Features
Counselling the Human Rights Council: A perspective by the Pathfinder Foundation

As the 46th session of the UN Human Rights Council (HRC) looms large in about a month’s time, the debate on its controversial Resolution 30/1 of 2015, which the ‘Yahapalana Government’ co-owned in an unprecedented and unwise move, has resumed with renewed vigour.
This is because the Res. 30/1 adopted in 2015 ‘runs out’ this year and the HRC, egged on by the so called ‘core group’ of Western countries – the pilots of 30/1- will feel obliged to take stock of the situation and see where they want to go from here.
That Resolution 30/1 is in a class by itself in both form and content would be obvious to any reasonably literate person, including its most ardent supporters.
Even the harshest critic of Res. 30/1 and its spin-offs must concede that it was a bold move about a seemingly intractable situation. However, it is also probably the first instance in the history of the HRC, that a supposedly sovereign and independent country co-authored a UN Resolution containing an array of highly intrusive, unconstitutional and unimplementable demands directed at itself.
It probably scores another first in that the self-authored Resolution touches upon a range of governance matters, which are generally considered the exclusive preserve of the domestic jurisdiction of the authoring Member state itself viz, Sri Lanka. There does not appear to be any precedent of such self-inflicted State action in UN records.
In advance of the 34th Session, way back in 2017, the Pathfinder Foundation urged the then government to undertake renegotiation of the HRC resolution, based on ground realities in Sri Lanka, rather than seeking a postponement of consideration of the situation in the country.
It may be unique as well, for the reason that in no other democratic country a HRC resolution had been so instrumental in delivering so massive an electoral defeat to the incumbent government that cosponsored the resolution.
The HRC and the fellow internationals that generally get busy exploring how to ‘helpfully intervene’ in Sri Lanka about this time every year, must understand the reality that it is a function of the free franchise in one of the two oldest democracies in South Asia.
There was a groundswell of opinion in this country against the resolution, which was initiated by a group of countries, who had only a limited understanding of Sri Lanka. It was seen as a blatant interference in a small sovereign nation by virtually forcing it to ‘outsource’ the oversight of and judgment on many governance matters to a secretariat in distant Geneva.
Even those in Sri Lanka and abroad, who believed that successive regimes in Sri Lanka have accumulated quite an inventory of post conflict challenges to address, felt that Resolution 30/1 was a ‘bad template’ for HRC to promote international cooperation on human rights. This was because some provisions of that resolution had failed elsewhere (the so-called Hybrid Courts in Cambodia); some were unconstitutional/unimplementable (foreign judges): a watching brief on governance matters was conferred on a Secretariat based in Geneva and a dedicated UN office in Colombo was proposed for the oversight of these activities. That all these were at variance with the UN Charter, was of no concern to the ill-advised Core- Group on Sri Lanka.
This kind of ham-handed innovations to existing international law and institutions that can even contribute to regime change is not a good model to propound, if the HRC is serious about encouraging and persuading countries, particularly those of the developing world, to work in cooperation with the Council.
Instead, the Council would have been well-advised to develop and propose robust and independent domestic accountability processes, supported where necessary, by international cooperation in technical assistance, advisory services, best practices etc.
Pathfinder believes such an approach, which is advisory, rather than retributive in nature will:
work within normal national and international legal norms;
serve as a model for other countries needing such services, to cooperate with the UN; and
not function as a disincentive for countries that are willing to voluntarily cooperate.
So, it was no surprise that the Sri Lankan Foreign Minister was obliged, consequent to the electoral mandate the newly elected government had received, to announce the government’s withdrawal of co-sponsorship of Res. 30/1 at the 45th session of the HRC.
So, what next?
Has Sri Lanka’s inventory of accountability and reconciliation issues become non-existent? Obviously not.
Has HRC enhanced its credibility for promoting templates to encourage countries with difficult and complex issues in this field to cooperate with the Council? Obviously not.
Will countries with a good track record of voluntary cooperation, continue to do so in the face of such new, intrusive and unconstitutional modalities? Obviously not.
