This page summarizes cases raised with Sri Lanka by the Special Rapporteur between May 1, 2011, (when the Special Rapporteur took up his functions) and February 28, 2017 (the date of the last public release of communications). Communications are released to the public once per year. This page also contains observations on these communications and on responses received from Sri Lanka.
Communications and observations are divided into sections based upon which observation report they originally appeared.
Each communication is referenced as urgent appeal (UA), allegation letter (AL), joint urgent appeal (JUA) and joint allegation letter (JAL) – the hyperlinks lead to these documents. This is followed by the date the communication was issued, as well as the case number and the State reply (also hyperlinked if available).
Summaries and communications are published only in the language of submission (in the case of Sri Lanka, English).
Observations
The Special Rapporteur regrets that no reply has been received from the Government of Sri Lanka to the communications sent during the reporting period. He considers responses to his communications as an important part of the cooperation of Governments with his mandate, and urges the authorities to provide as soon as possible detailed responses to all the concerns raised in his communications.
The Special Rapporteur underscores States‟ obligation to ensure that no one is criminalised for the peaceful exercise of the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association. He is very concerned about the physical and psychological integrity of people exercising their rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association in Sri Lanka.
The Special Rapporteur recommends to the Government to put in place an enabling and safe environment that is conducive to the free expression of civil society allowing individuals to exercise their legitimate freedom of association without undue hindrances. A thorough and independent investigation into any alleged human rights violations, including acts of intimidations or harassments, committed against those exercising their rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and association, should be conducted; those responsible should be held accountable; and victims should be provided with full redress.
The Special Rapporteur refers again to Human Rights Council resolution 15/21, and in particular operative paragraph 1 that “[c]alls upon States to respect and fully protect the rights of all individuals to assemble peacefully and associate freely, including in the context of elections, and including persons espousing minority or dissenting views or beliefs, human rights defenders, trade unionists and others, including migrants, seeking to exercise or to promote these rights, and to take all necessary measures to ensure that any restrictions on the free exercise of the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association are in accordance with their obligations under international human rights law”.
The Special Rapporteur reminds the Government of Sri Lanka of his country visit request sent in September 2011, to which a response is yet to be received. In this connection, OP6 of resolution 15/21 states that the “Human Rights Council… [c]alls upon States to cooperate fully with and assist the Special Rapporteur in the performance of his or her tasks, to provide all necessary information requested by him or her, … and to consider favourably his or her requests for visits”.
Observations
The Special Rapporteur thanks the Government of Sri Lanka for its responses to his communication of 10 December 2012. He however regrets that no reply has been received from the Government of Sri Lanka to the three previous communications he has sent. He considers responses to his communications as an important part of the cooperation of Governments with his mandate, and urges the authorities to provide as soon as possible detailed responses to all the concerns raised in his communications.
The Special Rapporteur urges the authorities to take all relevant measures to ensure that any individual and legal entity can peacefully exercise their rights of freedom of peaceful assembly and of association. He recommends that the Government put in place an enabling and safe environment allowing individuals to exercise their legitimate freedoms without undue hindrances. A thorough and independent investigation into any allegations of any alleged human rights violations, including acts of intimidations or harassments, committed against those exercising their rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association, should be conducted; those responsible should be held accountable; and victims should be provided with full redress.
The Special Rapporteur refers to Human Rights Council resolution 21/16, and in particular operative paragraph 1 that “[r]eminds States of their obligation to respect and fully protect the rights of all individuals to assemble peacefully and associate freely, online as well as offline, including in the context of elections, and including persons espousing minority or dissenting views or beliefs, human rights defenders, trade unionists and others, including migrants, seeking to exercise or to promote these rights, and to take all necessary measures to ensure that any restrictions on the free exercise of the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association are in accordance with their obligations under international human rights law”.
