Sri Lanka
The number of
reports of violent human rights violations fell in 2010 as the security
situation improved following the end of the military conflict; long-standing
Emergency Regulations were partially lifted; and the humanitarian situation
improved significantly. However, the
overall human rights position in Sri Lanka remained a concern. Despite the end of the fighting, there
continued to be human rights violations in 2010, including disappearances and
extra-judicial killings, arbitrary arrests and a restriction on political space
for free expression. Media reports
suggesting that paramilitary groups remained active and that criminal activity
in the Jaffna peninsula had increased at the end of the year were also a
serious concern.
A key
challenge for 2011 will be for the government to make progress towards
achieving reconciliation between all Sri Lanka’s communities. We will follow closely the outcome of ongoing
discussions between the government and minority parties and the outcome of the
work of the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission expected in May 2011. The UN Panel of Experts, established by the
UN Secretary-General to advise him on accountability issues with regard to
alleged violations of international human rights and humanitarian law during
the final stages of the military conflict, is also due to report its findings
in 2011. We have encouraged the Sri
Lankan government to engage constructively with the panel. Local elections in March 2011 will be an
opportunity for all communities to exercise their democratic rights. We will continue to encourage the government
to act upon the recommendations made by election monitors following the
presidential and parliamentary elections in 2010.
Proposed
ministerial visits in 2011 will provide further opportunities to encourage and
work with the Sri Lanka government to address human rights concerns. We will continue to fund a range of projects
in Sri Lanka to support civil society and strengthen the authorities’ capacity
to address issues related to human rights.
Elections
Presidential
and parliamentary elections took place on 26 January and 8 April
respectively. Independent election
monitors concluded that the results were valid, but highlighted a number of
concerns about the conduct of the campaigns and the high incidence of
pre-election violence.
Reporters
Without Borders and local election monitoring bodies estimated that 95–99% of
state media election coverage was supportive of the president or critical of
his opponent, Sarath Fonseka. Domestic
election monitoring bodies also reported nearly 800 incidents of pre-election
violence, of which half were classified as “serious”. This included five murders, five attempted
murders and over 100 assaults, despite the two main parties having made public
appeals to their supporters to refrain from violence.
The
parliamentary elections were monitored by three domestic groups – People’s
Action for Free and Fair Elections; the Centre for Monitoring Election
Violence; and the Campaign for Free and Fair Elections. The Sri Lankan election commissioner turned
down the EU’s request to send an election monitoring mission.
We
helped to fund election monitors during both elections and encouraged all sides
to ensure free, fair and peaceful elections.
We also funded the Campaign for Free and Fair Elections to monitor the
voter registration of displaced civilians in the north before the presidential
election. This highlighted obstacles
that our High Commission was able to raise with the government, some of which
were subsequently addressed by the Elections Commission. However, only 22,000 internally displaced
persons registered to vote in elections and up to 40% of people from the north
were reported to have lacked valid forms of identity to enable their
participation in elections. Despite the
high national turnout of 61% in the presidential election, this dropped to less
than 30% in the north and east where communities were still being resettled.
Access to justice
Sri Lanka has
a highly developed judicial system, which faces many challenges. At the end of the year, the Sri Lankan
government reported a judicial backlog of approximately 65,000 cases. As a consequence, there were a high number of
prisoners who had been on remand for a relatively long period. The Sri Lankan government committed
additional funds at the end of 2010 to clear this backlog.
Our High
Commission funded a local civil society organisation to support the Sri Lankan
Ministry of Justice’s running of mediation boards at local level throughout
2010. These boards provided an
alternative method of resolving minor local disagreements without requiring
complainants to go through an expensive legal process. Some 60% of cases referred to the mediation
boards were resolved successfully.
Sri Lanka’s
Emergency Regulations and Prevention of Terrorism Act allow for limited
detention of terrorist suspects without charge.
A large number of suspected members of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil
Eelam have been detained without charge for periods considerably longer than
those allowed by law. In addition, no
clear legal framework has been established for former Liberation Tigers of
Tamil Eelam fighters who were detained at the end of the military conflict.
In 2010,
there were reports of increasing politicisation of the judiciary and law
enforcement agencies, contributing to a culture of impunity. There have been few successful investigations
into prominent allegations of human rights violations. For example, there has been little visible
progress during 2010 in investigating the 17 serious human rights cases considered
by a Presidential Commission of Inquiry that completed its work in 2009; the
abduction of human rights defender Sinnavan Suthanthararaja in May 2009; or the
assassination of Sunday Leader editor Lasantha Wickrematunga in January 2009. Our High Commission has raised our concerns
with the Sri Lankan government about the lack of progress on these and other
cases.
