Features
UNHRC’s brand of justice relating to external evidence gathering
by Neville Ladduwahetty
During the 57th Session of the UNHRC, Sri Lanka restated its opposition to HRC Resolution 51/1; a carryover of Resolution 46/1. These Resolutions were “consistently rejected” on grounds that the evidence gathering mechanism within the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) “is an unprecedented and ad hoc expansion of the Council’s mandate and contradicts its founding principles of impartiality, objectivity and non-selectivity”.
The OHCHR’s mandate under Resolution HRC 46/1 states: “In March 2021, the United Nations Human Rights Council, through its resolution 46/1, recognized the importance of preserving and analyzing evidence relating violations and abuses of human rights and related crimes in Sri Lanka with a view to advancing accountability…” (OHCHR, Frequently Asked Questions). This document states that its scope addresses “four specific tasks”. The first task is to: “collect, consolidate, preserve and analyze information and evidence of violations and abuses of human rights and related crimes committed in Sri Lanka”.
FACTORS AFFECTING EVIDENCE ANALYSIS
Since the focus is only on the first specific task, the comments below are based on the following parameters: 1 Armed Conflict and 2 Declaration of Emergency
1 ARMED CONFLICT
During the period February 2002 to May 2009 the conflict in Sri Lanka was categorised as an Armed Conflict by none other than the OHCHR in their report of 2015. Thus, as an Armed Conflict, the report states that the applicable law is Common Article 3 to the four Geneva Conventions, which means that any violations or abuses committed during the armed conflict must be judged under provisions of International Humanitarian Law and to derogated Human Rights Law during an Emergency.
Consequently, evidence gathering and its analysis should take into account provisions of Humanitarian Law as provided in Additional Protocol II of June 1977 relating to Non-International Armed Conflict as part of Customary Law.
“Article 6 of Additional Protocol II of 1977 – Penal prosecutions”
1. “This Article applies to the prosecution and punishment of criminal offences related to the armed conflict”.
2. “No sentence shall be passed and no penalty shall be executed on a person found guilty of an offence except pursuant to a conviction pronounced by a court offering the essential guarantees of independence and impartiality. In particular:
(a) The procedure shall provide for an accused to be informed without delay of the particulars of the offence alleged against him and shall afford the accused before and during his trial all necessary rights and means of defence;
(b) No one shall be convicted of an offence except on the basis of individual penal responsibility;
(c) No one shall be held guilty of any criminal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a criminal offence, under the law, at the time when it was committed; nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than that which was applicable at the time when the criminal offence was committed; if, after the commission of the offence, provision is made by law for the imposition of a lighter penalty, the offender shall benefit thereby;
(d) Anyone charged with an offence is presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law;
(e)Anyone charged with an offence shall have the right to be tried in his presence; (f) No one shall be compelled to testify against himself or to confess guilt”.
3. “A convicted person shall be advised on conviction of his judicial and other remedies and of the time-limits within which they may be exercised”.
4. “The death penalty shall not be pronounced on persons who were under the age of eighteen years at the time of the offence and shall not be carried out on pregnant women or mothers of young children”.
5. At the end of hostilities, the authorities in power shall endeavour to grant the broadest possible amnesty to persons who have participated in the armed conflict, or those deprived of their liberty for reasons related to the armed conflict, whether they are interned or detained”.
2 DECLARATION of an EMERGENCY
Since an emergency operated from May 2000 to June 2010 throughout Sri Lanka, Human Rights are derogated during this period as declared by Article 4 of ICCPR.
Article 4 of ICCPR states: “In times of public emergency which threatens the life of the nation and the existence of which is officially proclaimed, the State Parties to the present Covenant to the extent strictly required by the exigencies of the situation, provided that such measures are not inconsistent with their other obligations under international law…”.
Derogated Human Rights under emergency rules as permitted by ICCPR provisions stated in OISL Report are:
Articles 9 (2); 9 (3); 12 (1); 12 (2); 14 (3); 17 (1); 19 (2); 21 and 22 of the ICCPR.
Article 9 (2): “Anyone who is arrested shall be informed, at the time of arrest the reason for the arrest…”.
Article 9 (3): “Anyone arrested or detained on a criminal charge shall be brought before a judge….”.
Article 12 (1): “Everyone lawfully within the territory of State shall have the right to liberty of movement…”.