The Special Rapporteur reminds the Government of Sri Lanka of his country visit request sent in September 2011, to which a response is yet to be received. In this connection, OP6 of resolution 15/21 states that the “Human Rights Council… [c]alls upon States to cooperate fully with and assist the Special Rapporteur in the performance of his or her tasks, to provide all necessary information requested by him or her, … and to consider favourably his or her requests for visits”.
Observations
The Special Rapporteur thanks the Government of Sri Lanka for its response to his communication of 2 September 2013, but regrets that no responses have been received to the other communications. He considers responses to his communications as an important part of the cooperation of Governments with his mandate, and urges the authorities to provide detailed answers to all the concerns raised in his communications.
The Special Rapporteur remains seriously concerned about the physical and psychological integrity of people exercising their rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association in Sri Lanka. He is gravely concerned about reports received of undue interference with the right to freedom of peaceful assembly, including excessive use of force -in particular lethal force- during protests; stigmatising remarks and death threats against human rights defenders, including in the media; and instances of reprisals against defenders.
The Special Rapporteur recommends again that the Government put in place an enabling and safe environment that is conducive to the free expression of civil society allowing individuals to exercise their legitimate right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association without undue hindrances. A thorough and independent investigation into any allegations of human rights violations, including acts of intimidations or harassments, committed against those exercising their rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association, should be conducted; those responsible should be held accountable; and victims should be provided with full redress.
The Special Rapporteur refers to Human Rights Council resolution 24/5, and in particular operative paragraph 1 that “[r]eminds States of their obligation to respect and fully protect the rights of all individuals to assemble peacefully and associate freely, online as well as offline, including in the context of elections, and including persons espousing minority or dissenting views or beliefs, human rights defenders, trade unionists and others, including migrants, seeking to exercise or to promote these rights, and to take all necessary measures to ensure that any restrictions on the free exercise of the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association are in accordance with their obligations under international human rights law”.
The Special Rapporteur reminds the Government of Sri Lanka of his country visit requests sent in September 2011 and October 2013, to which a response is yet to be received. In this connection, OP6 of resolution 15/21 states that the “Human Rights Council… [c]alls upon States to cooperate fully with and assist the Special Rapporteur in the performance of his or her tasks… and to consider favourably his or her requests for visits”.
Observations
Responses to communications
The Special Rapporteur takes notes of two replies received during the period under consideration and regrets that three communications did not receive a reply to date. He considers responses to his communications an important part of the cooperation of Governments with his mandate and urges the authorities to comply with Human Rights Council resolutions 24/5 (2013), 21/16 (2012) and 15/21 (2010) which call upon States to cooperate fully with him in the performance of his mandate and to respond promptly to his communications.
Reported intimidation and reprisals
The Special Rapporteur is greatly concerned about allegations of an act of reprisal against Mr. Visuvalingam Kirupaharan in relation to threats made against him at a Human Rights Council side-event in Palais des Nations, Geneva on 21 March 2014. He is concerned about the smear campaign against Mr. Kirupaharan, including in the media, for his work with the United Nations and its human rights mechanisms (LKA 5/2014). He duly notes the Government’s reply and reiterates the views expressed in his follow-up response (LKA 12/2014) that the State remains the primary duty-bearer tasked with protecting defining and promoting human rights.
Earlier reprisals on 6 March 2014 on State television against 24 civil society organizations for issuing a report to the Human Rights Council are also a cause for concern (LKA 4/2014). In particular, the Special Rapporteur is alarmed about the allegations that State TV undermined the image and the credibility of associations in retaliation for their legitimate human rights work.
In relation to these cases, the Special Rapporteur would value further information detailing the measures Sri Lanka is taking to ensure the freedoms of association and expression in the country as well as guarantee that human rights defenders can interact with the United Nations and his mechanism without fear of harassment.
