UNHRC must apologize & retract all Reports & Resolutions against Sri Lanka (2009-present)

 

Sri Lanka’s conflict ended in May 2009. The UN that silently watched 30 years of LTTE terror & mayhem did little to prevent civilian killings. Yet when Sri Lankan Government authorized counter-terrorism action against LTTE & eventually LTTE was eliminated, the UN jumps into action calling for accountability! Not stopping there, 3 critical reports became the foundation of a witch hunt against a sovereign UN member state. The so-called international community must look at the breaches of protocol & UN Charter in the 3 reports against Sri Lanka that have clearly no UN mandate. This challenges the legal validity, procedural integrity & evidentiary basis of the 2011 Darusman Report, 2012 Petrie Report & 2015 OISL investigation – all three done under authorization of only then serving UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon.

 

Legal Violations of UN Charter by the UNHRC and OHCHR Actions

1. Violation of Article 2(1)
2. Violation of Article 2(7)
3. Violation of Article 7
4. Violation of Article 22
5. Violation of Article 100 (1) & (2)
6. Violations of the UN Charter
7. Article 2(1) – Sovereign Equality
   • Selective treatment of Sri Lanka violates the foundational principle of equal sovereignty of states.
   • The UN has not imposed similar scrutiny on other states involved in comparable or more devastating conflicts (e.g., India, Afghanistan, Gaza).
   • The first unilateral unmandated report after a conflict had ended creating a precedent.

“The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.”— Charter of the United Nations, Article 2, Paragraph 1

 

“Sovereign equality” means All states, regardless of size, power, wealth, or geopolitical alignment, have equal legal standing and rights in the UN system. No state may be subject to differential treatment, politicized targeting, or selective accountability that is not equally applied to others in similar situations.

2. Article 2(7) – Non-Interference in Domestic Jurisdiction

“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…”— Charter of the United Nations, Article 2, Paragraph 7

This provision is a bedrock principle of international law, protecting the sovereignty and internal affairs of states from unilateral or coercive interference by UN organs or other member states. It:

• Restrainsthe UN from taking action on matters of internal law, governance, and security unless authorized by the Security Council under Chapter VII.
• Preserves a state’s right to manage non-international armed conflictswithout foreign political or institutional intrusion.

The UNHRC and OHCHR acted ultra vires by intervening in Sri Lanka’s domestic affairs without Security Council or General Assembly mandate.

Sri Lanka’s internal armed conflict (1980s–2009) was a non-international armed conflict (NIAC) under international law.

UNHRC Resolutions: Repeatedly called for domestic legal reforms, foreign judges, and hybrid courts — all matters within Sri Lanka’s internal constitutional framework.

UNHRC/OHCHR exceeded their mandate by intervening in Sri Lanka’s domestic legal affairs:

• Darusman Panel was appointed without intergovernmental approval.
• Petrie Report internal unprecedented report
• OISL proceeded without Sri Lanka’s consent.
• Resolutions called for foreign judges, hybrid courts—matters internal to Sri Lanka’s constitution.

These actions amount to unlawful interference in Sri Lanka’s domestic jurisdiction, in direct violation of Article 2(7). No comparable measures were imposed on states with ongoing or recent internal conflicts (e.g., India, Ethiopia, Myanmar, Colombia).

3. Articles 7 & 22 – Legal Basis for creating UN bodies

“Such subsidiary organs as may be found necessary may be established in accordance with the present Charter.”— UN Charter, Article 7(2)

“The General Assembly may establish such subsidiary organs as it deems necessary for the performance of its functions.”— UN Charter, Article 22

These two articles form the exclusive legal basis for establishing:

• Fact-finding missions
• Investigatory panels
• Subsidiary mechanisms

Only the General Assembly or Security Council may law fully authorize a commission, panel, or inquiry with investigatory powers or official status.

However,

• The Darusman Panel was appointed unilaterally by the Secretary-General without GA or SC authority, rendering it ultra vires. Who funded this Panel?
• As per Articles 7 & 22 only the UNGA or UNSC have the exclusive legal authority to establish UN bodies.
• OISL (2015): Investigated wartime conduct and governance policies without host state consent, effectively overriding Sri Lanka’s legal autonomy.