Death Penalty
The death
penalty has not been carried out in Sri Lanka since 1976. Amnesty International describes Sri Lanka as
“abolitionist in practice”. Capital
punishment remains legal and the death sentence continues to be handed down for
crimes including murder, drug trafficking and rape, but it has become
established practice for these sentences to be commuted to life imprisonment.
Torture and other ill treatment
Sri Lanka is
a party to the main international human rights treaties prohibiting torture,
the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the UN Convention
against Torture. Torture is also
prohibited under the country’s constitution.
Reported
incidents of torture in Sri Lanka have often been associated with the
conflict. However, on the International
Day in Support of Victims of Torture in June the World Organisation Against
Torture issued a statement that it had “received credible testimonies of torture
from across the country, including in cases not related to the ethnic conflict
or terrorism”. In an article published
in early 2011, the Asian Human Rights Commission argued that torture had become
institutionalised within the Sri Lankan police service.
The media
reported a number of cases of alleged torture during 2010. These included a detailed account of the
torture of Lalith Abeysuriya in an alleged attempt to extract a confession from
him for theft and the police torturing of individuals at the instigation of
influential individuals or families or as a result of personal grievances.
Our High
Commission in Colombo raised its concerns with the Sri Lankan government about
the safety and health of individuals in detention with the Sri Lankan government. The EU considered Sri Lanka’s implementation
of the UN Convention against Torture as part of its investigation into Sri
Lanka’s continued eligibility for the Generalised System of Preferences Plus
(GSP+). The EU investigation found that
Sri Lanka was not effectively implementing the convention and other human
rights related obligations and because of this lack of progress it decided to
withdraw GSP+ in August.
Prisons and detention Issues
Overcrowding
in Sri Lanka’s prisons is in part caused by a large backlog of cases in the
courts and the large number of prisoners detained on minor charges due to their
inability to pay fines. Remand prisoners
and those imprisoned on minor offences are also held in the same facilities as
more serious offenders. Former prison
officials report that the majority of the prison population consists of
pre-trial detainees and that the majority of convicted inmates serve sentences
of less than three months. It is alleged
that some terrorist suspects are held without a detention order being in place
and therefore fall outside the legal framework.
President
Rajapaksa has acknowledged the need for prison reform. He has called for an overhaul of the penal code
and for the lower courts to reduce prison congestion and expedite the hearing
of cases. In 2010, our High Commission
discussed these challenges with the minister of justice and the minister of rehabilitation
and prisons. The Justice Ministry has
launched a three-year plan to tackle the backlog of cases. The Rehabilitation and Prison Reforms
Ministry is planning to build a large open prison to detain 10,000 inmates
convicted of minor offences.
It is
believed that approximately 11,500 former Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam
fighters were detained when the military conflict ended in May 2009. Large numbers of these detainees were
released during the course of 2010, leaving approximately 4,600 in
rehabilitation centres at the end of December.
Their legal status remained unclear.
Despite
repeated calls by the international community, the International Committee of
the Red Cross has not been allowed access to all former Liberation Tigers of
Tamil Eelam fighters. The International
Committee of the Red Cross has, however, continued to have access to other
detainees in detention facilities throughout Sri Lanka. In November, the Sri Lankan government asked
the International Committee of the Red Cross to close its operations in the
north of the country.
Foreign
Secretary William Hague raised concerns over the lack of humanitarian access to
former fighters and the continued lack of clarity over their legal status with
the Sri Lankan foreign minister during the latter’s visit to the UK on 20
October. Our High Commissioner in
Colombo also regularly raised the issue with the Sri Lankan government. In its interim recommendations, Sri Lanka’s
Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission has called for a speedy resolution
of remaining cases and improved transparency over detainees’ whereabouts.
Rule of law
Some of the
checks and balances within Sri Lanka’s well-established legal system were
eroded in 2010. On 9 September, parliament
passed the 18th Amendment to the constitution.
This granted the president the power to make appointments to a range of
key state institutions, including the Elections Commission, Supreme Court and police
service. Previously, an independent
Constitutional Council was to decide such appointments.
