13th January 2014 By Registered Post/ Hand Justice Priyantha R. P.

Perera Chairman Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka No. 165 Kynsey Road Colombo 8. Dear Sir, Postponement of the proposed National Inquiry on Torture I write with reference to your letter dated 18th December 2013. Whilst thanking you for your response, I would like to place on record the following concerns which arise out of same; A. You note that representations were made to the commission to the effect that this is not the appropriate time to hold such an inquiry relating to Torture when the Commission has already taken action to proceed with the process of reconciliation among the communities. The parties who made representations requested the commission to refrain from divulging their identities 1. Whilst I do not see any reason why an individual or organisation would fear for espousing such an opinion, I respect their right to privacy and choice of anonymity (especially considering the threats faced by civil society organisations in the past and the failure of relevant authorities to ensure a safe environment for civil society to operate). 2. Regardless of the identity of these individuals and organisations, I am unable to see how the work of the Inquiry on Torture will negatively affect the said process of reconciliation. I would therefore appreciate it very much if you would clarify what concerns were raised by these individuals and organisations, regarding the purported impact the Inquiry on Torture would have on reconciliation efforts by the Commission. 3. In light of these concerns, I would further like to take this opportunity to query why the HRCSL did not seek the views of other Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) before making the decision not to move forward with the National Inquiry on Torture. The HRCSL has in the past consulted a broad cross section of CSOs on various issues (including on the human rights situation in Sri Lanka in order to prepare its submission for Sri Lankas Universal Periodic Review and on amending the HRCSL Act). In all our discussions and meetings, the HRCSL has maintained that it values the feedback provided by all CSOs. As such I find it strange that the HRCSL did not do the same in this instance, especially considering the

importance ascribed to this inquiry. There would be no need to disclose the identity of individuals and organisations that raised concerns, as the expectation would be only to discuss the concerns.

B. You further state that the term of office of the present mem bers of the commission would come to an end in mid February 2014. I need hardly mention that it would be impossible to conclude such inquiry before the termination of the term of office of the present Commission. 1. Was the HRCSL unaware of these time constraints when it initiated discussions with the Commonwealth Secretariat to obtain technical assistance for this national inquiry? 2. As the term of office of the Commissioners is one that is prescribed by law (and is therefore well known), why then did the HRCSL announce the establishment of the inquiry in November 2013, despite this concern? 3. Why is it necessary for the inquiry to be completed before the expiration of the term of the commissioners of the HRCSL? Would not the permanent staff assigned to the HRCSL be able to continue this work in the interim period? In fact one Commissioner of the HRCSL made a public statement in November 2013 that it has been decided that the inquiry will be held over a period of 18 months (See Ravi Ladduwahetty, Govt. to establish Torture Commission, Ceylon Today, 19th November 2013). This shows that the HRCSL intended to go ahead with the inquiry despite the impending end of the commissioners term. I am sure you will appreciate that the circumstance surrounding the cancelation of this inquiry (especially considering the vague and curious reasoning provided by you) will raise serious concerns as to the independence of the HRCSL and its ability to fulfil the mandate of a national human rights institution. This is especially so in light of history of the HRCSL in not publishing reports of commissions appointed to inquire into allegations of human rights violations and in some cases prematurely cancelling such inquiries citing various reasons. I speak for myself and the undersigned organizations when I state that we view the protection of human rights of all citizens of Sri Lanka as an essential component of an effective and meaningful reconciliation process. As such, any independent and transparent mechanism which holds perpetrators of human rights violations to account would only serve to further the cause of national reconciliation. It is thus incumbent upon the HRCSL to explain the reasons that necessitated the cancellation of the National Inquiry on Torture.

Please note that I will be releasing this letter as well as your letter dated 18th December 2013 to the media in the public interest. Yours sincerely,

Sudarshana Gunawardana Attorney at Law Executive Director

Copy to: Ms. Karen Mckenzie, Commonwealth Secretariat, Human Rights Unit.