mechanisms associated with a society’s attempts to come to terms with a legacy of large-scale past abuses, in order to ensure accountability, serve justice and achieve reconciliation. These may include both judicial and non-judicial mechanisms, with differing levels of international involvement (or none at all) and individual prosecutions, reparations, truth-seeking, institutional reform, vetting and dismissals, or a combination thereof.”

What prompted the present Sri Lankan government to commit itself to “designing and implementing a comprehensive transitional justice strategy” in 2015? What was Sri Lanka transitioning from? What was it transitioning to? TJ evolved as a response to transitions to democracy from dictatorships (military, one-party, apartheid) and its mechanisms were aimed at establishing ‘rule of law’ in contexts where independent institutions had been wrecked.

The Special Rapporteur’s report presented in September 2017 confirms that “Even a cursory review of the development of the paradigm of transitional justice over the past 30 years suggests that it emerged from the experiences of a set of countries – in the Southern Cone of Latin America, to a lesser extent from those in Central and Eastern Europe, and then in South Africa – that shared many characteristics.”

In this context, he says “Assisting societies devastated by conflict or emerging from repressive rule to re-establish the rule of law and come to terms with large-scale human rights violations, especially within a context marked by broken institutions, exhausted resources, diminished security, and a distressed and divided population, presents a daunting challenge…”

This challenge is identified as “…the establishment or reestablishment of an effective governing administrative and justice system founded on respect for the rule of law and the protection of human rights.”

The situation in Sri Lanka was not exactly “a context marked by broken institutions, exhausted resources, diminished security, and a distressed and divided population…” The institutions were not “broken” and we had a functioning judiciary.

What made Sri Lanka in 2015 require “the establishment or reestablishment of an effective governing administrative and justice system”? Sri Lanka emerged from an armed conflict, certainly, but the State’s strength, coherence and functional competence were manifest in that it successfully defeated a separatist terrorist army and reestablished its territorial integrity, while remaining a multiparty democracy with functioning institutions. Throughout the war, the state paid the salaries of government employees and transported food and medicine to the population in the conflict areas which was not under its control. This is considered unprecedented in an armed conflict. So what made Transitional Justice applicable to Sri Lanka?

The Report of the Special Rapporteur

In the impressive report (A/HRC/36/50) presented to the UN Human Rights Council this September, the Special Rapporteur queries whether “the same model of transitional justice forged in post-authoritarian transitions can be applied to post-conflict transitions without modification.”  He further states that “transitional justice is not a “universal policy tool” that works equally well in all contexts.” He identifies what he calls “a generalized tendency to copy institutions regardless of contextual fit” using a term from economics called “isomorphic mimicry” which is unhelpful. He calls instead, for a “close fit between problem and remedy, between context and solution”.

In the situations that have shaped TJ so far, the Special Rapporteur identifies commonalities such as “a type of transition that may be characterized as “regime failure”, either “outright collapse or terminal weakening.” Clearly, this was not the case in Sri Lanka.

In addition, “Most States concerned regarded themselves as recovering legal traditions temporarily disrupted by authoritarianism…Transitional justice was also made feasible by the fact that the violations were predominantly and overwhelmingly perpetrated by just one actor…”

He adds that “proponents of transitional justice have been much less ready to heed rhetoric about context sensitivity than it should have been, as evidenced by the suspicious resemblance of institutional policies despite the very significant differences in the contexts in which they are applied.”

In 2015, when the incoming Sri Lankan government readily agreed to design a transitional justice process, I wonder if it had thought the matter through or was guilty of “isomorphic mimicry”. Or was it something else altogether? 

In his excellent report, the Special Rapporteur admits the difficulties in applying TJ in post-conflict situations. “…Some of the background conditions … in post-authoritarian settings are simply absent in most countries in a post-conflict situation. In these contexts, drawing familiar lines between contending forces, between civilians and armed agents, and even between victims and perpetrators, becomes increasingly difficult.” (My emphases- SdeSJ)

The existing mechanisms, according the Special Rapporteur, were a response to “the result of the brutal exercise of State power …These States were emerging from authoritarianism… The violations were the result of the abusive exercise of a tremendously asymmetric State power”. 