The current context and a way forward
On the High Commissioner for Human Rights (HCHR) side, the Secretariat has felt obliged to issue yet another heavily front–loaded report this year with even more intrusive recommendations. Some of them sound bizarre to say the least, as they refer to now familiar western parlance of ‘targeted measures, assets freeze’ and so on. Even if one sets aside the rather offensive and unrealistic nature of such utterances against a sovereign country, which had consistently and continuously cooperated with the HRC, it must be clear to anyone that these ‘innovations’ are counterproductive as far as addressing the real issues of cooperation were concerned, for no country will accept such invasive measures.
Such actions will face hugely divided votes in the UN General Assembly and definite vetoes in the Security Council. Apart from the feel-good factor for the enthusiastic sponsors, they have little or no practical value for addressing the real issue at the ground level.
On the GOSL side, even as it pulled out of the co sponsorship of 30/1 owing to electoral compulsions, Colombo has made it clear (at the HRC itself) that the withdrawal of co-sponsorship does not mean a withdrawal of Sri Lanka’s responsibilities concerning reconciliation and accountability. President Rajapaksa himself, while emphasizing that the country will not rule out the possibility of walking out of any entity that will not respect the accepted principles of sovereignty and independence of countries, did affirm that his government is fully committed to international cooperation including with the UN on SDGs, which of course include human rights, peace and justice related matters.
It is also a fact that Sri Lanka has continued to work effectively with various Special Procedure Mandates or Rapporteurs of HRC. If these Rapporteurs were unable to visit the country in the recent past, that was not due to change of policy by the government. As we all know, 2020 was an extraordinary year with COVID 19 taking its toll worldwide.
There are openings one can make use of and elements one can build upon, if we are serious about encouraging international cooperation among sovereign countries rather than unacceptable unilateral coercion.
If this is not done, and common ground is not created, Pathfinder is of the view that there are two options available to the sponsors of the initiative and to Sri Lanka at the forthcoming HRC session:
(a) Acknowledge the need to continue to address and resolve issues of accountability and reconciliation in Sri Lanka by preserving and building upon progress made so far (e. g. Office of Missing Persons, Compensation, Rehabilitation, Socio-economic upliftment etc.) and in that regard, offer and receive international cooperation where necessary, including with the UN, for technical assistance and advisory services.
OR
(b) If, however, the sponsors continue to insist on undeliverable and unconstitutional solutions (eg. as in Res 30/1 and 40/1), Sri Lanka to completely withdraw from the HRC process and work towards a domestic consensus on the matter.
During the nearly 30 years of an injurious conflict, Sri Lanka remained a good example of cooperation with external entities including the UN on human rights and humanitarian matters, despite many complex countervailing factors (security, political, diplomatic and economic). The UN Secretary General’s Special Representative Olara Otunnu, who visited Sri Lanka in 1998 said so in reference to Govt’s continued supply of food, medicine, health, education and other essential services to the LTTE ‘controlled’ areas. It would therefore be a pity, if such willing Member States are dissuaded from continuing such policy by HRC pitching their prescription bars at an undeliverable and un-constitutional height.
In such an eventuality, Sri Lanka and like-minded Member States will be obliged to press such resolutions to a highly divisive vote in the Council. Even if the resolution is adopted by a slim majority, Sri Lanka is most likely to ignore it and pitch her bilateral ‘economic tents’ with countries that vote in its favour. Such a resolution will not therefore help the cause of accountability and reconciliation one bit and will simply add to the considerable number other resolutions already ignored by countries like China, Cuba, India, Israel, the U.S., and so on. Even if it is elevated to the UNGA, it will suffer a highly divided vote and a definite veto in UN Security Council.
Pathfinder believes that only a negotiated consensual way forward, rather than unilateral actions either by Sri Lanka or the initiators of any resolution, will advance the cause of human rights in Sri Lanka at this difficult juncture. Adding to the paperwork at the HRC with no prospect of implementation at the ground level will not enhance the utility or credibility of HRC’s tool kit for international cooperation in human Rights. Of course, such a resolution will help increase the ‘feel good factor’ on the part of the Core-Group on Sri Lanka.
