by Dharshan Weerasekera

I write in response to the article of the above title that appeared in the Sunday Island on 3rd August 2025. The article appears to be a statement by the ICJ (International Committee of Jurists). The article calls on the Sri Lankan government to ensure that the exhumations at the Chemmani site be carried out according to international standards so that there are no questions over the veracity of the findings later. The article also argues that because incidents such as Chemmani raise suspicions regarding government impunity for past crimes, it is essential that international monitoring under the Human Rights Council be continued. For instance, it says:
Given the long-standing failure of domestic mechanisms to deliver justice, since 2012 the UN Human Rights Council has through multiple resolutions mandated the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) to monitor the situation, preserve evidence, and support accountability efforts, particularly through the Sri Lankan Accountability Project under Resolution 46/1. The ICJ considers that the ongoing exhumations at Chemmani render the need for sustained international oversight ever more urgent.”
I take strong exception to the attempt above to link the Chemmani issue to an argument advocating the extension of the Sri Lanka Accountability Project, an evidence-gathering mechanism that has been operating from Geneva since 2021. The High Commissioner is scheduled to present a comprehensive report on this mechanism at the UNHCR’s upcoming 60th session. As I will explain in a moment, there are reasonable grounds to believe that the mechanism is contrary to the principles, procedures and mandate of the Human Rights Council. If true, then it is illegal. It is vital that members of the public distinguish between arguments designed to advocate for this mechanism, and arguments related to Chemmani.

There are two basic problems with the Sri Lanka Accountability Project: the first, based on the applicable law, and the second, on its possible contents. (The specific contents of the mechanism’s database is secret, but, from certain statements of the High Commissioner, it is possible to gain an idea of the type of material that this database might contain.) The legal problem with the mechanism is briefly this. Article 2(7) of the UN Charter prohibits the UN and its subsidiary organs from interfering unduly in the internal affairs of nations. Meanwhile, paragraph 4 of the UNHRC’s founding document (UN General Assembly Resolution 60/251) states, among other things, that the work of the Council shall be guided by the principles of ‘cooperation and constructive international dialogue.’
The Sri Lanka Accountability Project is a country-specific device. This means that, it is established exclusively for Sri Lanka. Nowhere in Resolution 46/1 (the resolution that establishes the mechanism) does it require the High Commissioner to submit the findings of the mechanism to the Council prior to forwarding such material to third parties in order for them to take action against Sri Lankan citizens. In a report to the Council in September 2023, the High Commissioner states that the OHCHR is in active consultations with the prosecutorial agencies of a number of countries on ways of taking such action. (See A/HRC/54/20, 6 Sep 2023).
Meanwhile, the Government of Sri Lanka (GOSL) has consistently rejected the mechanism. It is not in dispute that, were the mechanism’s evidence to be submitted to the UNHRC, the GOSL, along with the accused persons, would have an opportunity to respond to such evidence before the Council. This, obviously, would be entirely consistent with the injunction that the work of the Council be guided by the principles of ‘cooperation and constructive international dialogue.’ In these circumstances, prima facie, the mechanism is contrary to the principles set out in Article 2(7) of the UN Charter along with paragraph 4 of the UNHRC’s charter mentioned above.
The problem with the possible contents of the mechanism is briefly this. In the report to the Council in September 2023, the High Commissioner states:
The team continues to prioritize the establishment and development of a repository of information and evidence, to maximize OHCHR’s long-term contribution to supporting accountability initiatives. The repository was originally populated with data from the earlier OHCHR investigation on Sri Lanka, together with other material collected over the years by OHCHR. It has been supplemented by material from nine key non-governmental organizations and academic sources. The project team is engaging with other stakeholders to seek to bolster the repository’s holdings, subject to appropriate terms of access.” (A/HRC/54/20, para 50, 6 Sep 2023)
The above raises two important questions: first, does the mechanism’s repository contain the databases of Sri Lanka’s domestic mechanisms (ie. The LLRC and Paranagama Commissions)? Second, what are the identities of the ‘nine key non-governmental organisations and academic sources’ referred to by the High Commissioner above? If the Sri Lanka Accountability Project’s repository does not contain the databases of the domestic mechanisms, then the mechanism has been deprived of potentially exculpatory evidence that the domestic mechanisms might possess. If true, this would compromise the work of prosecutorial agencies who may be using the mechanism’s database in order to frame charges against Sri Lankan citizens. Meanwhile, in regard to the nine NGOs and academic sources that the High Commissioner mentions, if even one of them is funded or owned by Sri Lanka’s critics, it potentially taints the entire database.
The Sri Lanka Accountability Project must stand or fall depending on whether its supporters can address concerns such as the above, not on whether the Chemmani site in being investigated properly. A word, however, about Chemmani. The government is currently investigating the suspected gravesite. There is absolutely no evidence that these investigations are compromised in any way. In this regard, it is important to recall that on two previous occasions, both in 2013, there were claims of mass graves being found. The first was in Mannar, and the second, in Matale.
Extensive investigations were conducted on both sites. The human remains discovered at the Mannar site were carbon-dated to the Portuguese period (see ‘Bodies found in Mannar mass grave date back to the 1400s,’ www.asianews.it, 3rd Sep 2019). The remains found in Matale were dated to ‘an era prior to 1950’ (see ‘Skeletal Remains have no connection to 1989-1990 disappearances,’ www.sundaytimes.lk, 10th May 2015.) Therefore, it is possible that there is an innocuous explanation for the Chemmani site as well. On the other hand, it is possible that the investigators would reach far more disturbing conclusions. The reasonable thing to do is to keep an open mind and let the investigators complete their work.
It is not in dispute that the UNHRC and the OHCHR have a duty to protect and advance human rights worldwide. They must, however, do this within the four corners of the law. One cannot advocate for the advancement of human rights while at the same time undermining the fundamental principles of international law. It is in everyone’s interest to ensure that the UN remain viable and respected, rather than constantly discredited and suspected of double-standards and bias. The Sri Lanka Accountability Project is coming up for a reckoning in September. It is vital that, members of the public be clear on the issues involved, and hold the UNHRC as well as the OHCHR accountable if they have exceeded their powers in regard to this mechanism.

Dharshan Weerasekera is the author of, A Factual Appraisal of the OISL Report: A Rebuttal to the Allegations Against the Armed Forces, (Sarasavi, 2020)

by Dharshan Weerasekera ✍️