Udalagama J. slams IIGEP

The Presidential Commission probing human rights violations has joined in a continuing argument with the Group of so-called Eminent Persons from abroad over how investigations are being conducted in Sri Lanka. In the latest round, the Presidential Commission of Investigation (COI) headed by retired Supreme Court Justice N.K. Udalagama has slammed the Eminent Persons Group (IIGEP) for making a public statement recently critical of the work relating to the ongoing inquiries into a series of recent killings in Sri Lanka.

The IIGEP, which is headed by Justice P.N. Bhagwati (India) had said that it remained concerned about the speed of the Presidential Commission's investigation process.“While recognizing the practical steps taken by the Commission to accelerate the investigation phase, the IIGEP considers that the Commission is unlikely to have completed any case before the expiry of the Commission's mandate in early November 2007”, it said in a statement.

Justice Udalagama writing to Justice Bhagwati on Monday has stated that they were ‘shocked’ to hear that the IIGEP had made a unilateral public statement of this nature violating the Presidential invitation to them where they were required to give a minimum of two weeks written notification to the COI Chairman and the Attorney General before making any such statement.

He has reminded Justice Bhagwati that the Presidential invitation gives him and the Attorney General the right to object to any public statement of the IIGEP after which the two sides shall make ‘every endeavour’ to reach agreement. In the event an agreement cannot be reached, the IIGEP can issue its own statement but it must contain the objections raised by himself or the Attorney General.

Justice Udalagama has set out the backdrop to what he calls a “clear violation of the procedure laid down in the Presidential invitation” to the IIGEP. He says that on September 5 they received the draft statement of the IIGEP, and that at a meeting with Prof. Yozo Yokota (Japan), one of the IIGEP members, objections had been raised to the contents of the statement.

The same day, he had himself addressed a letter to Justice Bhagwati and other members of the IIGEP setting out the same objections, laid down the procedure and specifically requested a statement be not released until consensus was reached. Justice Udalagama states that he had also asked for clarification whether the statement was the statement of one IIGEP member or a collective one.

24 hours later, this statement had been made public, Justice Udalagama points out, adding that following procedure is an important as following international norms and standards.“Needless to say, the course of action followed by IIGEP is disrespectful of the COI and contrary to your mandate contained in the Presidential invitation,” he wrote to Justice Bhagwati. Justice Udalagama has then complained of the ‘adversarial role’ adopted by the IIGEP vis-a-vis the COI and its work.

“This probably reflects the IIGEP's mindset that it has a monitoring role when it fact it is limited to ‘observing whether the COI's investigations and inquiries are conducted in a transparent manner and in accordance with international norms and standards’. This mindset is reflected in many of the IIGEP's documents and press releases where it refer to its role as monitors,” he said.