Article 12 (2): “Everyone shall be free to leave any country, including his own”.
14 (3): “In the determination of any charge, everyone shall be entitled to the following guarantees: to be informed promptly; time to prepare defence; tried without delay; tried in his presence; to examine witnesses against him; access to an interpreter; not to testify against him”.
Article 17 (1): “No one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence nor to unlawfully attack his honour…”.
Article 19 (2): “Right to freedom of expression …”.
Article 21: “…right to peaceful assembly…”.
Article 22: “…right to freedom of association…”.
The OISL report concludes the list of derogated human rights during the period of the Armed Conflict by stating: “Measures taken pursuant to derogation are lawful to the extent they comply with the conditions set out in international human rights law as provided in Article 4 of ICCPR. In keeping with this provision, successive Sri Lankan Governments have derogated over a period of 10 years, 9 Articles out of a total of 19 Articles in Part II of the ICCPR that the OISL has declared as being lawful.
CONSOLIDATE, PRESERVE AND ANALYSE INFORMATION AND EVIDENCE
“The OHCHR Sri Lanka accountability project will collect information and evidence from all sources willing to provide it, including Government authorities, other Member States, victims, witnesses, civil society stakeholders and any other sources. Various UN bodies have already gathered extensive documentation of serious violations and abuses of human rights and violations of humanitarian law committed in Sri Lanka, particularly during and after the conflict, which ended in 2009. Information and evidence collected will be reviewed and analyzed by OHCHR Sri Lanka accountability project…” (Frequently Asked Questions from OHCHR).
Therefore, by OHCHR’s own admission, the sources that gave information and evidence will fade into oblivion and the information and evidence that would be left would only be the “reviewed and analyzed version formulated by OHCHR”.
This in essence amounts to a tampered version of what the witnesses and other source furnished; a procedure that not only trivialises the sanctity of evidence but also denies access to witnesses; a fundamental right called for by Article 14 (3) of the ICCPR. Furthermore, the witnesses and sources that furnished information and evidence are NOT in a position to verify whether the evidence furnished by them accurately reflects the “analyzed” version of the evidence in the possession of the OHCHR. Thus the procedure adopted by the evidence gathering mechanism violates natural justice as understood by the community of nations.
Consequently, those responsible for alleged violations and abuses are denied the opportunity to challenge the authenticity of the evidence presented, because the procedure does not provide “for an accused before and during his trial all necessary rights and means of defence” as called for by 2 (a) of Part 6 of Additional Protocol II of 1977 that today is accepted as Customary Law. Furthermore, the procedure does not permit whether the evidence presented guarantees that alleged violations assure that no one is “convicted of an offence except on the basis of individual penal responsibility” as stated in 2 (b) of Part 6 of Protocol II. Under the circumstances, the fact that UNHRC Resolution 46/1 followed by Resolution 51/1 was endorsed by the HR Council and the Co-Chairs is not only beyond belief, but has also become jointly a party to what amounts to UNHRC’s Brand of warped justice because it violates International Law.
CONCLUSION
As stated by the OHCHR “the information and evidence collected will be reviewed and analyzed by OHCHR Sri Lanka accountability project ….” However, what is not disclosed is the extent and scope of the analysis undertaken by the OHCHR. For instance, what is not disclosed is whether the information and evidence under the evidence gathering mechanism takes into account the special circumstances associated with the Armed Conflict and the fact that certain Human Rights are derogated during the Emergency that operated from May 2000 to June 2010.
Consequently, the evidence analysed by the OHCHR would drastically differ from the evidence furnished by witnesses and other sources in the event the OHCHR took into account the special circumstances of the Armed Conflict and the imposed Emergency. On the other hand, if the evidence gathered is the raw evidence furnished by witnesses and other sources, the need for the OHCHR to “analyze” the evidence does NOT ARISE.
Therefore, the outcome of the analysis is to tamper with the raw evidence presented; a task that not only far exceeds the mandate under which the UNHRC is authorized to operate but also trivializes the sanctity of evidence on which Justice depends. This makes the evidence gathering mechanism initiated by the UNHRC justified grounds for rejection; a fact that Sri Lanka should bring to the attention of the Member State of the HR Council and take joint action for the benefit of all. Furthermore, co-sponsoring such an exercise casts a deep shadow on the brand of justice that is being attempted jointly by the UNHRC and its sponsors at a time when the credibility, competence and relevance of the UN and its Institutions are in serious question.
