The IIGEP calls it a day
The International  Independent Group of Eminent Persons (IIGEP), headed by Justice P N Bhagvati  a former Chief Justice of India, choosing  to cease their tenure in Sri Lanka comes as no surprise. The eminent persons, all of them not “imperialists” and by no means supporters of the LTTE, come from an assortment of persons of eminence in their own fields in India, Canada, France, Bangladesh, Japan, etc.  The IIGEP was instituted by President Rajapakse ostensibly to observe the working of the Commission of Inquiry (Commission) appointed in November 2006 to investigate and inquire into 16 incidents of alleged serious violations of human rights that had arisen in Sri Lanka since 1 August 2005, and to comment on the transparency of its investigations and inquiries, and their conformity with international norms and standards.

The President also invited the IIGEP to make recommendations for redress. It was also to serve as a measure to prevent future occurrences of human rights violations.  The incidents averred to, include the killing of 05 students in Trincomalee and killing of the 17 aid workers in the Mutur area. The IIGEP could no longer see how they could contribute further to the protection and enhancement of human rights in Sri Lanka. 

Unfortunately in a climate where the end justifies the means and ethics do not matter, Justice Bhagvati and his team took their mandate too seriously. In keeping with the current Sri Lankan standards, it was meant to be taken in the same spirit as it was given.  All these months they were naive in not realizing they were being used as a window dressing and to give international sanctity and credibility to the commission. From the very inception, the Commission fraudulently intended to get over international embarrassments was fraught with the potentials of failure. While some are apparently guilty of breaching its norms of confidentiality, some other members of the Commission including the chairperson are men of integrity and cynically using them in such a manner as was done in the case of the APRC elsewhere, is an act of deception, as is giving false hopes to the anxious relatives of the victims who in the words of the IIGEP “should have the opportunity to judge the credibility of some of the witnesses.  It is also essential for them to be able to observe the working of the Commission and be encouraged to do so”. 

The Commission’s work has been   hindered primarily by what the Asian Human Rights Commission has aptly described in its latest statement: “When the state relies entirely on the military and the police for the suppression of all persons and organisations which it believes should be suppressed, the same state cannot pursue a policy that will discourage the military and the police from pursuing their targets as ruthlessly as possible”. 

The commission, in a pathetic attempt in responding to the array of indictments on its working, in a litany of confessions, says among others: “The Commission has been operating subject to several handicaps including lack of resources, lack of witness protection legislation, and lack of international support. The lack of resources is a continuing constraint on the effectiveness of witness protection”.  

Again, : --“The Commission is further unavoidably constrained by other restrictions such as in access to the BMICH from time to time for reasons of security”---If  the members of the Commission had problems of security in attending the venue of the proceedings, imagine the plight of the witnesses coming all the way from the east with no protection afforded. If nominal protection was given it would have been by the security forces, the very perpetrators of the crimes, like the crocodile taking the lamb across the water for safety.   

And again: “The few surviving victims had disappeared and could not be individually informed. The families of all the victims, their representatives and all others concerned are most welcome to attend the Inquiry hearings”. The question is how did they disappear and who is responsible. Indeed they are welcome to attend inquiries but how could they have come? 

The Eminent Persons have themselves admitted that they were “fully aware of the overall context in which the Commission is operating, which makes its activities, however diligent, incapable of eliciting the kind of facts that would be necessary to ensure that justice is seen to be done”. And that was indeed the intention behind its constitution. The IIGEP had time and again pointed out the major flaws of the process including the conflict of interest in particular to the Attorney General who was acting in excess of his role, to be helpful to Rajapakse. Now we are told that in an unprecedented gesture, two leading lawyers would be looking after the interests of the army officers who are merely witnesses. After all national heroes must be protected by nationalists at any cost. 

Contrary to the intention of the appointment of the IIGEP, the effect has actually rebounded to expose and highlight the hypocrisy of the whole process and the lack of political and institutional will on the part of the Sri Lankan state to assist the Commission in the investigations and to inquire into the cases before it and provide the conducive environment to do so. There have been never ending promises and promises of inquiries and inquiries, investigations and investigations, never to see the light of day. 

No amount of new IIGEPs and Commissions will bring down the commission of human rights violations. What is required is a complete turnaround in the attitude and mindset towards the Tamil people by the Sri Lankan state. This may be too much to expect. 

Courtesy: http://eelamnation.net/headlines_details.php?secid=71&newsid=3076