This description does not apply to a State fighting a formation such as the LTTE, with its own army, navy and fledgling air-force, not to mention large numbers of suicide bombers in civilian areas outside the conflict zone.  The Special Rapporteur recognized this in his differentiation:

“…while in post-authoritarian contexts the State is overwhelmingly responsible for violations, conflict scenarios have a more “horizontal” or symmetrical distribution of violence… in which multiple agents of violence operate. In the words of one author, ‘chaos has replaced tyranny as the new challenge to human rights in the twenty-first century’.”

As such, his recommendations include “further research and discourse aimed at clarifying the role of armed non-State actors in the international legal framework. The lacunae in this framework concerning their obligations, rights and responsibilities, especially in post-conflict settings, are an obstacle to the implementation of transitional justice measures. Different United Nations organs, in particular OHCHR, could take the lead in these discussions.”

However, even in the differentiation of post-conflict as opposed to post-authoritarian transitions in the Special Rapporteur’s report, things don’t exactly fit with regard to post-conflict Sri Lanka:

“…post-conflict transitions are conducted in a context of significantly greater scarcity of security and development.  Cycles of violence, to which many of these countries have been subjected, affect all dimensions of life. Conflict decimates infrastructure, diminishes foreign and local investment, distorts government expenditures, decreases revenues, disrupts education, and generally depletes social capital.”

Certainly by 2015, when we signed up for TJ, all of the issues mentioned had been taken care of by the State, as part of the post-war processes. As for government revenue, today with a new government in place after democratic elections in peacetime, the growth rate has halved from that maintained during war time, and well below the spurt Sri Lanka experienced in the immediate aftermath of the victory.

Another indicator of post-conflict societies requiring TJ is described in the report as containing “…institutions that are considerably weaker in terms not only of their extent of coverage but also of their depth. In such contexts, State institutions do not cover the entire territory, and significant legal vacuums exist, in addition to enforcement deficits”. This had also been dealt with when the LTTE was defeated, and certainly by 2015, democratic elections had been held at all levels of the political and governance structure in the former conflict areas.

When TJ is applied in the Sri Lankan context, these therefore cannot be the relevant considerations for its application. The question has to be posed then, whether the Sri Lankan context qualifies for Transitional Justice at all.

Can a legitimate State with uninterrupted democratic elections and several changes of governments throughout the period of violent conflict, and with functioning democratic institutions, be a subject for a Transitional Justice solution? Justice, most certainly, but Transitional Justice? Is there a line of demarcation, or does every post-conflict process, even after a decisive victory for the democratic State rather than a mediated/negotiated peace, come under TJ, and if so on what basis?

In preparation for the Special Rapporteur’s report on his global study on Transitional Justice, (A/HRC/36/50/Add.1), five regional consultations were held, with States, UN agencies, regional organizations and civil society to understand the regional specificities, share priorities, lessons and good practices. The consultations took place in: Cairo, Buenos Aires Kampala, Berlin and in Colombo last year.

In the comprehensive report that followed, Mr. Greiff identifies what he calls “The most important contribution of transitional justice”. He says that it is “quite simply, its unpacking of the concept of justice into constituent and mutually reinforcing elements: truth, justice, reparation and guarantees of non-recurrence, in recognition of the fact that criminal justice alone would not be enough to satisfy the justice claims of victims of massive or systematic human rights abuse.

This then seems to be where the line of demarcation exists. TJ applies where ‘criminal justice’ alone would not be adequate and it would not be adequate only in cases where “massive or systematic human rights abuse” has taken place.