Features
Illegal solar push ravages Hambantota elephant habitat: Environmentalist warns of deepening crisis
A large-scale move to establish solar power plants in Hambantota has triggered a major environmental and social crisis, with more than 1,000 acres of forest—identified as critical elephant habitat—cleared in violation of the law, environmental activist Sajeewa Chamikara said.
Chamikara, speaking on behalf of the Movement for Land and Agricultural Reform, said that 17 companies have already begun clearing forest land along the boundaries of the Hambantota Elephant Management Reserve. The affected areas include Sanakku Gala, Orukemgala and Kapapu Wewa, which are known to be key elephant habitats and long-used movement corridors.
He said that what is taking place cannot be described as development, but rather as a large-scale destruction of natural ecosystems carried out under the cover of renewable energy expansion.
According to Chamikara, the clearing of forests has been carried out using heavy machinery, while large sections have also been deliberately set on fire to prepare the land for solar installations. He said that electric fences have been erected across wide stretches of land, effectively blocking elephant movement and fragmenting their natural habitat.

“These forests are not empty lands. They are part of a living system that supports wildlife and nearby communities. Once destroyed, they cannot be easily restored,” he said.
The projects in question include a 50 megawatt solar development undertaken by five companies and a larger 150 megawatt project implemented by 12 companies. The larger project is reported to be valued at around 150 million US dollars.
Chamikara stressed that these projects are being carried out in a coordinated manner and involve extensive land clearing on a scale that raises serious environmental concerns.
He further alleged that certain companies had paid about Rs. 14 million to secure support and move ahead with the projects. He said this points to a troubling failure of oversight by state institutions that are expected to protect forests and wildlife habitats.
“This is not only an environmental issue. It is also a serious governance issue. The institutions responsible for protecting these lands have failed in their duty,” he said.
Chamikara pointed out that under the National Environmental Act, any project of this scale must receive prior approval through a proper Environmental Impact Assessment process.
He said that clearing forest land before obtaining such approval is a direct violation of the law.
He added that legal requirements relating to archaeological assessments had also been ignored. Under existing regulations, large-scale land clearing requires prior evaluation to ensure that sites of historical or cultural value are not damaged.

“The law is very clear. You cannot go ahead with projects of this nature without proper approval. What we are seeing is a complete disregard for legal procedure,” Chamikara said.
The environmental impact of these activities is already becoming visible. With their natural habitats destroyed, elephants are increasingly moving into nearby villages in search of food and shelter. This has led to a sharp rise in human-elephant conflict in several areas.
Areas such as Mayurapura, Gonnooruwa, Meegahajandura and Thanamalvila have reported increasing encounters between humans and elephants. According to Chamikara, more than 5,000 farming families in these areas are now facing growing threats to their safety and livelihoods.
He warned that farmers are being forced to abandon their lands due to repeated elephant intrusions, while incidents involving damage to crops and property are rising. There have also been increasing reports of injuries and deaths among both humans and elephants.
“This is turning into a serious social and economic problem. When farmers cannot cultivate their lands, it affects food production, income and rural stability,” he said.
Chamikara also raised concerns about the broader environmental consequences of clearing forests for solar power projects. While renewable energy is promoted as a solution to reduce carbon emissions, he said that destroying forests undermines that goal.
“Forests play a key role in absorbing carbon dioxide. When you clear and burn them, you are increasing emissions, not reducing them. That defeats the purpose of promoting solar energy,” he explained.
He added that large-scale deforestation in dry zone areas such as Hambantota could also affect local weather patterns and reduce rainfall, which would have further negative impacts on agriculture and water resources.

Chamikara called for a shift in policy, urging authorities to focus on more sustainable approaches to solar power development. He said that rooftop solar systems on homes, public buildings and commercial establishments should be given priority, as they do not require clearing large areas of land.
He also recommended that solar projects be located on degraded or abandoned lands, such as areas affected by past mining or other low-value lands, rather than forests or productive agricultural areas.
“Renewable energy development must be done in a way that does not destroy the environment. There are better options available if there is proper planning,” he said.
Chamikara urged the Central Environmental Authority and the Department of Wildlife Conservation to take immediate action to stop ongoing land clearing and investigate the projects. He stressed that all activities carried out without proper approval should be halted until legal requirements are met.