Although the
expansive Emergency Regulations were partially relaxed in 2010, civil society
groups maintain that they continue to give extraordinary powers to security
forces without adequate legal safeguards.
As a result
of the conflict the military has assumed an enhanced role in maintaining law
and order throughout Sri Lanka, particularly in the conflict-affected areas in
the north and east. The military
continued to play a dominant role in law enforcement in these areas during 2010
and is empowered under the Emergency Regulations and Prevention of Terrorism
Act to make arrests. The government
lifted parts of the Emergency Regulations in May, and is increasingly building
the capacity of the police to oversee law and order in local communities.
We funded a
civil society organisation to support government attempts to strengthen police
capacity. Monthly community policing
forums were subsequently established in Kandy and Moneragala, improving
relations between the police and different ethnic communities, and language
training was provided in the Central Province to help police communicate with
minority ethnic communities.
On 8
February, Sarath Fonseka, former army commander and defeated presidential
candidate, was arrested on charges of campaigning whilst in uniform and
corruption over military procurement contracts.
On 13 August and 17 September respectively, courts martial found Sarath
Fonseka guilty on both charges and he was dishonourably discharged and
sentenced to 30 months in prison. As a
result of the prison sentence, he lost his seat as an MP, having been elected
to parliament in the April elections. He
was also charged under the Emergency Regulations and penal code with creating
“terror and panic” by stating that senior military officials had ordered
surrendering Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam leaders to be killed. This trial is being heard in a normal court
and is expected to conclude in 2011.
Civil society groups and opposition politicians have alleged that legal
action against Sarath Fonseka has been politically motivated. Our High Commission encouraged the government
to ensure the law is fairly and independently applied in all court cases,
including those against Sarath Fonseka.
Human rights defenders
The operating
environment for human rights defenders in Sri Lanka remained difficult
throughout 2010. Prominent human rights
defenders faced public criticism from members of the government and have been
called “traitors”. Activists have been
intimidated when carrying out their work and some received anonymous death
threats.
A series of
newspaper articles accused the head of Transparency International Sri Lanka of
trying to “destabilise” the country after his organisation issued a report
documenting misuse of public assets during the presidential election campaign
in January. The same individual featured
prominently in a list of 35 human rights defenders, rumoured to have been
prepared by the state intelligence agencies, which was reported in the press in
the early part of 2010. The intended
purpose and origin of this list was unclear.
The President’s Office denied that the intelligence services or any
branch of law enforcement had any role in the preparation of the list.
The apparent
politicisation of independent institutions has created obstacles for human
rights defenders. Organisations involved
in monitoring the presidential and parliamentary elections in 2010 reported
that police intimidation made it harder for them to carry out their election
observation work in some instances. The
venue for a UN Human Rights Day event in December had to be changed at the last
minute when state-run Colombo University refused to allow a woman human rights
defender to deliver the keynote address, allegedly on the grounds that she was
“pro-opposition”.
There were
also direct barriers to human rights organisations wishing to work in Sri
Lanka. Some international human rights
organisations were not granted visas to visit Sri Lanka in 2010. The government also cancelled visas for
organisations working within Sri Lanka.
A number of expatriate staff at an international NGO, who were working
on a project to support local human rights defenders, were forced to leave the
country when their visas were unexpectedly cancelled.
Following the
parliamentary elections in April, the Sri Lankan government announced its
intention to strengthen legislation governing NGOs to increase scrutiny of
their funding and activities. Some civil
society activists have interpreted these moves as an attempt to silence
dissenting voices and prevent the exposure of corruption within the state
sector.
Our High
Commission funded a project to support human rights defenders in Sri Lanka in
2010. This project helped human rights
organisations carry out security assessments to improve the safety of their
staff and provided emergency assistance to individuals who faced particularly
high levels of threat. We also regularly
lobbied the government in relation to civil society freedom.
Freedom of expression
Sri Lanka is
an established democracy and in principle the constitution and legal system
protect its citizens’ right to free expression.
In practice, the space for political debate and alternative views is
restricted. Sri Lanka ranked 158 out of
178 countries in Reporters Without Borders Press Freedom Index 2010.
Restrictions
on free expression increased during the presidential elections in January and
parliamentary elections in April. On 24
January, two days before the presidential elections, a pro-opposition
cartoonist and journalist, Prageeth Ekneligoda, disappeared. The police continued to investigate the
incident but no progress had been made by the end of 2010. Some of Mr Ekneligoda’s colleagues at the
pro-opposition Lanka E News website received death threats and the site was
blocked.
