Shenali D Waduge

The emergence of allegations concerning retired Major General Suresh Sallay in relation to Sri Lanka’s 2019 Easter Sunday attacks raises important questions about evidentiary standards, attribution, and the distinction between advocacy and adjudication.

Particular attention must be paid to how allegations develop over time, how they are amplified across social media and international advocacy platforms, and whether such allegations are supported by evidence capable of establishing responsibility.

This article examines the structure of international NGO submissions and related materials that reference Major General Suresh Sallay and explores the importance of distinguishing between verified facts, allegations, and interpretive conclusions.

The submission in question: Submission A/HRC/59/NGO/128 submitted by Franciscans International to the UN Human Rights Council on 25 May 2025

https://documents.un.org/api/symbol/access?l=en&s=A%2FHRC%2F59%2FNGO%2F128&t=pdf&

Who Are Franciscans International?

The UN Human Rights Council submission A/HRC/59/NGO/128 concerning Sri Lanka’s Easter Sunday attacks was not filed by an individual activist but by Franciscans International, an international non-governmental organisation representing the global Franciscan family within the United Nations system.

Established in 1989 and operating from offices in Geneva and New York, Franciscans International holds General Consultative Status with the UN Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC), enabling it to make interventions, submit written statements, and participate directly in UN human rights processes.

Its Relationship with the Vatican and the Catholic Church

Franciscans International is not an organ of the Vatican, the Holy See, or the Roman Curia. It does not speak on behalf of the Pope or the Holy See in diplomatic matters.

However, it is closely connected to the worldwide Franciscan family of Catholic religious orders. In 1999, the Conference of the Franciscan Family formally recognised Franciscans International as the body representing the Catholic Franciscan family at the United Nations. Its leadership and governing structures have historically included members of Franciscan religious orders, including friars and clergy from various branches of the Franciscan movement.

Accordingly, while Franciscans International should not be described as “the Vatican” or as an official diplomatic arm of the Holy See, it is equally inaccurate to portray it as an entirely independent secular NGO with no ecclesiastical connection. This institutional background does not invalidate the submission, but understanding the perspective and networks of any submitting organisation forms part of normal source evaluation and evidentiary scrutiny.

Why This Matters

Understanding the identity of the organisation submitting allegations or concerns to international institutions is not an attack on the organisation itself; it is part of normal evidentiary scrutiny.

Questions that arise include:

·      What information was independently verified by Franciscans International before issuing its submission?

·      Which portions of the submission relied upon third-party reports or media investigations?

·      Were the allegations based on direct testimony, documentary evidence, or secondary reporting?

·      What methodology was used to validate the claims before presenting them to the Human Rights Council?

·      Which sources were considered sufficiently reliable for inclusion and which were excluded?

These questions are particularly important when submissions contribute to international narratives involving named individuals, public officials, or security institutions.

In legal proceedings, the credibility of a conclusion depends not only on who presents it, but also on the evidentiary foundation upon which it rests.

Advocacy documents are not Judicial findings

Submissions made by NGOs to international bodies such as the UN Human Rights Council are important advocacy tools designed to raise concerns and encourage further investigation.

However, they are not:

·      judicial determinations,

·      criminal indictments,

·      findings following cross-examination,

·      or evidence tested according to the standards required in legal proceedings.

Their contents therefore cannot automatically be treated as proof of responsibility or culpability.

The Question of Source Dependence

Many allegations concerning Major General Suresh Sallay derive from a chain of references that only include:

·      media reporting,

·      private documentary productions,

·      public statements,

·      advocacy submissions,

·      and subsequent institutional references.

This can be summarized as:

Allegation → Media Amplification → Advocacy Adoption → International Circulation

Where allegations originate from a limited number of original sources, repeated citation across institutions may create an appearance of independent corroboration despite relying upon substantially the same underlying material.

An important legal question follows:

·      At what point in this chain does independently verified evidence emerge?

·      If the answer is unclear, repeated citation risks creating an appearance of corroboration where none may exist.

The Missing Evidentiary Bridge

For allegations against any individual to carry legal weight, there must be evidence establishing:

·      operational involvement,

·      command responsibility,

·      decision-making authority,

·      or direct participation.

