Issue No. 133 October - December 2011 By Shanie Jaffna Fort Human Rights Review : October - December Institute of Human Rights 2 INSIDE THIS ISSUE: Editorial 03 Current issues : Media Freedom ♦ Free media seeks SC order to lift ban on websites 05 ♦ Ekneligoda disappearance trial postponed till Dec 20 Human Rights Violations • Protect HR defenders : ‘UN CAT’ tells Govt. 06 • Human Rights situation in SL should improve : Akashi • Missing : Post war abductions rise 07 • Lanka law student ‘assaulted again’ 08 Situation in the North • ‘Big and small’ brothers gang up against people’s rights 09 • Impunity and civic irresponsibility • Oppressed North; Lawless south 10 • Were detainees sadistically beaten at A’pura? 11 • Old war torn areas still have military ghosts 12 • Refugees in India; refugees in Sri Lanka 13 War Crime Charges • Committee against torture slams Sri Lanka 14 • War crimes allegations: Canadian FM upbraids Lanka Corruption & Impunity • White vans now dole out justice! 15 • SL Government whitevanning • Excerpts from an interview given by Justice C. V. Wigneswaran 17 Unit Reports Legal Unit 17 Restoration & Protection Unit 18 Education Unit 19 Staff Information 20 Edited by Layout designed by Cover Page Pictures Leela Isaac Hashini Rajaratna The Island - 26/11/2011 Human Rights Review : October - December 2 Institute of Human Rights 3 EDITORIAL WILL THERE BE A REGIME CHANGE IN SRI LANKA? regime change takes place only if the majority of people in a country want a change. In Sri Lanka to- A day not many people would want it. After 30 years of war and terror, people are able to get about with- out fear, safe in the knowledge that the LTTE has been annihilated. It is this regime, the Rajapakse regime that made it possible and so the sense of gratitude is very strong among the people. It is this feeling that makes the people vote for the Rajapaksas time and time again. All other feelings of frustration simply evapo- rate, when they remember the bomb explosions of the past in contrast to the peace and security they enjoy today. There is also no opposition waiting in the wings to take over power. Slowly but steadily a merger is taking place before our very eyes, in parliament. The UNP which is still the largest opposition party has more or less merged with the UPFA, disregarding the voters who sent them to parliament to oppose the same UPFA government! The UNP leader Ranil Wickramasinghe is now safe in the arms of President Mahida Raja- paksa, bound to enjoy eternal bliss as the permanent leader of the opposition, to prevent it from bringing about a regime change. Ranil Wikramasinghe is today hated by many of the UNP supporters who don’t even bother to vote at elections. But he clings to his position supported by the government and the president. To- gether they will not allow a regime change. After the recent election of the UNP leaders as a newspaper col- umnist has said, “The UNP lost, Ranil won and Mahinda Rajapaksa got his Christmas gift!” The other opposition party, the JVP has been divided and sub-divided so many times that it cannot raise its head again. People do not vote for that party because they cannot forgive or forget the atrocities committed by its members in the late 1980s although Wimal Weerawansa, one of its leading active members during that period is today a popular cabinet minister, close to the president. The JVP that moved away from the government is so helpless today that it has to appeal to the “hated” international community to secure the release of its Jaffna district organizer Lalith Kumar and Kugan Muruganandan who were abducted by an unidentified gang of armed men on December 9th, while organizing a rally in Jaffna. This incident is blamed on the government. In short the JVP cannot initiate a regime change. This regime is being criticized by the UN and the international community for not investigating war crimes and for the many abductions and disappearances that happened then and continue even today. But a majority of Sri Lankans, other than those in the North and East do not want the Western powers to interfere in our internal affairs. They feel we need to protect our president from these ‘international vultures’’. These ‘vultures’ include America, the western countries and the UN. “If the leaders of these countries could ignore the UN and bomb countries beyond their borders, with impunity killing so many civilians, what moral right do they have to question us?” they ask. “Our president bombed only our own ‘Terrorists’, may be killing some civilians in the process. These civilians could have included women and children but they were all LTTE sup- porters or sympathizers”. Stretching this point further they could even ask, (as Kumar David puts it) “Americans, British and various colonials have a criminal record of human rights violations, so what’s wrong if we enjoy our share of war crimes?’ we can also tell those who accuse us , “He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone” and there will be no one, as it happened in the case of the accusers of the woman brought before Jesus Christ. With such strong popular support, this regime will continue for a very long time. There are some who do not brand all Tamils as Tiger supporters or sympathizers and realise that thousands of Tamil civilians may have perished in the last battle. But even they do not blame the regime or support an investigation of its war crimes. They argue that neither we nor Banki Moon and his UN, nor the international community, nor our big neighbor India made a serious attempt to stop the killings. We allowed it to happen because all of us wanted an end to the 30 year war. Today all of us enjoy the benefits of that (Continued on page 04) Human Rights Review : October - December 3 Institute of Human Rights EDITORIAL 4 (Continued from page 03) massacre on the shores of Nandikadal. It is that final battle where thousands of civilians (along with LTTE carders) died (according to some international sources) that brought us this peace. Today if we are free to travel to any part of the country without fear, it is this regime that made it possible. As we are all responsible for the war we have no right to point a finger at the regime or demand a regime change. Those civilians mostly in the North and East would want a regime change hoping that could lead to war crimes investigations. Parents affected by the war want to know whether their children are dead or being held in a torture camp. They have to know the truth however devastating it maybe before they can forgive and forget. It’s only after the truth is revealed and they come to terms with it, can reconciliation begin. The regime seems to believe that reconciliation can be achieved by hiding the truth and promoting economic de- velopment. Since the present regime will never reveal the truth, or release the former army commander who could explain what actually took place during the last days of the war, the only option left for these long suf- fering people seems a regime change. Only when the government is headed by those who had nothing to do with the war will the truth be known. Victims of Human Rights violations, like the families of all those who have disappeared like Ek- nelogoda or killed in broad day light like Lasantha and Raviraj or the hundreds who have been abducted over the years by unknown armed gangs in white vans also want a regime change. They realise that there is a close link between crime and political power today. Not only politicians but persons even remotely connected to them feel that the laws of the country do not apply to them. They can shoot and kill an ‘enemy’ or a rival in the presence of hundreds of people in the street and get the CID to ‘prove’ that it was the dead man who fired the first shot. The killer can be proved innocent and the victim the villain. Out of the hundreds who wit- nessed the killing not one will come forward to tell the truth. Fear would seal their lips. This blatant abuse of power and distortion of justice cannot continue, this regime must change, they say. Those who seek lasting peace and stability also look forward to a regime that would sincerely imple- ment a political solution, granting devolution of power specially to the North and East. They feel that only if such a political solution is offered can we expect the war affected minorities not to conspire against the state and plan another insurgency, wreaking terror. They do not believe in the “elephant analogy” which is as fol- lows: “compared to us human beings the elephants are a very small number and we could easily kill them all and grab their traditional territory, so with Tamils who are a very small minority among us”. They believe that disgruntled neighbours, even if they are small in number are always a threat to peace and stability. It is bet- ter to remove their grievances rather than kill them all, as we are Buddhists who do not suffer from the Maha- wansa mindset “where arahants refer to Damilas who were not Buddhists (in King Elara’s army) as not more to be esteemed than beasts whose slaughter need not be lamented”. For the sake of peace and stability this group would welcome a regime change.