{"id":84456,"date":"2018-12-29T22:45:14","date_gmt":"2018-12-30T04:45:14","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.lankaweb.com\/news\/items\/?p=84456"},"modified":"2019-06-14T15:19:45","modified_gmt":"2019-06-14T22:19:45","slug":"disappearances-reparation-missing-persons-and-yahapalana","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.lankaweb.com\/news\/items\/2018\/12\/29\/disappearances-reparation-missing-persons-and-yahapalana\/","title":{"rendered":"DISAPPEARANCES, REPARATION, MISSING PERSONS AND YAHAPALANA Part 1"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Last Revised 12.6.19<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In 2015,    the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva approved\na Resolution titled   Promoting\nreconciliation, accountability and human rights in Sri Lanka\u201d. (UNHRC\nResolution 30\/1). Sri Lanka\u2019s     Yahapalana government supported the\nResolution.   This Resolution included inter\nalia,  provisions  to establish\nan \nOffice  of Missing  Persons  and  an  Office  for  Reparations ,   to sign\nand ratify  the  International  Convention  for  the  Protection  of  All  Persons  from  Enforced\nDisappearance, This essay looks at these\nthree provisions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Pt 1 OFFICE ON MISSING PERSONS.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Office on\nMissing Persons Act, No. 14 of 2016\u201d was passed in Parliament on 12th August 2016.\nThis Bill was not referred to Supreme Court. Instead it was rammed through\nParliament, disregarding objections of the Joint Opposition.  It went\nthrough all three readings very quickly within just 40 minutes, amidst the\nshouts and protests of the Joint Opposition, said the media. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Mahinda Rajapaksa\nobserved the government forcibly passed the Office of Missing Persons Bill\nafter giving Parliament less than 40 minutes to debate it. The better part of\nthat time was spent in arguing whether that Bill should be taken up for debate\nat all because the government had pledged not to take it up on that day. Sittings\nwere suspended for a time, and the Opposition was deprived of its time to speak\non the Bill.  The original plan was to\nhave a two day debate and hold a vote at the end. This was not done. It was\nsuggested that the House should go on debating till 9.30 p.m. This was\nrejected.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Joint Opposition\nrefused to accept the OMP Bill as properly passed saying it was passed against\nthe Standing Orders of Parliament. Only a bill passed in accordance with the\nStanding Orders could be accepted as a proper piece of legislation.  Also, they said a Bill cannot be deemed to\nhave been passed when more than half of the MPs were standing on the floor of\nthe house. Even government MPs were not in their seats.  Government claims 2\/3 majority for the Bill\nbut is unable to state the number of votes, reported the media.  When asked at a press conference    whether he could reveal the number of votes\nthe Minister concerned had side stepped the issue.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Section\n21 of the OMP Act empowered the OMP to receive funding from any\nsource, local or foreign.\nThis\nwas amended on 22nd June 2017 by a\nunanimous vote in Parliament. This removed a key paragraph that had explicitly\nallowed the OMP to enter into independent financing arrangements with\nexternal sources.  OMP\ncould have received funding from foreign governments, international NGOs and\neven from pro-LTTE Diaspora organization, using this, said critics. On the\nother hand, many victims\ngroups and analysts saw   the amendment\nas seriously compromising the independence of the OMP because it would now be\nentirely dependent on the government for finances.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Nisha Biswal, Assistant Secretary of State for\nSouth and Central Asian Affairs, and Atul Keshap, US ambassador to Sri Lanka\nhailed the new Act. Biswal said it was a historical step in the pursuit of\njustice, reconciliation and accountability. National Peace Council issued a\nstatement that the OMP bill was a good thing. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The\nOMP was to be run by a seven member Commission, whose names were decided by the\n10-member Constitutional Council,  The OMP Act says that if the President\nfails to appoint members within 14 days of the Constitutional Council\u2019s\nnominations, the nominees will be automatically appointed. President Sirisena\ntherefore had no alternative but to appoint the persons recommended though he\nhad his reservations about them. They\nwere appointed for three years. The Chairman was Saliya Pieris, President\u2019s\nCounsel. The Sri Lanka Treasury\nallocated Rs 1.3 billion in the 2017 Budget for its operations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The\nsalaries of the members of the Office would be determined by Parliament and\nwill be paid out of the\nConsolidated Fund. Payments to the Chairman will include a monthly allowance of\nRs 100,000, a monthly telephone allowance of Rs 10,000 and an official vehicle\nwith a monthly quota of 225 litres of fuel. For the other members of the OMP, a\nmonthly allowance of Rs 75,000, a monthly telephone allowance of Rs 8,000 and a\nmonthly transport allowance of Rs 25,000 to a limit of 350 km or, a transport\nallowance of Rs 50,000 for a distance over and above 350 km, depending on the\ndistance from the residence to the office, will be paid. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Critics did not\ngreet the OMP Commissioners with admiration. All the ten members of the\nConstitutional Council are Yahapalanites and hence all members of the OMP are\nalso Yahapalanites, observed Chandraprema. The danger in a lot like that\nexercising the powers vested in the OMP should be obvious, he said. Given the\npresent composition of the OMP, can one even begin to imagine the implications\nthis will have for the country, he added. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

