The Board of the Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka made a decision to issue a circular prescribing a period of three months from the date of an incident for the receiving of petitions.
Internal Circular No. 7, dated 20.6.2007, addressed to all directors, regional coordinators, legal officers and investigation officers, signed by D.J.B. De Silva, Secretary, HRCSL, reads as follows:
¡°Period of prescription of receiving petitions
The Board at its meeting held on 18.6.2007, decided that the period of receiving petitions should be restricted to 3 (three) months from the date of incident of violation of Human Rights.
You are kindly requested to give publicity to this decision among the members of public and also abide by the above decision. The petitions already accepted should be inquired into irrespective of the date of incident.
Any exceptional matters should be referred to the Commission for decision.¡±
This circular has not been publicized, nor has the HRCSL made any press statement about this matter in order to inform the public. It is only through private sources that human rights groups have come to be aware of this circular. The general reaction has been that this is yet another example of a human rights commission, which was not appointed under the provisions of the Sri Lankan Constitution, trying to undermine the peoples¡¯ right to protection.
This move is seen as an attempt to discourage people from having recourse to the Human Rights Commission and to eradicate any semblance of the idea of a proactive commission, willing to be engaged in the protection and promotion of human rights under the extremely difficult circumstances that the country is presently faced with.
One human rights activist commented, ¡°If the HRCSL receives fewer complaints, then it can create an impression around the world that the human rights situation in the country has become better.¡± International human rights groups place much reliance on the statistics given out by the HRCSL in trying to gauge the situation of human rights in the country.
The implication of this circular is that complaints regarding torture, extrajudicial killings, forced disappearances, gross violations of the rights of children and women, complaints relating to discrimination and violations of the provisions for equality before law, are all prescribed unless the complaints are made within three months.
The HRCSL is a statutory body created for the purpose of the protection and promotion of human rights and is expected to work within the framework of the Paris Principles relating to national institutions. However, the HRCSL in recent times has not in any way conformed to these principles, either about its independence, or on the implementation of international norms and standards relating to the observance of human rights by the state.
A national human rights commission is expected to monitor human rights violations and to make recommendations to all government bodies on the steps that need to be taken in order to better facilitate respect for human rights. This is a function that the HRCSL has failed to carry out, regardless of the extremely difficult circumstances relating to human rights faced by people throughout the country. Instead of monitoring human rights it is in fact, by its most inefficient methods of work, discouraging complainants who wish to pursue their rights. The advantage of such inaction goes to the perpetrators of the violations.
There is no basis for setting prescriptions against acts of torture, extrajudicial killings and forced disappearances. These are heinous crimes and gross violations of human rights. The Board of the HRCSL has acted in violation of the basic norms and standards for the protection of human rights in imposing a period of three months as a period of limitation for the acceptance of complaints by the Commission.
Given the situation of the extreme alarm that prevails in the country today there is likely to be many persons who may not dare to make complaints immediately out of fear for their lives. The government had admitted the absence of witness protection in the country and its adverse consequences on all witnesses. Under such circumstances it is natural for people to wait for more secure conditions before they make a complaint. Individual complainants may want to ensure for themselves a place of safety before they make complaints relating to serious violations of rights. Also, particularly, people living in rural areas and more distant parts of the country, will find it difficult to keep to such a deadline. In conflict areas the situation can be even worse. How is it possible for refugees and other displaced persons who suffer the worst forms of human rights abuses to keep to such a deadline?
The AHRC urges all civil society organisations to critically examine the role that the HRCSL is playing now. Is it a watchdog for those violate human rights or has it any capacity and will to be the watchdog of the human rights of those who suffer violations? This particular circular should be condemned as an attempt to limit its services and to exclude many persons from making complaints about human rights violations.