4. Article 100 (1) (2) – Secretariat Neutrality (Impartiality)
   • The Secretary-General breached his duty of neutrality by initiating politically motivated actions lacking intergovernmental oversight.
   • Appointing panels lacking intergovernmental oversight.
   • Citing reports that were unauthorized, leaked, and methodologically flawed.
   • Ignoring evidence from independent Tamil groups and families of missing soldiers.

Article 100 (1) – UN Charter – “In the performance of their duties the Secretary-General and the staff shall not seek or receive instructions from any government or from any other authority external to the Organization. They shall refrain from any action which might reflect on their position as international officials responsible only to the Organization”

Article 100 (2) – UN Charter – “Each Member of the United Nations undertakes to respect the exclusively international character of the responsibilities of the Secretary-General and the staff and not to seek to influence them in the discharge of their responsibilities.” 

Article 100 is meant to:

• Guarantee the objectivity and neutrality of the UN Secretariat.
• Prohibit political influence or pressure from powerful states or lobbying blocs.
• Ensure that UN staff act only under the legal framework and authority of UN bodies, not under activist or political agendas.

Timeline of UNHRC Actions vs. Sri Lanka (2009–2025)

How the Darusman Panel Report (2010–2011) violated the UN Charter

How has Petrie Report (2012) violated the above Charters:

How has OISL (2015) violated the above Charters:

• 19 May 2009: End of war
• 15 May 2010: Sri Lanka appoints LLRC internal investigation
• 22 June 2010: Darusman Panel appointed (unauthorized)
• 2011: Report published
• 2012: Petrie Report released
• 2015: OISL launched by OHCHR without consent
• 2012–2024: Multiple biased UNHRC resolutions based on flawed reports

How the Darusman Panel Report (2010–2011) violated the UN Charter

Timeline of Appointment

• 22 June 2010: Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon announces the formation of a Panel of Experts “to advise him on the issue of accountability” during the final stages of Sri Lanka’s conflict. Created unilaterally by Secretary-General Ban Ki-moonin 2010, following pressure from:

• • Certain Western member states
  • Diaspora lobby groups
  • UN-affiliated activists

• Absence of UNGeneral Assembly or UNSecurity Council Endorsement
  • No General Assembly resolution or Security Council mandate authorized the Panel.
  • The Panel wasnot a subsidiary organ under Article 22 of the Charter.
  • Its creation bypassed intergovernmental review, violating Articles 7 and 22 – lacked binding procedural standards
• March 2011: The Panel submits its report.
• April 2011: Report is leaked to the public and becomes the unofficial basis for UNHRC Resolution 19/2 (2012).
• Anonymous testimonies sealed for 20 years.
• Violated ICCPR Article 14 (no right of reply).
• Office of Legal Affairs (2011) clarified it was not an official UN investigation – yet it was used to justify formal action.
• UNHRC cited it repeatedly, making resolutions from 2012 onwards legally voidable.
• Yet, who funded this Panel that the UNSG unilaterally appointed?
• How was it quoted by UNHRC/OHCHR Head after it was leaked
• The action has set a dangerous precedent to allow the UNSG’s secretariat to function without intergovernmental approval.

“This is not a fact-finding mission but an advisory panel. However, it is part of my initiative to ensure accountability.”- Darusman Report, Introduction

Statement by the UN Office of Legal Affairs (2011) on the Darusman Panel –“The Secretary-General established the Panel of Experts under his own authority, not as an investigative or fact-finding body. The Panel was not a subsidiary organ of the General Assembly or the Security Council, and its findings do not carry the status of official United Nations investigations.” — , in correspondence and internal clarification to Member States (2011), upon queries from delegations regarding the status of the Panel.

This formal statement confirms that the Panel’s authority is extra-legal under the Charter

How has Petrie Report (2012) violated the above Charters:

• Framed as a review of internal UN failures during the final phase of the conflict, it too was leaked and became a vehicle for publicly shaming Sri Lanka — again led by Secretariat staff without intergovernmental oversight.
• Leaked and used to shame Sri Lanka publicly.
• No procedural transparency; no intergovernmental oversight.
• Showed bias by selectively targeting the state and ignoring LTTE atrocities.
• Acted as a quasi-judicial condemnation, not an internal review.
• Internal review repurposed as a quasi-judicial indictment.
• Selective citation of facts and institutional bias.