Sri Lanka had not agreed that these conditions exist in its case, according to the outcome document of the independent commission appointed to look into allegations of abuse during the conflict. The LLRC report (as it is commonly known) identifies individual instances of abuse which it recommends should be independently investigated under the criminal justice system, but does not find evidence of ‘massive’ or ‘systematic’ abuse.

According to the OHCHR, Mr. Greiff is expected to meet “Government officials at central and provincial levels, representatives of the legislature, members of the judiciary, the armed forces, law enforcement officials, religious leaders, political parties, the Human Rights Commission, civil society, victims’ groups, academics and representatives of the international community.”

In this context, serious critical engagement with this mandate holder by all who are concerned in order to help him understand the complexity and specificity of the context, political and contemporary historical, in which TJ is sought to be applied in Sri Lanka, could be the most constructive approach.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Latest comments

  • 6
    0

    Welcome suggestion but the question remains, if after such ‘critical engagement’ will the author support the UN expert if his report is critical of the nation’s conduct?

    One cannot only be ready to have bouquets, one must accept brick bats too!

  • 6
    1

    Mrs DJ says “Can a legitimate State with uninterrupted democratic elections and several changes of governments throughout the period of violent conflict, and with functioning democratic institutions, be a subject for a Transitional Justice solution?”
    Am I wrong in assuming that the above is her core thinking as facts, and most her assessments are based on it? .. I see this as Delusion (Maya) of human mind and so called conscious mind build logics based on those “unconscious” delusions…. How she has forgotten dead bodies in her streets, floating bodies in “Bentara Gaga” belonging to her poorer class JVP neighbours of her in Down South.. and all the stories of “Goni Billa” abductions .. Was it because those poorer JVP guys were not “De Silvas”???
    My interpretation of Mrs De Silva’s problem..
    “Misunderstood truth is worse than worst lie”……

    • 3
      0

      AVB ~ “Misunderstood truth is worse than worst lie”……
      It is perverse if “Misunderstood” is deliberate.

  • 6
    0

    No on can deny the pogroms against the Tamils in 1956. 1958, 1971, 1977, 1983 and 2004-2009 where thousands of Tamils brutally killed, burnt alive, houses and establishments looted and burnt.
    In May 1981 Burning of the Jaffna Library – Recently PM Ranil accepted and aplogized for this act during the UNP government at that time..
    You can still see the haunting images and facts in the Google search.
    for detailed information please view the links ; with figures and facts:
    GENOCIDE OF TAMILS IN SRI LANKA
    https://www.academia.edu/29486541/Importance_of_an_Independent_Homeland_for_Tamils_in_Sri_Lanka_Genocide_of_Tamils_in_Sri_Lanka
    https://www.academia.edu/30862240/UN_SYSTEM_OWES_SRI_LANKAN_TAMILS_REMEDIAL_JUSTICE
    https://www.academia.edu/34151481/SRI_LANKAS_CREDIBILITY_AND_UNS_RESPONSIBILITIES
    https://www.academia.edu/34202740/SRI_LANKAS_GENOCIDE_OF_TAMILS
    https://www.academia.edu/28419263/chemical_weapons_used_to_wipe_out_the_Tamils_in_Sri_Lanka

  • 2
    7

    UN IS AJOKE. did any reporters ask whether they question anything about what happened in IRaq, Afghanisthan, Yeman, sudan and now in Myanmar and Syria those are large scale abuses by western countries. Sri lanka doe snot have any reporters who can speak to these people. Is Sri lanka this backward ?

    • 9
      2

      Jimsofty Dimwit

      “UN IS AJOKE. did any reporters ask whether they question anything about what happened in IRaq, Afghanisthan, Yeman, sudan and now in Myanmar and Syria those are large scale abuses by western countries. “

      I didn’t notice there is a problem with UN until you mentioned it above. It is unacceptable therefore Sri Lanka must pull out of UN membership which was voluntary.

      The country has survived 2500 years of foreign rule, it will survive another 2500 years on its own, ………………….. Dimwit don’t spare another few minutes, pull the country out of UN domination.

