How the Govt of Sri Lanka must reply to the UNHRC Head

 

The Govt of Sri Lanka is elected to uphold the sovereignty & territorial integrity of Sri Lanka. Thus, the Govt of Sri Lanka is bound to uphold national sovereignty against the current beyond mandate violations by the UNHRC & OHCHR.

International Law guarantees State Sovereignty and Non-Intervention

United Nations Charter clearly states.

1. UN Charter Article 2(1): Affirms that the Organization is “based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.” This means that all member states, regardless of size or power, possess equal rights and are independent in their internal affairs.
2. UN Charter Article 2(7): Crucially states: “Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter VII.”
   • Interpretation: This clearly prohibits UN intervention in domestic matters. Chapter VII allows actions by the Security Council but its powers are not extended to the UNHRC for domestic interference

The Mandate of the UNHRC and OHCHR is Not Prosecutorial or Legislative

The UNHRC and the OHCHR operate within specific mandates that primarily focus on promotion, protection, and cooperation. UNHRC & OHCHR cannot enforce or impose legislative changes/reforms.

• What is UNHRC/OHCHR mandated to do: Hold forums for dialogue, standard-setting, monitoring human rights situations, reporting findings, offer technical assistance (if requested), and make non-binding recommendations. Facilitate the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) where states’ human rights records are reviewed.

 

• What UNHRC/OHCHR is NOT MANDATED to do: UNHRC/OHCHR are not international courts with judicial powers. They cannot issue legally binding judgments against states, nor can their resolutions unilaterally impose domestic laws, constitutional amendments, or specific judicial/security sector structures. Their resolutions CANNOT create new legal obligations beyond ratified treaties, nor can they dictate specific legislative outcomes.

UNHRC is undermining Sri Lanka:  

A review of UNHRC’s scrutiny of Sri Lanka must be evaluated from legally questionable reports (Darusman, Petrie, OISL) that Sri Lanka has consistently argued against for lack proper mandate and due process,:

• Lack of Proper Mandate: These reports were initiated without formal resolutions from the UN General Assembly or the Security Council, raising fundamental questions about their institutional legitimacy. They were leaked.
• Reliance on unverified and anonymous information: Critically, these reports allegedly relied heavily on anonymous testimonies, often kept secret for extended periods, precluding Sri Lanka’s right to respond, verify, or cross-examine, thus violating principles of natural justice and fairness.
• Denial of Due Process: Sri Lanka was reportedly denied adequate opportunity to engage fully in the processes leading to these reports, contributing to a perception of a pre-determined outcome. The manner that all reports concentrated against Sri Lanka & not its legitimate right to engage in counter-terrorism is noteworthy.

When resolutions and demands are built upon such perceived flawed foundations, their validity and enforceability become inherently questionable from a sovereign state’s perspective.

Specific Instances of Mandate Overreach against Sri Lanka’s Sovereignty:

Analysis of past resolutions and OHCHR demands reveals a pattern that showcases that the UNHRC/OHCHR has gone beyond its legitimate mandate and infringes upon Sri Lanka’s domestic jurisdiction:

1. The Imposition of the OHCHR Sri Lanka Accountability Project (OSLAP/SLAP):
   • The Overreach: Resolutions such as 46/1 (2021) and 51/1 (2022) established and extended the OHCHR’s mandate to “collect, consolidate, analyse and preserve information and evidence” for “future accountability efforts” related to alleged human rights violations in Sri Lanka. This is an administrative office undertaking a quasi-judicial/prosecutorial function.
   • Why it is Wrong: This mechanism operates externally, unilaterally, and without Sri Lanka’s consent, directly undermining its judicial sovereignty. It pre-judges the capacity of Sri Lanka’s domestic legal system and aims to create a dossier for potential foreign prosecutions, which is a direct infringement on national jurisdiction.
2. Demands for Specific Judicial Mechanisms and External Involvement:
   • The Overreach: Resolution 30/1 (2015), despite initial co-sponsorship by a previous administration, explicitly called for a “judicial mechanism with… assistance in legal and judicial expertise” which was widely interpreted as demanding hybrid courts and foreign judicial participation.
   • Why it is Wrong: This dictates the structure of Sri Lanka’s sovereign judiciary and imposes external elements that bypass the nation’s constitutional framework and its inherent right to administer justice within its own borders. Judicial architecture is an intrinsic attribute of state sovereignty.
3. Dictating Domestic Legislative Repeals and Reforms:
   • The Overreach: The OHCHR and High Commissioner repeatedly demand the repeal of specific Sri Lankan laws, such as the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA), Penal Code 365/365A, the Online Safety Act & even to Change Sri Lanka’s Constitution, and insist on reforms to religious personal laws or the decriminalization of consensual same-sex relations.
   • Why it is Wrong: While human rights principles advocate for non-discrimination and protection of fundamental freedoms, the direct demand for specific legislative acts by an external body constitutes a clear overreach into the sovereign legislative domain of Sri Lanka’s Parliament. The methods and timelines of such reforms, particularly when touching upon complex social, cultural, or religious issues, are exclusively within the domestic legislative purview.
4. Disproportionate and Politicized Scrutiny:
   • The Wrong: Sri Lanka has faced continuous, country-specific resolutions and intense scrutiny for over a decade, often based on reports (Darusman, Petrie, OISL) that Sri Lanka deems fundamentally flawed, unmandated, and relying on unverified sources that deny due process. This continuous focus is seen as disproportionate compared to other nations with similar or more severe alleged human rights issues. Moreover, all of these actions only came about after Sri Lanka ended 30 years of terrorism & questions UNHRC silence before 2009.
   • Why it is Wrong: This creates a perception of selective justice and politicization, diverting resources and attention from genuine, nationally-owned reconciliation efforts, and violating principles of objectivity, impartiality, and non-selectivity central to the UN’s own human rights framework. The focus on unverified incidents from the 1990s, while large-scale atrocities by the LTTE (e.g., child soldier recruitment, disappearances from detention centers, the mass killing of other Tamil militant leaders & their cadres by LTTE are comparatively downplayed, further highlights this perceived bias.