But\nJehan Perera, National Peace Council, said the government needs to be commended\nfor having established the OMP and for having appointed credible members to be\nits first commissioners. Apart from the former legal head of the army, the\nmembers include well respected human rights activists of long standing who have\nworked to uphold human rights in a non-partisan manner in the face of\nviolations by successive governments. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Act specified that members of the Office\nmust be persons with previous experience in fact finding or investigation,\nhuman rights law, international humanitarian law. This meant that\nthe appointees will for the most part be representatives of western funded NGOs,\nsaid critics. Looking at the people who have been appointed to the OMP that\nseems to be so, said Chandraprema. A howl of protest\nhas already arisen in this regard. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Manohara de Silva pointed out that the seven\nappointed members could delegate the work to others who need not be even Sri\nLankans. Foreigners can be appointed as officers and staff of the OMP as well.  OMP was free to establish committees,\ndivisions or units and can delegate its power to them.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Dayan\nJayatilleke     observed that OMPs were\nset up in Latin America for persons missing under military juntas. OMPs were also set up for mediation between\ngovernments and guerillas.  The situation\nin Sri Lanka is completely different. Sri Lanka is a democratic state with\ndemocratically elected government whose legitimate army fought a war strictly\nwithin its borders against a secessionist army and won an outright victory.\nNowhere in Asia, in the aftermath of such a war has a mechanism such as the OMP\nbeen set up concluded Jayatilleke. This OMP must be viewed together with war\ncrimes charges, hybrid courts, and purges of the armed forces as interlocking\ncomponents of Resolution 30\/1, said G.L.Pieris.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The \u2018Missing\nPersons\u2019 to be examined by the OMP were limited to those connected with armed\nconflict, political unrest and civil disturbances. Section 27 of the\nAct said, Unless the context otherwise requires, in this Act -missing person\u201d\nis a person missing in connection with the conflict which took place in the\nNorthern and Eastern Provinces or its aftermath, or is a members of the armed\nforces or police who is (ii) in connection with political unrest or civil\ndisturbances; or (iii) as an enforced disappearance as defined in the International\nConvention on Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearances\u201d. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The OMP Act equates\nterrorists and the armed force when it comes to \u2018missing persons\u2019, said\ncritics. When this was pointed out, Jehan Perera maintained that \u2018both are\nhuman beings and therefore have to be treated equally\u2019. Palitha Senanayake comments. This was the\ntype of thinking that these NGO\u2019s with their propaganda attempted to instill in\nthe \u2018educated and international\u2019 segment of the Sri Lanka society in the name\nof humanity, he said. This deranged\nthinking, treated the subversives who perpetrated crimes against humanity with\nkid gloves.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Office of Missing Persons (OMP) is no office\u201d\nat all,   denounced critics.  OMP is a quasi judicial body just one step\naway from a fully fledged war crimes tribunal. It can receive statements, examine\nwitnesses, issue summons and hold hearings. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

 OMP can\nsummon any person in Sri Lanka before it. Anyone who\nrefuses to cooperate with the OMP will be treated as contempt of court and punished by the Court of Appeal as though\nit were an offence against the Court of Appeal. \nOMP is equated with the Court of Appeal  \nfor this purpose, observed critics. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

An\nOMP officer can enter without warrant and investigate, day or night, any place\nof detention, police station, prison or any other place where a suspect is said\nto be detained, make inquiries and retain any documents or\nobjects. Government bodies at all levels including the armed forces and\nintelligence services are mandatorily required to render fullest assistance to\nthe OMP. All local\nauthorities ranked below the OMP. Information gathered by the OMP can be\nreferred to the relevant law enforcement or prosecuting authority. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

 The OMP had great immunity. Nothing that the\nOMP does can be called into question by any Court of law except the Supreme\nCourt under Articles 126 and 140 of the Constitution. However,\nas the OMP can withhold information under Section 15 of the Act, there will be\nno practical use in moving even the Supreme Court against the OMP said\nanalysts.  The Official Secrets Act and the Right to Information Act\nwill not apply to the work of the OMP, either. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

All officers of the OMP, including those to assist it have\nbeen granted complete immunity from civil and criminal liability for any act or\nomission on their part or the contents of any report they may publish. No\ncourt, not even the Supreme Court can order any officer of the OMP to submit to\ncourts any material communicated to him in confidence. Not even Supreme Court of Sri Lanka can\npenetrate this fog of secrecy, said G.L.Pieris \n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The OMP is empowered to entertain\ncomplaints not only from relations and friends of missing persons but from any\ninterested party, both local and foreign. Obviously, the pro-LTTE Diaspora\norganizations   will be heavily involved\nin the OMP, said Chandraprema.\nOMP can also initiate an inquiry on the basis of a secret complaint. This means that anyone can charge anyone\nelse in secret at the OMP, observed analysts.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The OMP Act\nallows the OMP to admit as evidence any statement or material, disregarding all\ncriteria laid down in the Evidence Ordinance. OMP can admit matters contrary to the\nEvidence Ordinance or matters considered inadmissible in civil or criminal\nproceedings. This is a gross travesty of natural justice, said G.L.Pieris.\nDisregarding the Evidence Ordinance will result in the safeguards available to any accused in this country\nbeing denied to those brought before the OMP.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

OMP can  \narrive at \u2018findings\u2019 relating to serious crimes like abduction and\nmurder without any of the routine safeguards available to suspects in ordinary\ncourts. They can admit any kind of\nevidence in building up a story against a person which could cause serious\ndamage to the reputation and career of that person. A person can be removed\nfrom the armed forces because a \u2018case\u2019 would have been built up against him in\nthe OMP without safeguards of the Evidence Ordinance,<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I do not think \nYahapalana or the OMP   has any\nintention of prosecuting anybody in Sri Lanka, they will get the\ninformation  and then prosecute abroad,\nbecause our government has agreed to universal jurisdiction, said  Manohara de Silva. Once the OMP\nmakes an allegation against an individual in a report, a foreign country can\nask for his extradition, to be either tried in that country or handed over to\nan international criminal tribunal for prosecution. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Lastly, if a person who is declared missing is\nfound, the OMP need not announce the fact. If a missing persons is found, if he\nso wishes he can remain missing, as unless he agrees, his relatives will not be\ninformed.  The missing person   may be hale and hearty and living abroad,\nobserved critics. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