He warned that failure to act now would lead to long-term environmental damage that could not be reversed.
“If this continues, we will lose not only forests and wildlife, but also the balance between people and nature that supports rural life. The consequences will be felt for generations,” he said.
The situation in Hambantota is fast emerging as a critical test of whether development goals can be balanced with environmental protection. As pressure grows, the response of authorities in the coming weeks is likely to determine whether the damage can still be contained or whether it will continue to spread unchecked.

By Ifham Nizam
Features
Why Mahatma Gandhi’s teachings need to be at the heart of conflict resolution
All credit to the Tamil Nadu government for taking concrete measures to perpetuate the memory of the renowned Mahatma Gandhi of India, who on account of his moral teachings stands on par with the likes of Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Confucius and Jalaluddin Rumi, to name a few such all-time greats. The time is indeed ripe to draw the world’s attention to the Mahatma’s humanistic legacy which has resonated in the hearts of peace-oriented sections the world over down the decades.
Under its mega developmental blueprint titled ‘ Tamil Nadu 2030’, the Tamil Nadu government, among other things, intends transforming villages into centres of economic growth in conformity with the Mahatma’s vision of making the village the fundamental unit of material and spiritual advancement. Thus will come into being the ‘Uttamar Gandhi Model Villages Project’, which will be initially covering 10 village Panchayats. (Please see page 3 of The Island of March 11, 2026).
The timeliness of remembering and appreciating anew the teachings of Mahatma Gandhi resides in the utter lawlessness that has been allowed to overtake the world over the last few decades by none other than those global powers which took it upon themselves to usher in a world political and economic order based on the UN Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Mainly in ‘the dock’ in this regard are the permanent members of the UN Security Council.
As is plain to see, the international law and order situation has veered out of control. Principal priorities for the international community or what’s left of it is to prevent the current mainly regional war in the Middle East from degenerating dangerously into another world war, coupled with the task of eliminating the possibility of another nuclear holocaust.
The most scorching of ironies is that the world’s ‘number one power’, the US, has virtually lost its way in the ‘Global Disorder’ it has been party to letting lose. For instance, instead of making good its boast of militarily neutralizing Iran and paving the way for the constant flow of fuel and gas from the Strait of Hormus by itself and Israel, it is now appealing to the rest of the West to come to its assistance. Not surprisingly, US allies are indicating their unwillingness to help pull the US’ ‘chestnuts out of the fire’.
Oil and gas are the veritable life blood of countries and going ahead it should not come as a surprise if impatience gets the better of the major powers and the nuclear option is resorted to by some of them under the dangerous illusion that it would be a quick-fix to their growing economic ills and frustrations.
All the above and more are within the realms of the possible and the need is pressing for humanistic voices to take centre stage in the present runaway crisis. As pointed out in this column last week, Realpolitik has overtaken the world and unless the latter is convinced of the self-destructive nature of the major powers’ policy of ‘meeting fire with fire’ to resolve their disputes, annihilation could be the lot of a good part of the world.
For far too long the voice of humanity has been muted and silenced in the affairs of world by the incendiary threats and counter-threats of the big powers and their allies. No quarter has been bold enough in these blood pressure-hiking slanging matches to speak of the need for brotherly love and compassion among nations and countries. But it’s the language of love and understanding that is the most pressing need currently and the Mahatma in his time did just that against mighty odds.
At present the US and Iran are trading threats and accusations over military-related developments in the Gulf and it’s anybody’s guess as to what turn these events will take. However, calming voices of humanity and moderation would help in deescalating tensions and such voices need to go to the assistance of the UN chief and his team.
The Mahatma used the technique of ‘Satyagraha’ or the policy of non-violent resistance to oppose and dis-empower to a degree the British empire in his time and the current major powers would do well to take a leaf from Gandhi. The latter also integrated into the strategy of non-violent resistance the policy of ‘Ahimsa’ or love and understanding which helped greatly in uniting rather than alienating adversaries. The language of love, it has been proved, speaks to the hearts and minds of people and has a profoundly healing impact.
