GENEVA :Mr. President,
Sri Lanka participated in discussions on this resolution in a spirit of open and constructive
engagement, that we have demonstrated throughout in our interactions with this Council.
We appreciate the core group’s engagement on language amendments proposed by Sri
Lanka. We however regret that we couldn’t find agreement on certain key concerns for us.
While we thank all delegations for their constructive participation on the draft text, Sri
Lanka particularly wishes to thank very sincerely, those countries which made positive
suggestions during informal consultations and bilateral meetings.
As Sri Lanka had indicated from the beginning to the core group, our fundamental issue
with the text is the reference to resolution 51/1 of 2022 denoting the external evidence
gathering mechanism on Sri Lanka within the OHCHR, which, in our view is an
unprecedented and ad hoc expansion of the Council´s mandate.
Participating in the Interactive Dialogue on Sri Lanka on 8th September, the Hon. Minister
of Foreign Affairs reiterated that Sri Lanka does not accept the external evidence gathering
mechanism set up by the OHCHR, which it has labelled as the Sri Lanka Accountability Project, at a time when the Government is continuing to strengthen the domestic
institutions based on its genuine commitment to reconciliation and human rights in the
interests of our own people. The ongoing domestic processes include strengthening the
independent Offices on Missing Persons and Reparations, and the Office for National
Unity and Reconciliation, as well as the operationalization of a truth and reconciliation
commission, and an independent Public Prosecutor´s Office.
Sri Lanka, as well as many other countries, have repeatedly questioned the credibility and
transparency of how this Project within the OHCHR was set up, its work and the budget
allocated to it. After 4 years of its existence, this Council is yet to see any benefits of this
Project for the people of Sri Lanka. This is clearly evident from the contents of the High
Commissioner’s Report as well. The extension of its mandate will only serve the interests
of elements with vested interests seeking to create divisions and polarize the communities
in Sri Lanka, and will be counterproductive to the Government’s efforts on
promoting unity, reconciliation and human rights.
Mr. President,
We firmly believe that genuine nationally owned processes are best placed to address
matters relating to human rights. National processes are rooted in the local context, allow
for greater ownership, recognize unique sensitivities, and make implementation of action
more efficient and effective.
The High Commissioner for Human Rights who visited Sri Lanka in June this year had
the opportunity to experience firsthand the “momentum of change” across all segments
of the Sri Lankan society and the “genuine openness of the Government to address
issues”. In his report to this Council too, the High Commissioner highlighted that there is
a historic opportunity in Sri Lanka to implement transformative reforms. As set out by the
Hon. Minister of Foreign Affairs in his statement to this Council, within a very short time,
the Government has taken a series of tangible and decisive steps on reconciliation and
human rights. Therefore, it is only fair that Sri Lanka be allowed to seize this opportunity
to advance the rights of its own people through domestic processes.
For these reasons, we do not agree with coercive international action, and we reject
resolution 60/L.1/Rev.1 presented to this Council.