 It was\npointed out that the workload of OMP would reduce substantially in the event\nmissing\/dead persons are found to be alive. International\norganizations and the USA accused Sri Lanka army of killing Kathiravelu Thyapararajah\nin the second week of September 2009. On May 06, 2014, he was arrested by the\nTamilnadu police in Dhanushkodi together with nine others, attempting to enter\nIndia without valid travel documents. Australia\nissued a new passport to Kumar Gunaratnam under the name Noel Mudalige. Jesuthasan\nAntonythasan, who was listed among the disappeared, starred in the film Dheepan\u201d\nwhich won an award at Cannes film festival in 2015. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Here\nis further information on the validity of this \u2018Disappeared\u2019 data. The US State\nDepartment Country report on Human rights, 2007 gave a list of 335\ndisappeared.  Government of Sri\nLanka  looked at this list and  found that 5 names had been duplicated, 6 had\nleft the island, 4 were traced  and they\nincluded a couple who had eloped,  4 had\ndied,  3 \nwere under arrest. 6 were Sri Lanka security personnel who had been\nkilled by a LTTE bomb. Their names had been altered to resemble Tamil names.  One disappeared person was actually an NGO.  106 cases listed in this document had not been\nreported to the police. The US embassy was asked to provide more information,\nwhich it did not do.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The first\nmeeting of the OMP and the relatives of the missing was arranged by an NGO, Families\nof the Disappeared\u201d, of the Right to Life\u201d movement.  Commissioners met with the family members of\nthe disappeared.  The OMP thereafter held\noutreach sessions in Jaffna, Mannar Matara, Mullaitivu and Trincomalee in\n2018.  These meetings followed a set pattern.\nThe Commissioners first met with families of the disappeared, then they met with\ncivil society organizations and activists working on disappearances. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The\nintroductory meeting of the OMP in Jaffna was disrupted by protestors while the\nintroductory meeting in Kilinochchi was entirely scuttled, reported Jehan\nPerera. The protestors in the North\ntook the position that they had no confidence in the OMP and instead demanded\nan international investigation as the only way to secure truth and justice for\nthe victims. They objected to the\ninclusion of a former Major General of the army among the seven members of the\nCommission. A battlefield commander of the Sri Lanka army would dominate the\nOMP and suppress the truth. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

However,\nat the public meeting in Jaffna which was eventually held over the opposition\nof the protestors, it was revealed that this Commissioner, a former major\ngeneral of the army, was the head of the division which pursued internal legal\nprocesses against delinquent army personnel. The\nCommissioner was a woman and was Tamil. \nWhen they got to know this, the families of missing persons directed all\ntheir questions and hopes at her, said Jehan.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The OMP Commission\nissued an Interim Report in August 2018 after six months of work. Individuals suspected of having committed\nenforced disappearances and related offences are being permitted to remain in\npositions of power, said the report, especially within the armed forces and the\npolice, where they can influence the progress of an investigation. There have\nbeen instances where members of the armed forces, who were willing to provide\ninformation on disappearances, were subject to harassment. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The OMP notes\nwith concern that in at least one case, an officer of the armed forces who is a\nsuspect in an on-going court case relating to abductions and enforced\ndisappearances has neither been suspended nor removed from exercising the\nduties and functions of his office. It is reported in at least one case an\nofficer has been granted a promotion within the armed forces, whilst the case\nagainst him is still pending. Such suspected officers should be suspended from\nexercising the duties and functions of their office, said the Interim report.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The most\nimmediate issue the missing persons\u2019 families are undergoing is the economic\nhardships.  This cannot wait until a\nfinal reparations scheme is devised, said the OMP.  OMP proposes a debt-relief programme, housing\ndevelopment programme, educational support programme, vocational training and\nlivelihood development programmes to the family members of the\nmissing\/disappeared. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Families of\nthe missing or disappeared should be a separate priority category within the\nexisting housing programmes of the Ministry of Housing and the introduction of\na scholarship scheme under the Ministry of Education for the children of the\nmissing or disappeared in the form of a monthly allowance of Rs. 2,000 to cover\nessential educational expenses required for the completion of their primary and\nsecondary education. These families should be included in a priority category\nin a debt relief programme that would either write off debts such as micro\nfinance loans or in a financial aid programme or loan scheme. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

OMP    suggested\na monthly living allowance of Rs.6, 000 to the surviving spouse, child\/children\nand\/or surviving parents of a missing or disappeared parent who has no\npermanent income, until the final preparations are provided.   Also an\nemployment quota of 1% to family members of the missing\/disappeared when vacancies\nin the public and semi-governmental sectors are filled. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

 A lot of publicity was given to this subject\nof \u2018Missing Persons\u2019 around this time. Family members of disappeared persons\nacross Sri Lanka came together and shared their stories of struggle and\nsuffering on the International Day of the Disappeared in September 2018. \u201d\nHundreds of family members attended this OMP event, but some observed that such\nacts of solidarity and remembrance can only go so far. We have commemorated\ndisappearances for many years. Commemorating is not enough. The government\nshould take concrete action. The OMP is the last hope for us.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

 Sri Lanka has one of the world\u2019s highest\nnumber of disappearances, with a backlog of between 60,000 and 100,000 alleged\ndisappearances since the late 1980s, said Amnesty International . Amnesty\nInternational has called on the Sri Lankan government to provide\ninformation to the families of the disappeared, with detailed lists and\ninformation of persons who surrendered to the armed forces in the final phase\nof the war. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Amnesty\nInternational\u2019s report, “Only Justice can heal our\nwounds”, was launched in April 2017, at a meeting with families of\nthe disappeared in Mannar. The report tells the story of relatives, many of\nthem women, who have spent years searching for truth and justice. Sri Lanka\nwill not break with its violent past until it reckons with the cruel history of\nenforced disappearance and delivers justice to as many as 100,000 families who\nhave spent years waiting for it, the report said. The authorities have failed\nto investigate these cases, identify the whereabouts or fate of the victim, or\nprosecute those suspected of the crimes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