“A continued reluctance to stand up for the rights of people led to a grave failure of the UN during the final stages of the conflict in Sri Lanka.” — Charles Petrie, Panel Chair

Sri Lanka was the only nation to defeat an internationally banned terrorist movement.
Sri Lanka was well within its right to take counter-terrorist action.

Sri Lankan forces rescued close to 300,000 civilians in the world’s largest humanitarian rescue operation while simultaneously engaging the LTTE terrorists in hostilities.

Brief Summary: Violations of UN Internal Protocols & Charter by the Petrie Report

• Unauthorized Investigation:The Petrie Report was produced without formal approval from the UN General Assembly or Security Council, breaching UN procedural protocols and the authority structures established by the UN Charter.
• Impartiality and Independence Compromised:By selectively targeting the Sri Lankan government and ignoring other parties’ actions (like the LTTE), the report violates UN principles of neutrality and fairness outlined in the Charter and internal guidelines.
• Procedural Irregularities:The report relies heavily on anonymous and unverified sources, violating established UN protocols on evidence verification, transparency, and due process.
• Sovereignty and Non-Interference:Conducting investigations without the host country’s consent breaches the UN Charter’s respect for state sovereignty and non-intervention.
• Lack of Transparency and Accountability:The report’s opaque methodology and failure to disclose investigative procedures contravene UN standards for accountability and transparency.
• It was leaked to the public like the Darusman Report.

These violations undermine the legitimacy of the Petrie Report and contravene fundamental UN Charter principles and internal protocols governing investigations.

How has OISL (2015) violated the above Charters:

• Initiated by the OHCHR, which falls under the Secretariat, without:
  • Sri Lanka’s consent
  • UNGA or UNSC authorization
  • Relied on anonymous testimonies kept confidential for 20 years
• The OHCHR:
  • Accepted anonymous evidence
  • Consulted pro-LTTE advocacy groups
  • Ignored independent Tamil testimonies (e.g., UTHR, Tamil dissidents, survivors of LTTE torture)
  • Ignored 5000 missing Sri Lankan soldier family testimonies seeking justice

• No right to cross-examine or respond.
• Methodology lacked transparency.
• Biased in conclusions: Overemphasized state culpability; downplayed LTTE terror.
• Misused human rights mechanisms.

“Witnesses will remain anonymous for 20 years” — OISL Methodology Note

Violations of International Law

• ICCPR Article 14: Right to fair hearing was denied.
• Principle of Equal Application: Sri Lanka was singled out despite comparative or worse conflicts receiving less scrutiny (Gaza, Iraq, Afghanistan).
• Customary international law: No state may be investigated without consent in non-international conflicts.

OISL Violations of UN Protocols, Procedures, Treaty Law, and the UN Charter

1. Lack of Proper Authorization & Mandate Overreach
   • The OISL investigation was established without explicit endorsement from the UN General Assembly or Security Council, violating UN procedural norms.
   • Its mandate exceeded the scope allowed under the UN Charter and relevant treaties by conducting a politically charged inquiry rather than a neutral fact-finding mission.
2. Breach of Sovereignty and Non-Interference
   • The OISL operated without the full consent or cooperation of the Sri Lankan government, breaching the UN Charter’s core principle of respect for national sovereignty (Article 2.7).
   • Such unilateral investigations violate customary international law and treaty obligations that require state consent for jurisdiction.
3. Violation of Due Process and Fair Trial Principles
   • The OISL relied on anonymous, uncorroborated testimonies and hearsay, ignoring the standards of evidence required by international treaty law and UN investigatory protocols.
   • It failed to provide affected parties the opportunity to respond or challenge allegations, breaching principles of fairness and natural justice.
4. Lack of Impartiality and Objectivity
   • The investigation showed clear bias by disproportionately blaming Sri Lankan government forces while minimizing LTTE atrocities, violating UN principles of neutrality and impartiality.
   • Such partiality contravenes the spirit of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and international humanitarian law obligations.
5. Failure to Comply with UN Internal Procedures
   • The OISL did not ensure transparency in methodology or allow for independent verification, violating UN procedural guidelines.
   • It circumvented regular UN investigatory channels and accountability mechanisms outlined in the UN Charter and internal regulations.
6. Misuse of Human Rights Mechanisms
   • By politicizing the investigation, the OISL undermined the integrity of UN human rights systems, violating treaty commitments to uphold the rule of law and peaceful dispute resolution.

