Tamils Rights: Sri Lanka

Debate between James Berry and Ranil Jayawardena

Tuesday 15th September 2015 Westminster Hall

[James Berry]

Yes.

For the reasons I just mentioned, it is small wonder that many Tamil people have little faith in the Government to convene a fair and impartial justice mechanism.

The second objection to a domestic inquiry is that Sri Lanka is not a signatory to the Rome statute; its domestic laws do not cover a number of the international laws that were breached by both sides, credible evidence of which is found in the 2011 UN report. So, as a bare minimum for a domestic mechanism, Sri Lanka’s domestic laws must cover each and every law that was breached; again, the UN has found credible evidence for those breaches in its new report, which is due to be issued tomorrow.

The third objection to a domestic inquiry is the lack of confidence of witnesses to come forward. A number of the witnesses who the UN spoke to, both when it prepared its new report and when it prepared its report in 2011, only spoke to it on condition of strict anonymity. Many Tamil victims of and witnesses to human rights abuses have fled the country and been granted asylum in countries such as the UK and Canada because of the fate they suffered in Sri Lanka. They would fear returning to Sri Lanka to participate in a tribunal where the prosecutors and indeed the witness protection, if there was any, were to be provided by the Sri Lankan Government.

Moreover, international human rights groups and charities have recently published reports detailing worrying ongoing human rights abuses in Sri Lanka. A number of these groups and charities exist in the UK. Freedom from Torture, a British charity, produced a report in August that cited evidence of human rights abuses since the ceasefire. So, between May 2009 and this year, there is evidence that the Sri Lankan military, police and intelligence services have practised torture, including rape and extensive burning. So, what confidence can witnesses have in coming forward in a perceived climate of fear, especially when it is believed that witnesses who have come forward previously have suffered as a result?

I recognise that there appears to be little appetite among the UNHRC members at its current summit for a fully independent justice mechanism. That is obviously disappointing, but perhaps it is unsurprising given how tight the vote was back in 2014 for an independent investigation. If it really is the case that there is no international appetite for an independent inquiry, it is probably right that there is little to be gained by Britain going out on a limb. Nevertheless, I ask the Minister to do what he can to ensure that the justice mechanism is a robust one, preferably with UN involvement both in the prosecution and the judicial tribunal.

[Mr Ranil Jayawardena (North East Hampshire) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that Britain can add a lot of value to this process, even if it is at arm’s length, because of our experience in Northern Ireland, which is a similar conflict between two sides that hold different views but whose views must be equally and fairly taken on board in any resolution ahead? Such a process should come from within a political process, as has been the case in the past in Northern Ireland and as seems to be happening in Sri Lanka, in terms of a unity Government.

[James Berry]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. During a number of years, there have been repeated failures by the Sri Lankan Government to put in place a credible process. That is why it is important that, whatever comes out of the current UNHRC session, robust procedures are put in place, so that whatever system is arrived at, the UN strictly monitors it and can return to the UNHRC if the stages, expectations and benchmarks are not met. Simply leaving matters to the Sri Lankan Government after this long history of, frankly, their taking no action whatsoever is not an acceptable way forward.