“There\nis no community in Sri Lanka that remains untouched by the trauma of enforced\ndisappearance. Most people in the country suffer the absence of a loved one or\nknow someone who does. They have waited years, and in some cases, decades, to\nlearn of the fate of their relatives. Until justice is delivered to these\nvictims, the country cannot begin to heal, let alone move towards a more\npromising future,” said Salil Shetty, Amnesty International\u2019s Secretary\nGeneral. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Amnesty\nInternational has focused attention on those taken away by the army. AI has\ncalled on the Sri Lankan government to provide information to the families\nof the disappeared, with detailed lists and information of persons who\nsurrendered to the armed forces in the final phase of the war. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Amnesty\nInternational  said according to\nsurviving family members, more than 100 cadres of the LTTE, who surrendered to\nthe Sri Lankan army near the Vadduvaikkal Bridge in Mullaitivu at the end of\nthe war in May 2009, have subsequently disappeared. One group of surrenders was\nled by Father Francis Joseph, a Catholic Priest who was disappeared thereafter.\nAccording to family members who witnessed the surrenders, they were transported\nfrom the site by the army in a convoy of buses: their fate and whereabouts\nsince then remain unknown. They claim to have last seen their family members in\nthe custody of the 58th Division of the Sri Lankan Army. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Minoli Salgado  conducted a workshop on Writing Truths: The\nPower of Testimony, In September 2018. Jehan Perera attended this workshop. As\npart of the workshop methodology, the participants were asked to share a story\nof a war victim that they had heard from the person sitting next to them.  Sitting next to me was a female and she told\nme this story of a mother who had lost her daughter, said Jehan. It was the\nlast days of the war in May 2009. About a hundred youth in an area were rounded\nup by the Sri Lankan military and put into a bus. The daughter of the woman was\none of them. The mother got onto the bus along with another mother. They were\npermitted to travel for a while but at a certain point they were offloaded and\nthe bus went on. They never saw their children again. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Jehan\nPerera says the Tamil people are united \non  the position that those who\nare families of victims who went missing have a right to know what happened to\nthem, especially those who were handed over by their families to the Sri Lankan\nsecurity forces and disappeared thereafter. Political\nopponents of the government have been alleging that the OMP is meant to find\nevidence against the Sri Lankan security forces and take them to international\nwar crimes tribunals and The Hague. They have accused the government of\nbetraying the security forces. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Pt 2 INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION FOR THEPROTECTION OF ALL PERSONS\nFROM ENFORCED DISAPPEARANCE, ACT NO 5 OF 2018, <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The  UN  International Convention for the Protection\nof All Persons from Enforced Disappearance (ICPPED) is an international human rights instrument<\/a> of the United Nations<\/a> and intended to prevent forced disappearance<\/a> defined in\ninternational law, crimes against humanity<\/a>. The text\nwas adopted by the United Nations General Assembly<\/a> on 20\nDecember 2006 and opened for signature on 6 February 2007. It entered into\nforce on 23 December 2010. As of September 2018, 98 states have signed the\nconvention and 59 have ratified it. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

 This Convention makes Enforced Disappearance\ncarried out by state agencies into a crime and provides mechanisms to ensure\nindividual criminal responsibility for these acts. But enforced disappearance\nby non-state actors are excluded. This means that non-state agents can evade\ninternational criminal responsibility for acts of enforced disappearance, said\nanalysts.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Sri Lanka signed the International Convention\nfor the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance on December 10,\n2015 and it entered into force in June 2016. Article 2 of ICPPED stated  “For the purposes of this Convention,\n\u2018enforced disappearance\u2019 is considered to be the arrest, detention, abduction\nor any other form of deprivation of liberty by agents of the State or those\nsupported by the State, followed by concealment of the whereabouts of the\ndisappeared person. There are no exceptions. \u2018Enforced Disappearances\u2019 cannot\nbe justified even in an emergency, observed Ladduwahetty. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Convention is\napplicable   therefore only to State\nActors, which means that this is aimed only at the armed forces. Any arrests,\nprosecutions, requests for extradition or handing over to international\ncriminal courts of Sri Lankans by interested foreign governments will only\napply to Sri Lankan armed forces personnel or other agents of the State. No\naction will be taken by any foreign country against LTTE members, because\nICPPED does not include non-State actors. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Article 10 of this Convention makes it clear\nthat any State in whose territory a person (who can be a citizen of any other\nmember state) suspected of having committed an offence of enforced\ndisappearance is present, can take that person into custody.  In other words, any person suspected of causing enforced\ndisappearances can be arrested in the home state or any other member state. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

 According to Article 11, after making an\narrest in that manner, the member state concerned can take one of three\nalternative courses of action – (a) extradite that person to another country in\naccordance with its international obligations, (b) prosecute that person under\nits own laws or (c) hand him over for prosecution to an international criminal\ntribunal whose jurisdiction that member state has recognized.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Article 13 says states that any member\nstate may request the extradition of a person suspected of being responsible\nfor enforced disappearances in any other member state and all member states\nmust respect such requests for extradition. Because Sri Lanka is now a\nsignatory to the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons\nfrom Enforced Disappearance, the provisions of Articles 10, 11 and 13 form a\npart of our obligations under this Convention. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

 Article\n32 enables any member State to complain to the 10-member \u2018Committee on Enforced\nDisappearances\u2019 in Geneva that Sri Lanka is not fulfilling her obligations\nunder this Convention and the Committee can investigate such complaints. Put together, this means that foreign\ncountries which are members of the ICPPED will have complete jurisdiction over\nSri Lankans who are alleged to have carried out enforced disappearances in Sri\nLanka. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