In conclusion, the Pathfinder Foundation would like to ask as to whether the Core-Group on Sri Lanka expects to get its job done by resorting to confrontation and browbeating of a member state, instead of cooperating and engage in consultation? If the answer is yes, then those countries representing the South in the HRC will think deeply before they cast their vote in support of another meaningless and intrusive resolution.
This is the PATHFINDER VIEW POINT of Counselling the Human Rights Council issued by the Pathfinder Foundation. Readers’ comments via email to pm@pathfinderfoundation.org are welcome.
Features
Politics of Enforced Disappearances in Sri Lanka

In 2016, I participated in research focused on gathering information about reconciliation mechanisms in post-war Sri Lanka. During one of the interviews, a Tamil mother, from the Eastern part of the country, broke into tears as she shared her story. Her son had disappeared, and, according to some of the neighbours, he was apparently abducted by a paramilitary group. Her story goes as follows: After hearing the news, she began searching for her son and went to the police station to file a case. However, police refused to file the case and directed her to a military camp. In the military camp, she was directed to an officer, who took her to a room with scattered flesh and blood stains. Then the officer, pointing to the room has told the lady that, ‘This is your son’.
In another instance, in the same year, while we were working in Kurunegala, an elderly mother, wearing a white saree, approached us and shared her story. She held a stained envelope, and when she carefully took out a piece of paper, related to her son, she broke into tears. She handled the paper with such tenderness, as though it were a part of her son himself. Her son was abducted by a para military group in 1989 and never returned.
These two stories have remained deeply etched in my mind for several years, leaving a lasting impact. Now, with the release of the Batalanda Commission Report, which sheds light on the atrocities committed during a dark chapter of Sri Lanka’s history, coupled with the release of the movie ‘Rani’, there is renewed attention on enforced disappearances. These disappearances, which were once shrouded in silence and denial, are now gaining significant traction among the public. Thus, it is timely to discuss the stories of enforced disappearances and the political dynamics surrounding them.
The Effect
Enforced disappearance is often employed as a strategy of terror, deliberately designed to instil fear and insecurity within a society. The tactic goes beyond the direct impact on the immediate family members of the disappeared individuals. The psychological and emotional toll on these families is profound, as they are left with uncertainty, grief, and often a sense of helplessness. However, the effects of enforced disappearance extend far beyond these immediate circles. It creates a pervasive atmosphere of fear that affects entire communities, undermining trust and cohesion. The mere threat of disappearance looms over the population, causing widespread anxiety and eroding the sense of safety that is essential for the social fabric to thrive. The fear it engenders forces people into silence, discourages activism, and ultimately weakens the collective spirit of resistance against injustice.
Absence of the body
For years, the families and loved ones of the disappeared hold on to a fragile hope, clinging to the belief that their loved ones may still be alive. The absence of a physical body leaves room for uncertainty and unresolved grief, creating a painful paradox where the possibility of closure remains out of reach. Without the tangible proof of death—such as a body to bury or mourn over—the search continues, driven by the hope that one day they will find answers. This absence extends beyond just the physical body; it symbolizes the void left in the lives of the families, as they are left in a perpetual state of waiting, unable to fully mourn or heal. The constant uncertainty fuels a never-ending cycle of searching, questioning, and longing.
Making a spectacle of unidentified bodies
In 1989, as a small child, I found myself surrounded by an atmosphere that was both suffocating and frightening, filled with sights and sounds that I couldn’t fully comprehend at the time, but that would forever leave a mark on my memory. I can still vividly recall the smell of burning rubber that hung thick in the air, mixing with the acrid scent of smoke that lingered long after the flames had died down. The piles of tyres, set ablaze, were a regular feature of the streets where I lived. Yet, it wasn’t just the sight of the burning tyres that etched itself into my consciousness. As the flames raged on, the shadows of bodies emerged—neither completely visible nor entirely hidden.