Monitoring
groups reported that during the elections the state media was heavily biased
towards the government and state resources were misused to support the
government’s campaign. Media outlets
that were perceived as pro-opposition continued to come under pressure after
elections. The BBC reported that the Sri
Lankan government temporarily prevented the Siyatha Media Network from covering
official events and withdrew advertising from its newspaper following reports
that its owner had funded the opposition.
The Siyatha newspaper subsequently closed down. Siyatha’s TV station was attacked and
firebombed by armed men in the early hours of 30 July and two employees were
injured. Siyatha’s owners are reported
to have fled the country fearing arrest.
Following the
arrest of defeated presidential candidate Sarath Fonseka, police used batons
and tear gas to break up a number of peaceful protests over his detention and
conviction, including protests in Colombo in February and Galle in August. In the latter, two opposition MPs were
arrested when they attempted to complain about police behaviour. They were later released without charge.
Sri Lanka’s
leading Buddhist monks had called for a Sangha Convention following Sarath
Fonseka’s arrest in February to bring Buddhist monks together to discuss
democracy and good governance in Sri Lanka.
Media reports quote an Executive Committee member of the Sangha
Convention alleging that the event was cancelled following bomb threats against
leading Buddhist shrines from a group of pro-government monks. The pro-government monks have denied making
such a threat.
Throughout
2010, the Sri Lankan government appeared to seek to control free expression
around the conduct of its fight against the Liberation Tigers of Tamil
Eelam. It placed restrictions on the
right to assembly in the Vanni region in northern Sri Lanka and restricted
media access to the conflict-affected areas.
Civil society groups reported that an inter-religious ceremony planned
in May to commemorate those killed in the military conflict had to be cancelled
following threats from the security forces.
The media minister subsequently stated that the Tamil people had a right
to commemorate their family members who had died in the military conflict but
they could not be allowed to “make a public campaign” out of it.
The general
environment for free expression continued to be challenging. Concerns have been raised over media
self-censorship and over death threats received by journalists in 2010. International publications were sometimes
subject to more direct censorship. Five
issues of The Economist magazine were held up by Sri Lanka Customs during 2010
due to the content of articles on Sri Lanka.
They were later released for distribution. The press reported that the director of the Media
Centre for National Security stated that foreign publications that were “harmful
to national security” would not be allowed into the country. The BBC was barred from attending several
sessions of the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission, but the president
later ordered that they be allowed to attend all future hearings.
General
political expression has also been stifled.
The police raided a printing press in the Colombo suburbs in September
following the publication of posters depicting the president as Hitler. The printer and eight co-workers have been
served detention orders under the Prevention of Terrorism Act and remain in
detention. In the same month a deputy minister
publicly stated that the media should not write in a way that would “ultimately
force them to be hanged”. And in
October, the police obstructed a peaceful demonstration by the Inter University
Students Federation, arresting 21 students and allegedly assaulting a number of
others. The media reported that four
journalists who were covering the protest were also assaulted.
UK ministers
and officials regularly raised concerns over freedom of expression with the
government of Sri Lanka. This included
raising individual cases, such as the disappearance of Mr Ekneligoda, as well
as the need to improve the general environment for the media. The government has maintained that the media
in Sri Lanka remains free. Sustained UK
and EU lobbying has contributed to some positive outcomes. The number of violent attacks on journalists
reduced compared to 2009. In January,
Jayaprakash Sittampalam Tissainayagam, a journalist who was convicted under the
Prevention of Terrorism Act and sentenced to 20 years in prison for his
writing, was released on bail. The president
granted him a full pardon in May and he left Sri Lanka. The UK and like-minded missions had regularly
raised Mr Tissainayagam’s case and visited him in prison.
Women’s rights
Sri Lanka has
an established tradition of gender equality in many parts of society. Women enjoy equal access to health and
education and make up the majority of university students. Sri Lanka ranked 16 out of 134 countries in
the World Economic Forum Global Gender Gap Index 2010.
But gender
barriers in the labour market mean that most women are employed in low-skilled,
casual jobs and traditions of male leadership make it difficult for them to
challenge this situation. Women’s
representation in parliament remained low following the 2010 parliamentary
election, with women holding only 13 of 225 seats.