UN Working group on Enforced Disappearances\n(UNWGEID) arrived in 2015   at the\ninvitation of the Government of Sri Lanka \nto study the situation and make a report of their visit to the UNHRC.\nThe UNWGEID forms part of the Special Procedures trick imposed on the UN\nsystem, said Kamal Wickremasinghe.  This involved the deployment of independent\nhuman rights experts or groups of such experts, drawn from vassal NGOs to\nreport and advice on Human Rights issues. UNWGEID said it supported the\nestablishment of an OMP .They said the government must issue clear instructions\nat all level of the military security and law enforcement forces that all types\nof threats, harassment and intimidation towards families searching for their\nloved one must immediate cease, and will be severely sanctioned.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Bill known as Enforced Disappearances Bill\nwas brought  to incorporate into the law\nof Sri Lanka, the provisions of the UN Convention. The Bill was scheduled to be taken up for\ndebate on July 5 and September 19, 2016 but the Government had to defer it due\nto objections of various groups. The Joint Opposition raised objections to the\nBill stating that it posed a threat to the security forces.  The Bill was aimed only at punishing the\narmed forces with the LTTE getting off scot free for the many thousands of enforced\ndisappearances that they were responsible for. They wanted the Bill withdrawn.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Critics observed\nthat all matters that relate to an enforced disappearance, such as abduction,\nillegal confinement, murder and the illegal disposal of dead bodies are more\nthan adequately covered by the Penal Code and the existing criminal law in Sri\nLanka. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

 G.L.Pieris reported that ambassadors of\nseveral EU nations had been present at the meeting held in December 2016, to\nfinalize the new Bill. Those present included the British High Commissioner,\nAmbassadors of France, European Union, Netherlands, Germany, Italy, and\nRomania. Pieris deplored the fact that the ambassadors of foreign countries\nwere directly involved in the process of drafting legislation which related to\nthe public security of the country. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Human\nRights Commission of Sri Lanka had wanted the Bill to be presented in\nParliament<\/p>\n\n\n\n

saying that\nthat this legislation is a positive step towards addressing the long history of\ndisappearances in Sri Lanka and stemming impunity for human rights. The\nGovernment presented the Bill in Parliament on March 7, 2017.  The Bill was passed and the International\nConvention for the Protection of all persons from Enforced Disappearance Act no\n5 of 2018, came into existence. This Act made Enforced Disappearance committed\nby state actors into a crime which could be prosecuted in a law court.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Bill was\npassed with a majority of 37 votes, obtaining 53 votes in favor and 16 votes\nagainst.  A total of 156 members were\nabsent. The Second Reading of the Bill received 53 votes in favor and 19 votes\nagainst, and the number of votes against the Bill reduced further at the Third\nReading vote, reported the media. The Bill was passed without amendments,\namidst disturbances from the Joint Opposition. The JO said that they had not\nreceived a copy of the document. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Critics observed\nthat the government passed the Prevention of Enforced Disappearances Act No: 5\nwhen the attention of the whole nation was focused on the Sinhala-Muslim riots\nthat broke out in the Kandy district. They passed this law despite repeated\nrequests from the Mahanayaka Theras and the Karaka Sangha Sabhas of all three\nnikayas to jettison it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Chandraprema\ncommented on the provisions of this Act. Section 8 of\nthis Act enables foreign countries to seek the extradition of a Sri Lankan who\nis suspected, accused or convicted of having caused enforced disappearances in\nSri Lanka. When such a request is made, the government of Sri Lanka is obliged\nto inform the foreign country of the measures it intends taking to prosecute or\nextradite that person. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Section 14 says (1) Every victim and\nrelative of a victim shall have the right to know the truth regarding the\ncircumstances of an enforced disappearance, the progress and results of the investigation\nas are carried out by the law enforcement authorities, and the fate of the\ndisappeared person. (2) Every victim and relative of a victim shall, subject to\nrestrictions placed by law, have the right to form and freely participate in\norganizations and associations concerned with attempting to establish the\ncircumstances of offences committed under section 3 and the fate of disappeared\npersons, and to assist victims of offences under section 3. (3) Where there are\nreasonable grounds for believing that a person has been subjected to an offence\nunder section 3, law enforcement authorities shall undertake an investigation,\neven if there has been no formal complaint. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Clause 21 seeks\nto give \u2018full effect\u2019 to the International Convention Against Disappearances in\nSri Lanka. Clause 23 says the Act will override all other written law. the provisions of this Act shall have\neffect notwithstanding anything to the contrary in any other written law and\naccordingly in the event of any inconsistency or conflict between the\nprovisions of this Act and such other written law, the provisions of this Act\nshall prevail.”  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Because Sri Lanka\nis now a signatory to the International Convention for the Protection of All\nPersons from Enforced Disappearance, the provisions of Articles 10, 11 and 13\nof ICPPED form a part of our obligations under this Convention. When you read\nArticles 10, 11 and 13 of the International Convention Against Enforced\nDisappearances together with Sections 8 and 21 of Act No: 5 of 2018 show the\ngravity of this legislation, said Chandraprema. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