Accordingly, several questions arise:

·      What evidence links Major General Suresh Sallay to the alleged attack?

·      What official appointment, if any, did he hold on 21 April 2019 and what were the responsibilities attached to that position?

·      What authority, if any, did he exercise over the individuals or operations concerned during the attacks?

·      Which documentary records establish this connection?

·      Have those records been independently verified and produced before a court or investigative authority?

Without answers supported by evidence, attribution risks becoming speculative rather than factual.

Retrospective Attribution and Narrative Construction

Another issue requiring examination is timing.

If allegations emerge years after the events in question and only after major media productions or advocacy campaigns, an important evidentiary question arises:

·      Have investigators discovered new evidence, or are they expanding on subsequently developed narrative.

This distinction matters because legal responsibility must be established through evidence existing independently of public narratives.

Questions That Require Answers

Any organisation or individual advancing allegations should be prepared to answer several straightforward questions:

1.     What is the original source of the information?

2.     Is the source identifiable?

3.     Was the information provided under oath?

4.     Has the information been subjected to cross-examination?

5.     Has the allegation been independently corroborated?

6.     Is there documentary evidence supporting the claim?

7.     Is the attribution based on contemporaneous records or retrospective interpretation?

8.     At what point does repetition of an allegation become mistaken for independent verification?

These questions are not obstacles to accountability; they are the foundation of accountability.

Distinguishing Concern from Proof

Calls for investigation serve an important public purpose.

However:

·      concern is not proof,

·      suspicion is not evidence,

·      repetition is not corroboration,

·      and allegation is not conviction.

The distinction between these concepts lies at the heart of every fair legal system.

The appearance of Major General Suresh Sallay’s name in media reports, advocacy submissions, or international discussions does not in itself establish responsibility for the Easter Sunday attacks particularly where allegations gain prominence following private media productions relying substantially on witness testimony and claims that remain subject to investigation and verification.

A fair assessment requires evidence capable of demonstrating operational involvement, command responsibility, or direct participation.

Until such evidence is produced and tested according to recognised legal standards, it remains essential to distinguish between established facts and evolving narratives.

Timeline and Attribution

Chronology helps evaluate allegations involving public officials, military officers, and intelligence personnel. 

Attribution cannot be separated from position, authority, responsibility, and timing.

Accordingly, several questions arise in relation to Major General Suresh Sallay and the Easter Sunday attacks:

Event	Date	Evidentiary Significance
Easter Sunday attacks	21 April 2019	Establishes the date of the offence  .
Official position held by Suresh Sallay on 21 April 2019	To be established through official records, gazette notifications, military records, or government appointments	Determines whether he held any command, intelligence, operational or decision-making responsibility relevant to the attacks.
Earliest public allegations linking Suresh Sallay to the attacks	To be identified through public records and media archives	Establishes whether allegations were contemporaneous or emerged significantly later.
Release of major media productions and documentaries alleging involvement	To be identified and chronologically mapped	Assists in determining whether allegations followed the emergence of new evidence or followed media amplification.
First appearance of allegations in international advocacy submissions or UN processes	To be established through UN documentation and NGO submissions	Determines whether international attribution was based on independent investigation or on previously circulating allegations.

What form of Involvement is Suresh Sallay being accused of?

Before responsibility can be attributed to any individual, it is necessary to identify precisely what form of involvement is being alleged and what evidence supports that allegation.

In relation to Major General Suresh Sallay, several possible scenarios would require examination:

Before allegations can be evaluated, those making them must identify the precise legal or factual basis upon which responsibility is alleged. 

Merely asserting that an individual was “involved” is insufficient. 

Was the allegation one of direct participation, command responsibility, prior knowledge, facilitation, concealment, or some other form of involvement? 

Each allegation requires a different evidentiary threshold and a different type of proof.

1. Direct Participation

Is it alleged that he directly participated in the planning, preparation, facilitation, financing, or execution of the Easter Sunday attacks alongside the perpetrators or those associated with them?

If so:

·      What evidence establishes direct contact with the attackers?