The OISL investigation into Sri Lanka violated multiple UN protocols, internal procedures, treaty law, and foundational principles of the UN Charter—particularly regarding sovereignty, due process, impartiality, and procedural legitimacy—calling into question its credibility and legitimacy.

Procedural Breaches

• No opportunity for Sri Lanka to cross-examine witnesses.
• No independent audit or peer review of reports.
• Bypassing of traditional UN fact-finding mechanisms.
• Evidence from groups such as UTHR, ICRC, and survivors of LTTE atrocities consistently ignored.

Comparative Chart of UN Responses to Global Conflicts (2006–2009)

Conflict	UNSG Panel?	OHCHR Inquiry?	UNSC Mandate?	Host State Consent?
Sri Lanka	Darusman (no mandate)	OISL (no consent)	❌	❌
Gaza	❌	Goldstone (with HRC vote)	❌
Sudan/Darfur	❌	❌	ICC Referral
Afghanistan	❌	❌	NATO/UN Missions

 

Ignored Documentation from Independent Sources

• UTHR Reports(Prof. Rajan Hoole)
• ICRC statementson LTTE use of civilians
• UNICEF dataon child soldiers
• S. State Department reportson LTTE war crimes

Timeline of UNHRC Actions vs. Sri Lanka (2009–2025)

Date	Event
May 2009	End of armed conflict with defeat of LTTE.
May 2009	UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon visits Sri Lanka and issues joint statement on accountability.
June 2010	SG Ban Ki-moon appoints the Darusman Panel without GA/SC mandate.
March 2011	Darusman Panel submits report.
April 2011	Report is published and widely cited in UNHRC and media.
November 2011	Sri Lanka releases LLRC Report (Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission).
March 2012	UNHRC Resolution 19/2 adopted (24–15–8) — based primarily on the Darusman Report.
March 2013	Resolution 22/1 adopted (25–13–8).
March 2014	Resolution 25/1 adopted (23–12–12) — calls for international investigation.
March 2014	OHCHR initiates OISL investigation, without Sri Lanka’s consent.
September 2015	OISL Report released with significant reliance on anonymous testimonies.
October 2015	Resolution 30/1 adopted by consensus — Sri Lanka co-sponsors under new government.
March 2017	Resolution 34/1 adopted (renewal of 30/1).
March 2019	Resolution 40/1 adopted by consensus (further time extension).
February 2020	Sri Lanka formally withdraws co-sponsorship of 30/1.
March 2021	Resolution 46/1 adopted (22–11–14) — increase in OHCHR evidence-gathering powers.
October 2022	Resolution 51/1 adopted (20–7–20) — broadens accountability scope.
July 2023	Resolution 53/25 adopted (31–3–13), further operationalizing evidence collection.
October 2024	Resolution 57/1 adopted by consensus — latest continuation.
June 2025	UN High Commissioner Volker Türk visits Sri Lanka. Survivors of LTTE atrocities request meeting.

This timeline demonstrates how unverified, unofficial, and unauthorized reports were used to generate a chain of political pressure and legally questionable resolutions — in defiance of Sri Lanka’s sovereignty and the spirit of the UN Charter.

Breakdown of UNHRC Country Votes on Sri Lanka Resolutions (2012–2024)

Year	Resolution No.	Yes Votes	No Votes	Abstentions	Key Supporters	Notable Opposers
2012	19/2	24	15	8	USA, UK, India	Russia, China, Cuba
2013	22/1	25	13	8	USA, Germany, Switzerland	Venezuela, Pakistan
2014	25/1	23	12	12	UK, Macedonia, Romania	China, Saudi Arabia
2015	30/1	Consensus	—	—	Sri Lanka co-sponsored	—
2017	34/1	Consensus	—	—	UK, Canada	—
2019	40/1	Not tabled	—	—	—	—
2021	46/1	22	11	14	UK, Germany, Malawi	Pakistan, Bangladesh
2022	51/1	20	7	20	USA, France, Mexico	China, Russia
2023	54/1	21	12	14	Germany, Finland	India (abstained)

This breakdown shows the continued reliance on politicized alliances rather than consensus, undermining the impartiality of resolutions against Sri Lanka.