Mahatma Gandhi defined the ideal of ‘Ahimsa’ thus: ‘In its positive form, “Ahimsa” means the largest love, the greatest charity. If I am a follower of “Ahimsa”, I must love my enemy or a stranger to me as I would my wrong-doing father or son. This active “Ahimsa” necessarily includes truth and fearlessness.’ (See; ‘Modern Indian Political Thought; Text and Context’ by Bidyut Chakrabarty and Rajendra Kumar Pandey, Sage Publications India, Pvt. Ltd., www.sagepub.in).
In the latter publication, the authors also defined the essence of ‘satyagraha’ as ‘protest without rancour’ and this is seen as ‘holding the key to his entire campaign’ of non-violent resistance. From these perspectives, the teaching, ‘hatred begets hatred’ acquires more salience and meaning.
Accordingly, the voice of reason and love needs to come centre stage and take charge of current international political discourse. The UN and allied organizations which advocate conflict resolution by peaceful means need to get together and ensure that their voices are clearly heard and understood. The global South could help in this process by seeing to the vibrant rejuvenation of organizations such as the Non-aligned Movement.
An immediate task for the peace-oriented and well meaning is to make the above projects happen fast. In the process they should underscore afresh the profound importance of the teachings of Mahatma Gandhi, who is acclaimed the world over as a uniting and healing political personality and prophet of peace.
If the Mahatma is universally acclaimed, the reason is plain to see. Put simply, he spoke to the hearts and minds of people everywhere, regardless of man-made barriers. The language of peace and brotherhood, that is, is understood by everyone. The world needs more prophets of peace and reconciliation of the likes of the Mahatma to drown out the voices of discord and war-mongering and ensure that the language of humanity prevails.
Features
Exciting scene awaits them …
The Future Model Hunt extravaganza, organised by Rukmal Senanayake, and advocacy trainer Tharaka Gurukanda, held in late January 2026, has brought into the limelight four outstanding contestants who will participate, at the international level, this year – Sandeepa Sewmini, Demitha Jayawardhana, Diwyanjana Senevirathna, and Nimesha Premachandra.
Nimesha took the honours as Mrs. Tourism Sri Lanka 2026 and was featured in The Island of 05th March,
Sandeepa Sewmini was crowned Miss Supranational 2026 and will represent Sri Lanka at the big event to be held in Poland later in the year.
A Business Management and Human Resources student, she will be competing under the guidance of Rukmal Senanayake from the Model With Ruki – Model Academy & Agency.
The Mister Supranational Sri Lanka crown went to Demitha Jayawardhana, a 20-year-old professional model and motocross rider.
Apart from modelling he is engaged in his family business.

Demitha Jayawardhana: Mister Supranational Sri Lanka 2026
Demitha is also a badminton player with a strong passion for sports, fitness and personal growth.
In fact, he is recognised for his strength, discipline, and passion for fitness.
A past student of Wycherley International School and St Peter’s College, Colombo, Demitha is currently in his second year of Economics Management at the Royal Institute of Colombo.
He will represent Sri Lanka at the 10th edition of the Mister Supranational pageant, in Poland, in August, 2026.
Mister and Miss Supranational are annual international beauty pageants, held in Poland, and are designed to discover new talent for the modelling and television industries and produce instant celebrities.
The competition focuses on elegance, intelligence, and social advocacy, with contestants, representing their countries.
The newly appointed Miss Teen International Sri Lanka 2026 is Diwyanjana Senevirathna.
She was crowned at the Future Model Hunt and will represent Sri Lanka at the Miss Teen International 2026 pageant in India.
Diwyanjana is noted for her grace and dedication to representing the country at this prestigious event that aims to celebrate talent, intelligence, charm, and individuality, and provide a platform for young girls to showcase their skills.
-
Business3 days agoBrowns EV launches fast-charging BAW E7 Pro at Rs. 5.8 million
-
Life style4 days agoFrom culture to empowerment: Indonesia’s vision for Sri Lanka
-
Opinion6 days agoM. D. Banda: Memories of Appachchi – II
-
Business5 days agoSri Lanka Institute of Information Technology raises the bar for academic excellence
-
Latest News4 days agoQR code system will be implemented for fuel with effect from 06.00 a.m. today (15th)
-
News1 day agoCIABOC questions Ex-President GR on house for CJ’s maid
-
News2 days agoAustralian HC debunks misleading travel risk claims for Sri Lanka
-
News5 days agoCrypto loopholes funnel Lankan funds abroad