What the Direct Message to the UNHRC Head and OHCHR Office from the Government of Sri Lanka should be

The Government of Sri Lanka must deliver a clear, principled, and unyielding message to the visiting UN High Commissioner for Human Rights and his Office:

“The Government of Sri Lanka welcomes your visit and reaffirms its unwavering commitment to upholding human rights for all its citizens, in line with our international obligations. However, this commitment is exercised within the framework of our national sovereignty, a principle fundamental to the United Nations Charter itself.

Therefore, you and your Office must understand and be firmly informed of the following:

Respect for Sovereignty is Non-Negotiable: Sri Lanka, as a sovereign member state of the United Nations, operates under its own Constitution and laws. UN Charter Article 2(7) explicitly prohibits intervention in matters essentially within our domestic jurisdiction. Your mandate, and that of the UNHRC, is promotional and recommendatory; it is not legislative, judicial, or enforcement-oriented.

 

Rejection of Mandate Overreach: We unequivocally reject any and all demands that fall outside your legitimate mandate. This specifically includes:

• • The imposition of external evidence-gathering mechanisms (such as the OHCHR Sri Lanka Accountability Project), which usurps our national judicial functions and infringes upon our sovereign right to administer justice within our borders.
  • Dictating the specific structure of our domestic judiciary, including demands for hybrid courts or the inclusion of foreign judges, which are matters solely for Sri Lanka’s constitutional and legislative processes.
  • Demanding the repeal of specific domestic laws or dictating specific legislative reforms (e.g., the Prevention of Terrorism Act, the Online Safety Act, or specific personal laws, or the decriminalization of same-sex relations). The power to legislate rests exclusively with the Parliament of Sri Lanka, reflecting the will of its people.

 

Insistence on National Ownership: Genuine and sustainable accountability, reconciliation, and reform processes must be nationally owned, designed, and implemented. We are committed to strengthening our own credible domestic mechanisms. Any external demands that bypass or undermine these national efforts are counterproductive and will be resisted.

 

Addressing Bias and Flawed Foundations: We urge your Office to acknowledge and address the persistent concerns regarding the politicization and selective scrutiny directed at Sri Lanka. Resolutions stemming from reports that lacked proper UNGA/UNSC mandates, relied on unverified, anonymous information, and denied Sri Lanka due process, fundamentally lack legitimacy and are a basis for continued interference. We also recall instances where questionable analyses have been used to unfairly target our armed forces.

 

Focus on True Justice and Impartiality: If your concern is genuinely for human rights, then it must be universal and impartial. We expect equal attention to the horrific atrocities committed by the proscribed terrorist organization LTTE, including the recruitment of thousands of Tamil child soldiers, the disappearance of thousands from their detention centers like Thunukkai, and widespread massacres of Sinhala, Tamil, and Muslim civilians, along with the brutal killings of rival Tamil groups like TELO. A selective focus, such as a disproportionate emphasis on unverified claims from decades past while ignoring documented mass atrocities by terrorists, casts serious doubt on the impartiality and credibility of your Office.

The Government of Sri Lanka stands ready for constructive engagement that respects its sovereignty and operates within the bounds of established international law. However, any attempts to dictate our internal affairs, impose external mechanisms, or make demands that exceed your mandate will be firmly rejected. Our nation deserves justice and respect for its hard-won peace, not judgment based on a biased and politicized agenda.”

 

This is the type of statement Sri Lankans expect from its elected Govt. We look forward to such an outcome.

 

 

Shenali D Waduge