Domestic Investigative Mechanisms ignored:

1. LLRC (2010) Lessons Learned Reconciliation Commission

• Conducted public hearings across the country
• Recommended wide-ranging reforms

1. Paranagama Commission

• Inquired into IHL and HR violations by all parties
• Examined victim testimonies and forensic evidence

1. Criminal Investigations & Prosecutions

• Ongoing cases against LTTE cadres and some security personnel
• Judicial action taken, despite resource and witness protection challenges

 

Summary of Domestic Legal & Investigative Mechanisms

1. Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC)

• Established in 2010 by the Sri Lankan government to investigate the final stages of the civil conflict and recommend measures for reconciliation and accountability.
• Conducted extensive hearings and gathered testimonies from diverse stakeholders.
• Produced a comprehensive report acknowledging wartime challenges, recommending political, social, and institutional reforms, including improving human rights protections and addressing grievances.
• Recognized limitations of wartime conduct while emphasizing the necessity of defeating terrorism.

2. Paranagama Commission (Presidential Commission of Inquiry)

• Formed to investigate alleged violations of international humanitarian law and human rights by all parties during the conflict.
• Conducted public and closed hearings with broad mandate to scrutinize evidence and testimonies.
• Submitted detailed findings to the government, emphasizing the need for lawful conduct during armed conflict and due process.
• Recommendations included strengthening domestic accountability frameworks and improving law enforcement capacities.

3. Criminal Investigations and Prosecution Statistics

• Sri Lanka’s law enforcement agencies have actively investigated and prosecuted cases related to conflict-era crimes.
• Numerous cases filed involving alleged violations by both state security forces and LTTE operatives.
• Domestic courts have adjudicated several high-profile cases, demonstrating commitment to the rule of law.
• Statistics reflect ongoing efforts to address accountability within the country’s judicial system, though challenges in witness protection and evidence collection remain.

Comparative UN Response: Global Conflict Standards

Conflict	UNSG Panel?	OHCHR Inquiry?	UNSC Mandate?	Host Consent?
Sri Lanka	Yes (No mandate)	Yes (No consent)	No	No
Gaza	No	Yes (HRC vote)	No	Partial
Darfur	No	No	Yes (ICC Referral)	N/A
Afghanistan	No	No	NATO Mandate	Yes

Ignored Evidence

• UTHR Reports (Rajan Hoole)
• ICRC documentation on civilian protection
• UNICEF: Child recruitment by LTTE
• U.S. State Dept. reports on LTTE atrocities

Breakdown of UNHRC Votes on Sri Lanka Resolutions

Year	Resolution	Yes	No	Abstain	Supporters	Opposers
2012	19/2	24	15	8	USA, UK	Russia, China
2013	22/1	25	13	8	Germany, India	Venezuela
2014	25/1	23	12	12	Macedonia	Saudi Arabia
2015	30/1	Consensus	–	–	Sri Lanka (co-sponsored)	–
2021	46/1	22	11	14	Germany, UK	Pakistan, Bangladesh
2023	54/1	21	12	14	Finland	India (abstained)

Final Statement

The UN’s credibility depends on respect for its own Charter. Selective justice, political coercion, and unlawful procedures undermine not only the rights of member states like Sri Lanka, but the legitimacy of international law itself. We urge the United Nations to uphold the law without fear or favour.

Demands for Legal Rectification

1. Immediate UNGA-led legal review of all Sri Lanka-related UNHRC reports and resolutions.
2. Retraction or amendment of the Darusman, Petrie and OISL reports.
3. Investigation into procedural abuse by the OHCHR and relevant officials.
4. Establishment of a new balanced inquiry into all war-time violations, including those committed by the LTTE and foreign actors.

We call on the United Nations to restore balance, legality, and fairness in its approach to Sri Lanka and similarly affected nations.

Shenali D Waduge