Positive obligation of the State to actively protect peaceful assemblies
The Special Rapporteur remains concerned about the dispersal of a peaceful assembly of individuals gathered to discuss cases of disappearance in Sri Lanka and possible collusion between the perpetrators of the intimidation and law enforcement authorities (LKA 10/2014). He notes that the State committed to protecting and promoting rights set forth in international laws and standards, including in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights acceded by Sri Lanka on 11 Jun 1980, which enshrines the rights to peaceful assembly and association. He reaffirms that there should be a positive presumption in favour of holding peaceful assemblies and that the State has an obligation to actively protect such gatherings. That obligation includes the protection of participants of peaceful assemblies from individuals or groups of individuals who aim to disrupt or disperse such assemblies (A/HRC/20/27, paragraph 33).
Maintenance of an enabling environment for associations
The Special Rapporteur reiterates that the right to freedom of association requires the Government of Sri Lanka to take positive measures to create and maintain an environment in which individuals exercising this right are able to execute there functions freely, without, among other things, being subjected to acts of intimidation, violence or arbitrary arrest (A/HRC/20/27, paragraph 63). He expresses concern about the case involving Ms. Jayakumari (LKA 3/2014) and calls upon the Government to ensure that victims of violations and abuses of the right to freedom of association have to the right to an effective remedy and obtain redress (A/HRC/20/27, paragraph 84 (j)).
Following the recent review of the State of Sri Lanka by the Human Rights Committee, the Special Rapporteur takes note with concern of the continuous application of emergency regulations to counter terrorism that curb the right to freedom of association beyond the very limited restrictions provided for by international human rights law (CCPR/C/LKA/CO/5, paragraph 11). He reminds the authorities that the definitions and restrictions existing in international law are sufficient and the only legitimate grounds to regulate the right to associate. Therefore, he warns against regulations and practices designed to silence, intimidate and harass those who wish to carry out their activities in association with others.
Country visits
The Special Rapporteur takes this opportunity to note his willingness to undertake a country visit to Sri Lanka in the framework of his mandate, last indicated by letter on 10 April 2015. He trusts that such a visit would allow him to examine in person the issues related to his mandate, identify good practices and formulate pertinent recommendations to the relevant stakeholders. He reiterates that Human Rights Council resolution 15/21, which established his mandate, and 24/5, which renewed it for an additional period of three years, both urge the States to consider favourably his requests for visits. In this connection, he would be grateful for the continuing cooperation of the Government with his mandate and he looks forward receiving a positive reply so as to enable a visit before the end of his tenure.
None
Observations
Responses to communications
The Special Rapporteur thanks the Government of Sri Lanka for its response to his communication sent during the reporting period.
The Special Rapporteur continues to welcome efforts to repeal and replace Sri Lanka’s Prevention of Terrorism Act. However, he reiterates his concern that an overbroad definition of terrorist offenses and expanded police counter-terrorism powers in the new proposed legislation may result in an infringement of the rights to freedom of association and of peaceable assembly.
Country visit
The Special Rapporteur reminds the Government of his pending requests to visit Sri Lanka, as indicated by his letters sent in September 2011, October 2013 and April 2015. He trusts that such a visit would allow him to examine first-hand issues related to his mandate, identify good practices and formulate pertinent recommendations to relevant stakeholders. He looks forward to receiving a positive reply at the earliest possible opportunity. He reiterates that Human Rights Council resolution 15/21, which established his mandate, and 24/5, which renewed it for an additional period of three years, both call on States to consider favourably his requests for visits.
For the full reports, containing communications, replies and observations for all countries, see the following links:
Report A/HRC/20/27/Add.3: May 1, 2011 to March 15, 2012
Report A/HRC/23/39/Add.2: March 16, 2012 to February 28, 2013
Report A/HRC/26/29/Add.1: March 1, 2013 to February 28, 2014
Report A/HRC/29/25/Add.3: March 1, 2014 to February 28, 2015
Report A/HRC/32/36/Add.3: March 1, 2015 to February 28, 2016
Report A/HRC/35/28/Add.4: March 1, 2016 to February 28, 2017