Though my parents tried their best to shield me from the horror outside our home, I would sneak a peek whenever I thought no one was watching, desperate to understand the meaning behind what was unfolding before me. It was as though I knew something important was happening—something I couldn’t yet comprehend but could feel in the very air I breathed. I understood that the flames, the smoke, and the bodies all signified something far greater than I could put into words.
The burning piles of tyres—and, of course, bodies—which people spoke of in hushed tones, served as a chilling spectacle, conveying the threatening message the government sent to the public, especially targeting the young rebels and anyone who dared to challenge the state
Unable to seek justice
The absence of the body makes justice seem like a distant, unreachable concept. In cases of disappearance, where no physical evidence of the victim’s fate exists, the path to justice is often blocked. Without the body, there is no concrete proof of the crime, no tangible evidence that can be presented in court, and no clear sign that a crime was even committed. This leaves families and loved ones of the disappeared in a state of uncertainty, with no clear answers about what happened to their dear ones. As a result, families are forced to live in a limbo, where their grief is ignored and their calls for justice are silenced.
Undemocratic actions under a Democratic Government
Governments are meant to serve and protect the people who elect them, not to subject them to violence, fear, or oppression. Irrespective of the situation, no government, under any circumstances, has the right to make its citizens disappear. A government is a democratically elected body that holds its power and authority through the consent of the governed, with the explicit responsibility to safeguard the rights, freedoms, and lives of its citizens. When a government starts to take actions that involve the arbitrary killing or disappearance of its own people, it betrays the very principles it was founded upon.
The act of making people disappear and killing represents a fundamental breach of human rights and the rule of law. These are not actions that belong to a legitimate government that is accountable to its people. Instead, they signal a state that has become corrupt and tyrannical, where those in power are no longer bound by any ethical or legal standards. When the government becomes the perpetrator of violence against its own citizens, it destroys the trust between the state and the people, undermining the core foundation of democracy.
In such a scenario, the authority of law collapses. Courts become powerless, and law enforcement agencies are either complicit in the wrongdoing or rendered ineffective. This breakdown in legal authority does not just mean a failure to protect the rights of individuals; it signals the descent of society into anarchy. When the government wields power in such a violent and oppressive way, it erodes the social contract. When this relationship is violated through actions like disappearances, those in power essentially declare that they are above the law, which leads to a breakdown of social order. It no longer becomes a state that works for its people but rather a regime that rules through fear, repression, and violence.
by Dr. Anushka Kahandagamage
Features
Hazard warning lights at Lotus Tower

Much has been written about the use of Hazard Warning Lights at Lotus Tower (LT)
Now it looks as if the authorities have got the day and night in a ‘twist’.
During the day time LT is in darkness. What should be ‘on’ during the day are the High Intensity Strobe Lights. It is observed that the authorities switch them ‘on’ in the night instead!
According to the ICAO recommendations what should be ‘on’ in the night are the low intensity strobe lights. High intensity in the night as is now, can momentarily blind the pilots.
At this time of the year the island experiences afternoon thunder showers which make the LT and the natural horizon invisible. (See picture) in a phenomenon known as ‘white out’ caused by fog (low cloud), mist and rain. However, the LT is kept dark and not lit up and that could be dangerous to air traffic.
In short what is needed are white strobe lights 24/7 (day and night). High Intensity by day and Low Intensity at night. They are known as ‘attention getters’.
The red lights must be ‘on’ at sunset and ‘off’ by sunrise (as correctly carried out currently).
I am aware that the Organisation of Professional Associations (OPA) has written to the LT authorities at the request of the Association of Airline Pilots, Sri Lanka, about three months ago but strangely the OPA has not even received an acknowledgement!
GUWAN SEEYA
Features
Ninth Iftar celebration organised by Police Buddhist and Religious Affairs Association, Wellawatte

Islam is a peaceful religion that guides people to fulfil the five pillars of Islam, namely, Kalima, Prayer, Sakkath, Fasting and Hajj and through them to attain the grace of God.