the Bill seeks to\ngive foreign countries complete and untrammeled criminal jurisdiction over Sri\nLankans with regard to \u2018enforced disappearances.\u2019 Foreign countries which are\nmembers of the ICPPED now have complete jurisdiction over Sri Lankans who are\nalleged to have been involved in causing enforced disappearances in Sri Lanka.\nAny member state of this international convention can get a Sri Lankan\nextradited to their country, to be prosecuted or handed over to an\ninternational criminal tribunal. When a foreign country which has complete\njurisdiction over Sri Lankans in that manner arrests a person on suspicion over\nan offence relating to this convention, and that foreign country also happens\nto be a member of the International Criminal Court, that person can be handed\nover to the ICC to be dealt with as they would a citizen of the foreign country\nthat carried out the arrest.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This\nBill seeks to enable foreign countries to request the extradition of a Sri\nLankan who is suspected, accused or convicted of having caused enforced\ndisappearances in Sri Lanka. Under this law foreign countries would also be\nauthorized to arrest and try Sri Lankans for disappearances that allegedly took\nplace in Sri Lanka and even to hand over persons so arrested to an\ninternational criminal tribunal even if Sri Lanka does not come under the\njurisdiction of that international tribunal.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The proposed law is an attempt to subject our\narmed forces to international war crimes prosecutions without using the term\n\u2018war crimes\u2019 and rephrasing it as \u2018disappearances\u2019. The use of the word \u2018disappearances\u2019 makes\nthis look like an attempt to trace missing persons. But the purpose of this\nBill is not to trace missing persons but to hunt down and prosecute those who\nwon the war. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The only \u2018disappeared\u2019 persons, whose cases\nwill be dealt with under this proposed law, will be those of the LTTE because\nthe armed forces have already categorized the thousands of soldiers who\ndisappeared as \u2018assumed to be dead\u2019. However LTTE\ncombatants who have either died in battle or fled overseas still continue to be\ncategorized as having \u2018disappeared\u2019 by all interested parties, said\nChandraprema. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Many countries\nhave kept away from this Convention altogether, because of its intrusive\nnature, observed critics,  Australia,\nBritain, Canada, China, Russia and\nPakistan and United States have not signed this Convention. Denmark, Finland,\nIreland, India, Norway and Sweden signed but never ratified it.”  Sri Lanka was therefore signing a convention\nwhich other countries were avoiding, observed Mahinda Rajapaksa. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

 G.L.Pieris  \nobserved that that the United States, Britain, Australia and Canada, had\nnot signed this Convention. USA\u2019s policy is that no foreign government can try\nan American soldier. Scandinavian\ncountries which are usually at the forefront of any human rights initiative had\nsigned it in 2007, but never ratified it. India\nalso had signed it in 2007, but had never ratified it. Yet Sri Lanka had signed and ratified this\nConvention within a few months.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Pieris   pointed out that this Bill would apply to\nthe past as well under Article 13(6) of the Constitution of Sri Lanka. Prof.\nPieris charged that this Bill was probably not even drafted here but sent from\noverseas He said that Clause 23 enables the proposed law to supersede all other\nwritten laws in Sri Lanka giving it a status akin to the Constitution. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Pieris said\nthat earlier the controversy was about whether foreign judges should be allowed\nto serve in a war crimes tribunal in Sri Lanka but that now the government\nseems to have changed their strategy and instead of bringing foreign judges\nhere, they are trying through this proposed legislation to send our armed\nforces personnel overseas to be tried by interested foreign governments. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Pieris\npointed out that this legislation seeks to circumvent the safeguards in Sri\nLanka\u2019s Extradition Law No 8 of 1977. One of those protections was that no\nperson can be extradited for an offence of a political nature.  This protection which is also enshrined in\ncustomary international law is specifically taken away and furthermore, through\nthis Act, it becomes possible to send Sri Lankans for indictment to The Hague\nthrough a foreign country. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

the purpose of\nthis law is to take our war veterans to be tried in other countries.  Allowing our war veterans to be tried in\nother countries for alleged crimes committed here is worse than being tried by\nan international criminal tribunal. an international criminal tribunal is a\nmultilateral body whereas another country is a different matter altogether. No one who is prosecuted in the courts of a\nforeign country or by an international criminal tribunal which is controlled by\na foreign country can really expect justice. Such prosecutions are always\npolitically motivated. If the country\ncarrying out the arrest has accepted the jurisdiction of the ICC then any Sri\nLankan who is arrested in such a country or is extradited to such a country by\nour own government can in fact be handed over to the ICC at the Hague. The ICC\nis the only standing international criminal tribunal.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

anyone can be\nextradited to another state on a mere accusation. Such accusations could\noriginate in Sri Lanka or elsewhere. the Bill has no provision for any\nprocedures that should be followed within Sri Lanka or outside; not even a\npreliminary investigation, except for what the Minister in charge of the\nsubject decides. The lack of any formal procedures to establish the credibility\nof the accusation prior to extradition presents ample opportunities for\nvictimization.  Further, this law is\nretroactive . The Bill can apply to someone who disappeared 10 or even 20 years\nago .<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The government\nwent out of its way to defend the Bill. The persistent campaign of\nmisinformation that the Yahapalana government \nconducted on the matter and the fact that it was presented to Parliament\ntwice despite public protests and the opposition of the Maha Sangha, shows how\nimportant this piece of proposed legislation is in the Yahapalana scheme of\nthings, observed Chandraprema. Why was the Yahapalana government so interested\nin pushing this legislation? <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The government made a deliberate bid to deceive the masses by repeatedly\nclaiming that the Bill wouldn\u2019t be retroactive. There was an\nessay on a website titled “Extradition Clause in Enforced Disappearances\nBill is Identical to Section 7(2) of Torture Act No 22 of 1994 .This article sought to argue that\nClause 8 of the Bill is identical to Section 7(2) of the Convention Against\nTorture Act, No. 22 of 1994. The author of this article stated that both\ndocuments had a provision for extradition .<\/em>On this basis, the author\nof this article argued that there is absolutely nothing to worry about in\nClause 8 of the proposed Disappearances Bill because this was a standard Clause\nand that we have had an identical provision in a very similar statute for over 20\nyears. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Chandraprema had\npointed out thatthat Clause 8 of the\nBill refers to Sri Lankans whose extradition has been requested by foreign\ncountries due to enforced disappearances. But the 1994 Act refers to foreign\nnationals wanted in their own countries over allegations of torture, who may\nhappen to be in Sri Lanka. thereafter\nthere were no more well argued articles from the Yahapalana camp on the matter.\nIt appears that since it is not possible to argue the matter out, the best\nfallback position is to resort to an outright campaign of lies and\nmisinformation, Chandraprema commented. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The\nOffice on Missing Persons (OMP) has recommended amendments to the Enforced\nDisappearance Act. The Office of Missing Persons has recommended\nt he suspension of state officials, including members of the armed forces and\npolice who are named as suspects or are indicted in cases relating to\nabductions and enforced disappearances till the final determination of those\ncases. It has also recommended to provide adequate material and human resources\nto law enforcement officers, the Attorney-General\u2019s Department as well as the\njudiciary to investigate, prosecute and punish perpetrators of enforced\ndisappearances. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Some\nindividuals suspected of having committed enforced disappearances and related\noffences are being permitted to remain in positions of power\u2014especially within\nthe armed forces and the police\u2014where they can influence the progress of an\ninvestigation, continued the report. There have been instances where members of\nthe armed forces, who were willing to provide information on disappearances,\nwere subject to harassment. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Pt 3 THE OFFICE FOR REPARATIONS<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Office\nfor Reparations bill was passed in Parliament in October 2018 with a majority\nof 16 votes. It received 59 votes in favor, while 43 votes against, following a\ndivision called by the Joint Opposition. The UNP, SLFP members in the\nGovernment and the TNA voted in favor of the Bill. The JVP MPs were absent. The\nJoint Opposition together with the \u2018SLFP Group of 15,\u2019 voted against. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Office\nfor Reparations will consist of five members appointed by the President on the\nrecommendation of the Constitution Council and will be answerable to\nParliament. Provision has been made for the functioning of regional, temporary\nor mobile offices as may be necessary, to ensure that reparations are\naccessible to victims and their relatives. The main Office\nis\nto be a situated in Colombo.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The\nRehabilitation of Persons, Properties and Industries Authority Act, No. 29 of\n1987 would be repealed by the new Bill  and\nall funds presently lying to the credit of the Authority will be taken over.\nThe Office will also receive such sums as may be voted upon by Parliament and\nthe money received from outside Sri Lanka.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The\nidea of setting up an Office for Reparations was obviously inspired by the\nSouth African example where a Committee of Reparations was set up under the\nTruth and Reconciliation Commission that came into being after the agreement to\nend the Apartheid regime in South Africa in 1995. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