Reports in
2010 suggested that sexual harassment of women on public transport was
widespread and that domestic violence against women remained a particular
problem. There were reports of sexual
violence and rape in the recently resettled areas in the north of Sri Lanka
which contain a high number of women-headed households. Criminal proceedings began in the latter part
of 2010 against several Sri Lankan Army soldiers who were accused of raping
civilian women in the north.
Our High
Commission kept in regular contact with a range of organisations that work on
women’s rights. As part of our ongoing
human rights dialogue with the Sri Lankan government, our High Commission
encouraged the government to investigate and take action against reported
abuses.
Children’s rights
In
2010, as part of Sri Lanka’s GSP+ investigation, the European Commission
reported that the Sri Lankan government had made significant efforts to
implement the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and that it considered
this area much improved.
According
to UNICEF, 6,902 children were recruited by the Liberation Tigers of Tamil
Eelam during the conflict. In 2010, all
of these children had been released. We
funded UNICEF’s work to support the Office of the Commissioner General of
Rehabilitation to ensure that the children leaving armed groups were provided
with protection and support in three rehabilitation centres prior to many being
released back to their parents or guardians.
The
Family Tracing and Reunification Unit for unaccompanied and separated children,
established in Vavuniya in December 2009, continued to receive reports from
parents and relatives looking for their children. By the end of 2010, they had received 650
tracing requests for children, with 30 having been located. Analysis conducted on the data available
showed that 67% of the children were last seen by their parents or relatives at
the time of recruitment by the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam.
Minorities and other discriminated
groups
Throughout
the conflict, minorities suffered disproportionately – including at the hands
of the now defeated Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam. The political rights of minorities, a key
driver of the conflict, continued to be restricted in 2010. Tamil representatives continued to report
discrimination from the government and security forces. Tamil civilians in Colombo were asked to
register their presence with their local police station in July, and throughout
2010 arrests under the Emergency Regulations and Prevention of Terrorism Act primarily
affected Tamils. There was also no
further progress towards establishing a political package to respond to key
minority concerns. However, in late 2010
the government began talks with the main Tamil party, the Tamil National
Alliance, to address minority grievances.
Following the
end of the military conflict in 2009, economic development has been a key Sri
Lankan government priority. The
government has said this will benefit all communities. In 2010, Tamil representatives alleged that
Sinhalese companies from the south had been favoured in carrying out some
reconstruction projects in the north and east.
They also complained that minorities’ right to own land is not being
honoured. Some Tamils and Muslim groups
accused the government of “Sinhala colonisation” of the minority-dominated
areas of the north and east during 2010 and alleged that army personnel had
been granted land and moved their families to settle in the north. They also complained that land belonging to
Tamil and Muslim civilians had been designated as “High Security Zones” and the
owners were not allowed access to it.
The return of approximately 70,000 Muslims forcibly displaced from the
north by the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam in 1990 has been an additional
challenge.
Language
rights remained unequal in 2010. Tamil,
spoken by Tamils and most Muslims, is an official language of Sri Lanka. The media reported in December that the
Cabinet had endorsed a proposal requiring the national anthem to be sung in
Sinhala only and prohibiting the use of the Tamil version. The government later clarified that there had
been no change in the status of the national anthem but civil society groups in
the north reported that the military had imposed the Sinhala version on Tamil
communities. Tamil representatives
reported that Tamil-speaking Sri Lankans in rural areas have struggled to
access state services since they are required to communicate with state
officials, including police, in Sinhala.
The Sri Lankan government has recognised this issue and is seeking to
ensure more state officials are able to speak Tamil. During 2010 the police force launched
recruitment drives to attract 1,500 Tamil civilians into the police force.
Tamils of
Indian origin, who live primarily in the central hill areas of Sri Lanka, have
been marginalised in post-independence Sri Lanka. Many members of this community continue to
have problems obtaining basic documentation which affects their civic and
social participation, including their ability to seek employment, own property
or vote. In a study carried out in 2010,
Minority Rights Group International reported that 30% of those in the
plantation sector live in poverty. They
also reported insanitary living conditions in plantation communities and a high
rate of sexual and domestic violence.
Literacy rates were significantly lower than the national average
amongst the plantation communities.
Minority Rights Group International reported that 37% of children in the
plantation sector were engaged in child labour.
In 2010, UK
ministers and our High Commission regularly urged the Sri Lankan government to
launch an inclusive political process to address the grievances of Sri Lanka’s
minority communities. We encouraged them
to engage in dialogue with minority representatives and welcomed the recent
moves to engage the Tamil National Alliance.