      We can import free rice from the moon and feed our people, that is if people survive.

  • 1
    7

    Here comes the real ‘electric chair’ ! He is here to force the hands of the puppet regime of Sira/Ranil to implement the punishment forced upon Sri Lanka by Zeid Hussain in Geneva which the puppet govt agreed to. Ridiculous, spineless, white worshipping slave labourers that SL Govt members are. Shame on you.

    • 1
      5

      I think the Jordan Prince was helping the govt Rep. to introduce LGBTQ rights what ever those are. Imn Sri lanka, every minister is the govt and they think they are are geniuses when it comes to govern.

  • 2
    1

    transitional justice is from a rajapaksa dictatorship to a sirisena democracy

  • 8
    0

    Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde

    The sweet Butterfly is trying to become the itchy caterpillar here:
    “What prompted the present Sri Lankan government to commit itself to “designing and implementing a comprehensive transitional justice strategy” in 2015? What was Sri Lanka transitioning from? What was it transitioning to? TJ evolved as a response to transitions to democracy from dictatorships (military, one-party, apartheid) and its mechanisms were aimed at establishing ‘rule of law’ in contexts where independent institutions had been wrecked.
    (What else is going in Lankawe? )

    There the itchy caterpillar,hair all over the face is trying to become the butterfly.


    The Sinhala Fundamentalist New Right:
    The 13th amendment is unacceptable. What then is the intermediate solution? There is none. What is the alternative to self –determination? There is none. What is the alternative to federalism? There is none. .
    (Who is asking intermediate solution from Thero? May I know that; When there is nothing wreck, why Thero is talking about intermediate solution, which is needed only as emergency stabilization of a damaging havov. )

    This is not hypocrisy; this is not pinching the child and rocking the cradle; This is not two faced double acting; This is serious mental condition need urgent treatment.

    • 0
      5

      There is no intermediate solution. Make the country better for the 70
      % majority. Sinhala is the majority language ask Tamils to learn it as they do else where in the world. change the flag, remove the 13th amendment and make just one govt and nine municipalities.

      • 3
        0

        Jimsofty the Dimwit

        “Sinhala is the majority language ask Tamils to learn it as they do else where in the world. “

        Are you certain that the majority people the Sinhalese are so stupid they cannot learn their own language they want others to learn it for them? What a stupid request.

  • 5
    0

    Sanja De Silva Jayatilleka ~ “……….In September this year, in the Special Rapporteur’s report (A/HRC/36/50) to the Human Rights Council, Mr. de Greiff thanked Sri Lanka for the invitation and “regrets that his requests for visits to Brazil, Cambodia, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Guatemala, Guinea, Indonesia, Japan, Kenya, Nepal and Rwanda are still pending.” …………”.
    Sanja is disappointed that genocidal Myanmar is not on the list. She knows that a request was made but Arch-angel Aung refused.
    Sanja is NOT suggesting that UN cleans up the countries in the list before coming to SL.
    India and China is not the list. Sanya never heard of these countries.
    Sanja De Silva Jayatilleka ~ “UN Expert On ‘Transitional Justice’ On Long Visit To Sri Lanka”.
    Agree with Sanja. Why this long? Do not allow Lankan hospitality to blind you UN Expert! (Sorry like Sanja I have forgotten the name).

  • 2
    0

    This article proceeds by way of citationality. Citations are repeated from various reports and speeches to the extent language betrays the intention/argument of the author. Language performs a sleight of hand; it seems transitional justice overcomes every attempt to negate it, at least in language.

    • 3
      0

      Singha Atygalle

      We don’t take the author seriously.

Leave A Comment

Comments should not exceed 300 words. Embedding external links and writing in capital letters are discouraged. Commenting is automatically shut off on articles after 10 days and approval may take up to 24 hours. Please read our Comments Policy for further details. Your email address will not be published.