However\nthe circumstances that led to reparations in South Africa were very different\nto the situation in Sri Lanka. In South Africa, there was a white minority\ndominating a black majority. There was genuine oppression in South Africa based\non race and the victims who were to be awarded reparations were easily\nidentifiable. This was not the case in Sri Lanka. In Sri Lanka it was a case of\narmed groups attempting to seize control of a part of the country.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Office is\nempowered to receive recommendations as to reparations from the Office of\nMissing Persons, to receive claims from victims of serious human rights\nviolations for monetary and non-monetary reparations, and also to verify the\nauthenticity of the claims and assess eligibility.  The Office must  also formulate and recommend reparations\npolicies to the Cabinet,   provide\ncriteria for eligibility, also for the \nform and quantum of reparations and the prioritizing of the claims. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

In\nformulating policies on reparations, and issuing guidelines, the Office for Reparations\nis required to consult aggrieved persons, organizations representing aggrieved\npersons and any other authority, or body of persons, and to have a\nvictim-centered approach. the reference to \u2018organizations representing\naggrieved persons\u2019 can only mean the various pro-LTTE and independent Tamil\nDiaspora organizations headquartered in foreign capitals, said Chandraprema. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The\nOffice for Reparations Act applied only to those in four specific situations.\nThese are:  in the context of the war\nthat took place in the Northern and Eastern Provinces, in connection with\npolitical unrest of civil disturbances, in the course of systemic gross\nviolations of the rights of individuals, groups or communities of people in Sri\nLanka or due to an enforced disappearance.  Jehan Perera noted that  does not exclude the LTTE members or their\nfamilies from receiving reparations if they have suffered human rights\nviolations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The\nOffice   also has to provide protection,\nwith the assistance of law enforcement authorities, to victims or their\nrelatives under threat. The term\n\u2018victim\u2019 has been defined to include a person who has suffered a serious violation\nof human rights or humanitarian law as a result of the conflict in the North\nand East or its aftermath, in connection with political unrest or civil\ndisturbances or in the course of systemic, gross violations of the rights of\nindividuals, groups or communities of the people of Sri Lanka or due to an\nenforced disappearance. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Jehan\nPerera said that at a workshop for community leaders and members of the Youth\nParliament in the Ratnapura district, When the Office for Reparations was  discussed, some of the participants said that\nthe Office for Reparations would be compensating LTTE members and their\nfamilies and this was not an appropriate or just use of national resources.\nThey pointed out that it was an inequitable use of government resources to use\nfunds to compensate LTTE members and their families when the LTTE\u2019s primary\nfocus was on dividing the country. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

