News
|
||||
UN
slams Govt. for harassing editor The Geneva based international tribunal has held that Ravaya Editor Victor Ivan be provided "appropriate compensation" and the Government publish the tribunal's views to the public as well as report back within 90 days indicating the measures it would take to give effect to its views. The stinging verdict by the 12-member UN Human Rights Committee followed a petition made to it by Mr. Ivan more than four years ago (1999) during a campaign launched by President Chandrika Kumaratunga and her Government against editors and publishers of non-government national newspapers to charge them with criminal defamation cases, and a counter-campaign launched by journalist groups to resist the assault on media freedom. The unanimous decision of the Committee came after a series of correspondence between the Sri Lanka Government as a signatory to the UN Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Editor and the UN Committee probing the complaint. Governments that are signatories to this Protocol are bound by the UN tribunal decisions. This is also the first case taken up by a Sri Lankan citizen by way of appeal to the UN tribunal against a decision of the Supreme Court. Ravaya Editor Ivan took his complaint to Geneva stating that the then Attorney Generals exercised their powers arbitrarily, and that the then Attorney Generals selectively indicted him for the alleged offence of criminal defamation when senior Government leaders complained. He said that by doing so, these Attorney Generals violated Article 19 of the Covenant, which referred to freedom of expression. Initially, the Sri Lanka Government took up a preliminary objection arguing that Mr. Ivan's complaint referred to a period before the State party signed the Optional Protocol. It also said that the editor had not exhausted his remedies in Sri Lanka, and that he could take his case after a Supreme Court decision to the Ombudsman or the National Human Rights Commission. The Government also said that the State was only safeguarding the reputations of persons. The UN tribunal rejected these arguments saying that the violations against Mr. Ivan's rights were "continuing violations" even after the Optional Protocol was signed by the Sri Lanka Government, and so long as those indictments remained in force, they constituted "new alleged violations". They dismissed the fact that the Ombudsman or the National Human Rights Commission could provide "adequate remedy" after the Supreme Court had refused to grant leave to proceed with an appeal of the editor. Going into the merits of Mr. Ivan's complaint thereafter, the UN tribunal points to a glaring instance of the Government stating that in one case where Mr. Ivan was indicted i.e. for a story against the then Fisheries Minister (Joseph Michael-Perera), an official investigation confirmed the veracity of the information in that story, but that the Attorney General was never presented with that information. The Government had admitted that the indictment could still have been withdrawn in the face of this 'new evidence'. The editor contended that the then Attorney Generals favoured "important officials" by prosecuting those critical of their actions by defamation in the High Court, when the matter could have been dealt with in the Magistrate's Court. The UN tribunal held that the Sri Lanka Government left Mr. Ivan in a "situation of uncertainty and intimidation", and was of the view that the Government had violated Articles 14 (3) (c) and Article 19 read together with Article 2 (3) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The Sri Lanka Government was also admonished by the UN tribunal saying it is also "under an obligation to prevent similar violations in the future". After a hard fought campaign by local and international media and human rights groups calling for the repeal of the draconian criminal defamation laws in Sri Lanka, the then UNF Government in 2001 moved for the repeal of these laws. Parliament voted unanimously to abolish criminal defamation. Suranjith Hewamanne, Attorney-at-Law represented Mr. Ivan in his appeal to the UN Human Rights Commission. The UN tribunal's verdict drafted in English, and adopted in English, French and Spanish will now be issued in Arabic, Chinese and Russian as part of the Committee's annual report to the UN General Assembly sessions in New York. Meanwhile Minister Susil Premajayantha when contacted said that the government would be obliged to follow the decree of the UN Human Rights Committee and that the Alliance would "of course do whatever recommended by the UN to make amends". |
||||
Copyright © 2001 Wijeya Newspapers
Ltd. All rights reserved. |