We also funded a number of projects designed to share UK experience of
post-conflict reconciliation and to support dialogue between political parties
in Sri Lanka. This has helped to ensure
a sustained dialogue between minority and majority community political
parties. We will continue to engage with
the Sri Lankan government on this issue and will look for signs of progress
during 2011.
Conflict
Although the
military defeat of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam by the Sri Lankan government
in May 2009 has been portrayed as the end of the country’s 26-year-long
conflict, the underlying causes have yet to be fully addressed.
Human rights
groups, the media and the Sri Lankan diaspora have alleged that serious
violations of international humanitarian law were carried out by both the
Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam and the government in the final stages of the
military conflict. In 2009, the president
undertook to take measures to address such allegations. The UK and other members of the international
community, including the EU and UN, have called for an independent and credible
inquiry. A year after the end of the
fighting, the Sri Lankan government established the Lessons Learnt and
Reconciliation Commission. The
Commission has eight members drawn from all three ethnic groups and is chaired
by a former attorney-general. Its terms
of reference are to investigate the causes of the conflict from 2002 to May
2009, but do not explicitly give any remit to look into war crimes allegations. We welcomed the establishment of the
Commission and believe that it has the potential to contribute towards
reconciliation and accountability in Sri Lanka.
The
Commission began public hearings in August and produced interim recommendations
in September – one of which is for the government to draw up a list of those
held in detention. In November the
government convened an Inter-Agency Committee to take forward implementation of
the interim recommendations.
Sri Lanka
does not have a functioning witness protection system and the Commission did
not establish any separate procedures.
Unidentified plain-clothed individuals reportedly photographed civilians
who testified. Civil society groups fear
this has left civilians vulnerable.
Despite this, affected civilians have willingly given evidence. Most of them have been concerned with locating
disappeared and missing relatives. A
smaller number have raised other concerns, including allegations of
indiscriminate shelling during the final stages of the military conflict and
concerns about land and property.
The
government invited international NGOs to give evidence to the Commission during
2010. In October, three NGOs:
International Crisis Group, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch,
declined the invitation to appear, saying the Commission did not meet
international standards for independent and impartial inquiries. They also cited the failure of previous Sri
Lankan government-appointed commissions to deliver any concrete outcomes.
William Hague
discussed the Commission’s work when he met the Sri Lankan foreign minister on
20 October. Our High Commission will
continue to follow closely the work of the Commission and the implementation of
its recommendations. We will also
continue to urge Sri Lanka to ensure serious abuses alleged to have occurred
during the conflict are credibly and independently investigated.
Protection of civilians
Following
the end of fighting in May 2009, there were approximately 300,000 internally
displaced persons held in camps. Since then, the government of Sri Lanka has made significant
progress in returning people to their home areas. The UN reported that approximately 22,000
internally displaced persons remained in camps at the end of 2010.
Most
returnees received a degree of resettlement support, including from
international agencies. But the Sri
Lankan government made it difficult for humanitarian agencies to gain access to
the north of Sri Lanka by putting in place a registration process. Agencies reported that approval was rarely
given for projects that focused on protecting the civil and political rights of
returnees or that sought to provide psycho-social support to civilians who were
caught up in the final stages of the military fighting. UK ministers and
our High Commission regularly pressed the Sri Lankan government to ease the
restrictions placed on the types of activities NGOs and humanitarian agencies
were allowed to undertake.
Since
September 2008, the UK has committed £13.5 million in humanitarian aid for
internally displaced persons affected by the fighting in northern Sri Lanka. This has provided water and sanitation,
healthcare, shelter, cash grants and livelihoods’ recovery for displaced and
returning families.
Other issues: Generalised System of
Preferences Plus (GSP+)
GSP+ grants
beneficiary countries duty free access to EU markets in return for adherence to
key international conventions on labour standards and human rights. In February, the EU gave Sri Lanka six months’
notice of suspension from the GSP+. The
UK supported this decision, which was based on Sri Lanka’s failure to implement
effectively the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the
Convention against Torture and the Convention on the Rights of the Child.
In June the European
Commission wrote to the Sri Lankan government setting out the 15 conditions
which would need to be met in order for GSP+ to be retained. The government responded that the
Commission’s conditions were an infringement of its sovereignty. On 15 August, Sri Lanka was withdrawn from
the scheme.