MP Susil Prem\nJayantha questioned in Parliament as to why the Act, then a Bill, had given\nweight to the people in the North and the East when it comes to paying\ncompensation.   This Bill does not provide for reparation to be paid\nto those who were killed by bombs set off by the LTTE in Colombo. Don\u2019t they\nhave a right to reparation payments as well?\u201d he asked.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The\nAct provides for the provision of individual and collective reparations for\naggrieved persons. Under the individual reparations,\u201d the Bill facilitates any\nmonetary payment or material benefit provided to an aggrieved person,\nmicro-finance and concessionary loans, educational programmes, training and\nskills development programmes, administrative assistance and welfare services,\nincluding psycho-social support provided to an aggrieved person, measures of\nrestitution, including the provision of land and housing and other appropriate\nmeasures identified by the Office for Reparations. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Under\nthe Collective reparations,\u201d the Bill facilitates development of\ninfrastructure, educational programmes, training and skills development\nprogrammes, community development programmes or services and other appropriate\nprogrammes as identified by the Office of Reparations in consultation with\naffected communities. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Collective\nreparation also  includes \u2018specialized\npolicies on public education\u2019 and \u2018memorialization\u2019.  Memorialization has been borrowed straight from\nSouth Africa, observed Chandraprema. In\nSri Lanka  the memorialization will\ninclude LTTE. Memorialization of LTTE is a problematic matter. It is unlikely\nto be received well by the people who were at the receiving end of this terror\nsaid Chandraprema. Similarly, specialized policies on public education\u2019 would\nsuggest portraying the LTTE as heroes of the Tamils in school textbooks. This would be ok in South Africa but in Sri\nLanka would be totally unacceptable, concluded Chandraprema.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Any\nquantum of compensation decided on by the Office for Reparations should accord\nwith reason and be subject to a limit as in South Africa, said Chandraprema. The Office of Reparations law has in fact\nprovided for such limits by providing that in formulating policies on\nreparations, the reparations already received by the aggrieved persons with\nregard to the violation of the right in question will have to be taken into\naccount. In deciding the quantum of monetary reparations, the availability of\nresources, has to be taken into account. It has also been provided that in\ngranting individual reparations which are monetary, the need to restrict such\nreparations to aggrieved persons who have the most serious grievance and the\nlevel of need and the indigence of the aggrieved persons have to be taken into\nconsideration in granting monetary reparations. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

However,\nThe Act has specifically provided that “\u2026the receipt of reparations shall\nnot preclude aggrieved persons from pursuing any remedy available in law to\nsuch persons, against any person who may have violated the rights of such\npersons.” That is not right and the government should review this\nprovision. Nobody should be able to claim reparations from the state and then\nclaim damages from real or imagined violators of human rights through civil\nactions, said Chandraprema. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

 The\ngovernment has in fact gazetted another Bill which enables victims to file\ncivil actions against people they think were responsible for the deaths or\ndisappearances of family members. If a person has been convicted by a court of\nlaw of causing the disappearance or death of a person will in addition to any\nother punishment ordered by the court, also have to pay compensation to the\nvictim. If it has not been established that a person has committed a particular\ncrime, making it possible for any party to initiate court action against\nsomeone they think was responsible for the deaths of their next of kin, will be\nyet another way of harassing armed forces personnel and law enforcement\nofficers, said Chandraprema.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In\nJuly 2018, Media reported that \nD.M.Swaminathan Rehabilitation, Resettlement and Hindu Religious Affairs\nMinister, had submitted for the third week in a row, a Cabinet Paper which\nproposed to pay reparations for families of dead LTTE cadres. He wanted\nenhanced compensation\u201d paid to Tiger guerrilla ex-combatants who were defeated\nin the separatist war that ended in 2009 and their next of kin. He said this was based on an LLRC\nrecommendation.  This  Cabinet Memorandum was rejected. The Cabinet\nPaper had been deferred over the last two weeks but this time, due to continued\nprotests from ministers, it  was stopped\nfor good, reported the media  on 20.6.18.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Swaminathan\nhad  forwarded two other Cabinet\nmemoranda at the same time. Second memorandum related to the payment of\nspecial compensation\u201d to Beruwala and Aluthgama families who lost their\nproperties\u201d due to the incidents that took place between June 15, 2014 and June\n16, 2014. He had sought Rs 185,962,050 to pay compensation for the affected\npersons in accordance with the recommendations made by a Valuation Committee\nappointed by the District Secretary. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The\nthird memorandum is for relocation of families who live in welfare centers in\nthe Jaffna District.\u201d According to Minister Swaminathan, in the Jaffna District\nthere are 34,248 families who were temporarily resettled in their own land up\ntill October 31, 2017 and 721 families are yet to be resettled from 29 welfare\ncenters. In addition, 8,987 families need to be resettled as they are living\nwith friends and relatives in the Jaffna District. I think these two memoranda are still\npending.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

One\ncannot but help notice the expeditious manner in which the Yahapalana\ngovernment had been fulfilling the pledges given to their international masters\nwhile taking little interest in fulfilling the pledges they gave in 2015 to the\nlocal population such as abolishing the executive presidency and reforming the\nelectoral system, observed Chandraprema. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The names of the Commissioners were announced\nin April 2019 and the Office for Reparations was due to start functioning\nhtereafter. President\nMaithripala Sirisena has appointed former Ministry Secretary Dhara Wijayatilake\nthe Chairperson of the Office for Reparations. The other members of the Office\nfor Reparations are retired Lieutenant Colonel W.W. Rathnapriya Bandu, Dr. J.M.\nSwaminathan, Sellathambi Sumithra and A.A.M Faththeeu. The appointments are\neffective from April 1. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Whereas both institutions could be\nexpected to achieve a certain degree of success in their endeavors, its work is\nalso hampered due to the fact that of western nations vehemently refuse to\ndivulge identities of LTTE cadre who have been granted asylum and new\nidentities. . Both OMP and Office of Reparation would lose credibility should\nit be the case that a death certificate is issued and his\/her family members\ngranted reparations was to be discovered living in the west. The government will\nfind it difficult to explain such a situation to the general public. (Continued) <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Last Revised 12.6.19 In 2015,    the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva approved a Resolution titled   Promoting reconciliation, accountability and human rights in Sri Lanka\u201d. (UNHRC Resolution 30\/1). Sri Lanka\u2019s     Yahapalana government supported the Resolution.   This Resolution included inter alia,  provisions  to establish an  Office  of Missing  Persons  and  an  Office  for  Reparations ,   to […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":true,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[104],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-84456","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-kamalika-pieris"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lankaweb.com\/news\/items\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/84456","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lankaweb.com\/news\/items\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lankaweb.com\/news\/items\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lankaweb.com\/news\/items\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lankaweb.com\/news\/items\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=84456"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.lankaweb.com\/news\/items\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/84456\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lankaweb.com\/news\/items\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=84456"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lankaweb.com\/news\/items\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=84456"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lankaweb.com\/news\/items\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=84456"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}