Font size: 
Internal Circular No. 7 of June 20, 2007, which is addressed to all directors, regional coordinators, legal officers and investigation officers and is signed by D. J. B. De Silva, the secretary of the HRCSL, reads as follows:
"Period of prescription of receiving petitions
The Board at its meeting held on 18.6.2007, decided that the period of receiving petitions should be restricted to 3 (three) months from the date of incident of violation of Human Rights.
You are kindly requested to give publicity to this decision among the members of public and also abide by the above decision. The petitions already accepted should be inquired into irrespective of the date of incident.
Any exceptional matters should be referred to the Commission for decision."
This circular has not been publicized nor has the HRCSL issued any press statement to inform the public. It is only through private sources that human rights groups have become aware of this circular. The general reaction has been that this is yet another example of a human rights commission, which has not been appointed under the provisions of the Sri Lankan Constitution, trying to undermine the people's right to protection.
This move is further seen as an attempt to discourage people from having recourse to the HRCSL and to eradicate any semblance of a proactive commission that is willing to protect and promote human rights under the extremely difficult circumstances presently prevailing in the country.
One human rights activist commented, "If the HRCSL receives fewer complaints, then it can create an impression around the world that the human rights situation in the country has become better." International human rights groups place a great deal of reliance on the statistics provided by the HRCSL in trying to gauge human rights conditions in the country.
The implication of this circular is that complaints regarding torture, extrajudicial killings, forced disappearances, gross violations of the rights of children and women, complaints relating to discrimination and violations of the provisions for equality before the law are all proscribed unless the complaints are made within three months.
The HRCSL is a statutory body created for the purpose of protecting and promoting human rights and is expected to work within the framework of the Paris Principles relating to national institutions. However, the HRCSL in recent times has not in any way conformed to these principles, either in regard to its independence or the implementation of international norms and standards relating to the observance of human rights by the state.
A national human rights commission is expected to monitor human rights violations and to make recommendations to all government bodies on the steps that need to be taken to better facilitate respect for human rights. The HRCSL, however, has failed to perform this function, regardless of the extremely difficult circumstances relating to human rights faced by people throughout the country. Instead of monitoring human rights, the commission is, by its most inefficient methods of work, in fact, discouraging complainants who wish to pursue their rights. The perpetrators of human rights violations are the beneficiaries of this inaction.
There is no basis for setting time limits on complaints of torture, extrajudicial killings and forced disappearances. These are heinous crimes and gross violations of human rights. The HRCSL's board has acted in violation of the basic norms and standards for the protection of human rights by imposing three months as a limited time frame for the commission to accept complaints.
Given the extreme anxiety that prevails in the country today, there are likely to be many people who dare not make complaints immediately out of fear for their lives. The government has admitted to the absence of witness protection in the country and its adverse consequences on all witnesses. Under such circumstances, it is natural for people to wait for more secure conditions to exist before they make a complaint.
Individual complainants may want to ensure for themselves a place of safety before they make complaints relating to serious violations of their rights. In addition, people living in rural areas and more distant parts of the country will find it difficult to meet such a deadline. In conflict areas, conditions can be even worse. How is it possible, for instance, for refugees and displaced people who have suffered the worst forms of human rights abuses to honor a deadline of this nature?
All civil society organizations should critically examine the role that the HRCSL is playing now. Is it a watchdog of those who violate human rights? Has it the capacity and will to be the defender of the human rights of those who suffer violations? This particular circular should be condemned as an attempt to limit the commission's services and to exclude many people from making complaints about human rights violations in Sri Lanka.
--
(Basil Fernando is director of the Asian Human Rights Commission based in Hong Kong. He is a Sri Lankan lawyer who has also been a senior U.N. human rights officer in Cambodia. He has published several books and written extensively on human rights issues in Asia.)