The fact that the Holy Quran, the sacred book of Muslims, was revealed on one of the odd nights of the month of Ramadan, makes people realize the special importance of the month of Ramadan.
Fasting, the Holy Quran states, “0 you who believe, fasting is prescribed for you as it was prescribed for those before you, that you may become pure.” (2.183)
Muslims observe the first fast in the early hours of the evening when the first crescent of the month of Ramadan is sighted. The special feature of Ramadan fasting is to wake up early in the morning, eat before the sunrise (Sahur) and then fast for 14 hours until the evening prayer (Mahrib), remember the Creator and worship Him five times a day, break the fast at the time of Iftar (Mahrib), eat food with dates and spend the 30 days of Ramadan.
Ramadan fasting increases fear and faith in Allah, and it is not equal for the wealthy to live luxuriously without realizing the poverty of the poor and the poor to die of poverty. Therefore, fasting has been emphasized as the fourth Pillar in Islam to make the rich aware of the nature of poverty and to make the rich aware of the nature of hunger and to give charity.
Ramadan fasting is a shield for Muslims. The main objectives of fasting are the virtues, characteristics, morality and spiritual attraction of a person.
When approaching fasting from a medical perspective, it is said that ‘a disease-free life is an inexhaustible wealth’, so the good deed of fasting provides great benefits to the body.
Generally, it is a universal law to give rest to all the machines that have power. That is, it allows the machines to continue to function well. Similarly, it is necessary to give rest to our bodies. The fasting of the month of Ramadan explains this very simply.
“Historically, fasting has been proven to be very safe for most people,” says Babar Basir, a cardiologist at Henry Ford Health in Detroit, USA. “Ramadan fasting is a form of intermittent fasting that can help you lose fat without losing muscle, improve insulin levels, burn fat, and increase human growth hormone,” he says.
All wealthy. Muslims are required to give 2’/2 percent of their annual income to the poor in charity. This is why Muslims give more charity in the form of money, food, and clothing during Ramadan.
Anas (Kali) reported that the Prophet (Sal) said, “The best charity is to feed a hungry person.” This shows how great an act it is to feed a hungry person.
Fasting during the holy month of Ramadan, one of the most sacred duties of Muslims, is Providing facilities for fasting and breaking it is also a pious act that brings benefits. In that way, the Sri Lanka Police, as a way of receiving the blessings of Allah, have organized the Police Iftar ceremony to break the fast for the fasting people.
The Police Iftar ceremony, which is organized annually by the Sri Lanka Police Buddhist and Religious Affairs Association for Muslim police officers serving in the Sri Lanka Police, will be held for the 9th time this year on the 24th at the invitation of the Acting Inspector General of Police Mr. Priyantha Weerasooriya and will be held at the Marine Grand Reception Hall in Wellawatte under the participation of the Hon. Minister of Public Security and Parliamentary Affairs Mr. K.M. Ananda Wijepala. Muslim members of Parliament, Foreign Ambassadors of Islamic countries, High-ranking Police officers and Muslim Police officers, as well as members of the public, are also expected to attend the Iftar ceremony.
a.f. fUARD
Chief Inspector of Police
International Affairs
Criminal Investigation Department
-
Business3 days ago
Cargoserv Shipping partners Prima Ceylon & onboards Nestlé Lanka for landmark rail logistics initiative
-
Sports6 days ago
Sri Lanka to compete against USA, Jamaica in relay finals
-
Features1 day ago
The US, Israel, Palestine, and Mahmoud Khalil
-
News1 day ago
Scholarships for children of estate workers now open
-
Business3 days ago
Sri Lankans Vote Dialog as the Telecommunication Brand and Service Brand of the Year
-
News2 days ago
Defence Ministry of Japan Delegation visits Pathfinder Foundation
-
Features3 days ago
The Vaping Veil: Unmasking the dangers of E-Cigarettes
-
News1 day ago
Seniors welcome three percent increase in deposit rates