·      Are there communications records, witness testimony, financial transactions, meetings, travel records, or operational links supporting such an allegation?

·      Has any participant in the attacks identified him as having played such a role?

 

2. Direction, Control or Coordination

Is it alleged that he directed, supervised, controlled, or coordinated those responsible for the attacks?

If so:

·      What evidence establishes such authority or control?

·      What command structure is being alleged?

·      Through what mechanism was such direction allegedly exercised?

·      Where are the documentary or testimonial records supporting this claim?

 

Was he involved in recruitment, facilitation or material support

·      Is it alleged that he recruited, introduced, financed, protected, equipped, transported, trained or otherwise materially assisted the attackers?

·      Did he provide safe houses, logistics, communications support, intelligence, travel documents, weapons or funding?

·      What evidence exists of such assistance for all attacked venues?

3. Prior Knowledge and Deliberate Non-Intervention

Is it alleged that he possessed prior knowledge of the attacks and had both the legal authority and practical ability to prevent or disrupt them but intentionally failed to do so

If so:

·      What evidence establishes that he received such information?

·      When did he allegedly receive it?

·      Through what official or unofficial channels was it communicated?

·      What authority did he possess at that time to intervene or act?

·      What evidence demonstrates deliberate inaction rather than absence of knowledge?

 

If prior knowledge is alleged, what was the source of that knowledge and can receipt of that information be independently verified?

4. Abuse of Official Authority

Is it alleged that he used his official position or authority to obstruct investigations, suppress intelligence, interfere with security responses, or facilitate the attacks?

If so:

·      What official position did he occupy at the relevant time?

·      What powers attached to that position?

·      What specific acts or omissions are alleged?

·      What documentary evidence supports those allegations?

 

5. Post-Event Concealment or Assistance

Is it alleged that he participated in concealing evidence, protecting perpetrators, or obstructing investigations after the attacks?

If so:

·      What actions are alleged to constitute concealment or obstruction?

·      What evidence supports these claims?

·      What decisions are attributed to him personally rather than institutionally?

6. Any Other Form of Involvement Alleged

If some other form of involvement is being alleged, those making the allegation should clearly identify:

·      the exact nature of the allegation,

·      the legal basis for responsibility,

·      and the evidence relied upon.

An allegation cannot be investigated or tested if its underlying theory of involvement is never clearly articulated.

These are not technicalities designed to avoid accountability.

They are the fundamental questions that every legal system asks before responsibility for a terrorist attack can be attributed to any individual.

Without identifying the precise nature of the alleged involvement and producing evidence capable of supporting that allegation, there is a risk that attribution becomes based on inference, association, or repetition rather than proof.

In matters involving terrorism, intelligence operations and national security, the standard for attribution should be evidence first and narrative second.

A search for truth begins with timelines.

Positions held after an event do not automatically establish responsibility for decisions made before the event.

If investigators believe an individual who was not in command at the relevant time was nevertheless involved, the burden is on investigators to explain the mechanism of involvement and provide supporting evidence.

From a legal perspective, courts generally focus on several questions:

1.     What is the alleged act?

2.     When did it occur?

3.     Who had authority at that time?

4.     What evidence connects the accused to that act?

If there is a disconnect between the timeline and the allegation, that naturally becomes an issue for scrutiny.

The counterargument, would argue a person does not necessarily need to occupy the formal leadership position at the time of an event to be implicated in wrongdoing. 

However, where chronology appears inconsistent with an allegation, investigators would typically need to provide a clear explanation of the alleged role with strong supporting evidence beyond reasonable doubt.

Applied to the Easter context, the key question becomes:

If the allegation is not based on his position in April 2019, then what precisely is the alleged conduct, when did it occur, and what evidence supports the exact allegation being made?

That is often the question that separates a hypothesis requiring investigation from a case capable of supporting criminal responsibility.

The central question therefore remains:

·      Is the case against Major General Suresh Sallay built upon primary evidence, or upon the repeated circulation of allegations originating elsewhere?

·      The answer to that question will determine whether history records a proven case, or the construction of a narrative through repetition.

Shenali D Waduge