{"id":97632,"date":"2020-01-11T23:08:05","date_gmt":"2020-01-12T05:08:05","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.lankaweb.com\/news\/items\/?p=97632"},"modified":"2020-01-26T17:43:44","modified_gmt":"2020-01-27T00:43:44","slug":"erasing-the-eelam-victory-part-10-h","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.lankaweb.com\/news\/items\/2020\/01\/11\/erasing-the-eelam-victory-part-10-h\/","title":{"rendered":"ERASING THE EELAM VICTORY Part 10 H"},"content":{"rendered":"

KAMALIKA PIERIS<\/em><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n

Revised 26.1.20<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This essay    deals with two\nmatters, the Report of Consultation Task Force on Transitional Justice and\nReconciliation\u2019 (Muttetuwegama Report) and   Yahapalana\u2018s proposed amendments to the\nPrevention of Terrorism Act.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

CONSULTATION TASK FORCE ON TRANSITIONAL JUSTICE AND RECONCILIATION\u2019<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In January 2016 \n Prime Minister Ranil\nWickremesinghe   appointed an 11 member body styled the\n\u2018Consultation Task Force on Transitional Justice and Reconciliation\u2019 comprising\nof the following individuals. Manouri Muttetuwegama – Chairperson , Pakiasothy\nSaravanamuttu – Secretary, Shantha Abhimanasingham PC, Visaka Dharmadasa, Dr.\nFarzana Haniffa The existing PTA sought to give the government additional teeth\nto combat offences such as killing, abducting or intimidating specified\npersons such as politicians, members of the armed forces, police and government\nservants, the robbery of state property and banks, the collection, possession\nor manufacture of firearms and explosives or carrying out propaganda promoting\nthe commission of acts of violence or causing religious, or communal\ndisharmony, said Chandraprema. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

, K. W. Janaranjana, Prof. Sitralega Maunaguru, Mirak Raheem, Prof.\nGameela Samarasinghe, Prof. Daya Somasundaram and Gamini Viyangoda. .<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This task force put out a voluminous report. The report quickly\ndisappeared from the public radar, said Chandraprema. However, Chandraprema has\nseen the report. He says the Report makes the following observations and\nrecommendations. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

1. The establishment of a secular state as a starting point for\nreconciliation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

2. The cessation of military involvement in civilian affairs, economic\nactivities and civil administration.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

3. Return of civilian lands acquired by the forces.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

4. The release of detainees (LTTE) who have not been charged under the\nPTA or other laws.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

5. The repeal of the PTA<\/p>\n\n\n\n

6. A political and constitutional settlement of the conflict as a\n\u2018pivotal\u2019 prerequisite for reconciliation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

7. The \u2018occupation\u2019 of land by the military and other state agencies such\nas the Forest Department, is an impediment to reconciliation,<\/p>\n\n\n\n

8. As is the \u2018secondary occupation\u2019 of lands and fishing waters by\nmembers of other ethnic communities<\/p>\n\n\n\n

.9. Symbolic reparations in the form of official acknowledgment and\napologies should be made by the state.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

10. Monuments to be erected for lives lost in incidents such as massacres\nor disappearances.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

11. Observance of \u2018Maaveerar Dinam\u2019 is allowed to continue<\/p>\n\n\n\n

.12. Families of deceased LTTE cadres, be permitted to hang a photograph\nof their son or daughter in LTTE uniform, in their homes<\/p>\n\n\n\n

.13. The restoration of burial plots of LTTE cadres to family members and\nthe removal of all buildings subsequently erected on them.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

14. The establishment of a Truth, Justice, Reconciliation and\nNon-recurrence Commission (TJRNRC) as an investigative body that would refer\ncases of criminal acts to a prosecutorial body.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

15. No amnesties would be granted by the Truth Commission.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

16. The findings of the Truth etc Commission to be included in school\ntext-books.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

17. A Special Court and Prosecutor be set up to try war crimes with the\nparticipation of international judges, prosecutors and investigators.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

18. No LTTE members should be prosecuted by this Special Court because\nthey have been through rehabilitation or have been prosecuted under the\nexisting judicial system. The focus instead should be on leaders of the LTTE\nwho were allied to the government or LTTE leaders assumed to be living abroad.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

19. Phased demobilisation of security forces with an attractive early\nretirement package which could include pensions, admissions to schools for\nchildren, alternative civilian employment etc.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

20. A national policy on victim centeredness is recommended and page 152\nof the main report stresses the need for victims to \u2018own\u2019 the Truth etc\nCommission.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

21. The indispensable role of \u2018civil society\u2019 in a transitional justice\nprocess be recognized legally.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

22. District level State officials are to be instructed to work with\n\u2018civil society\u2019<\/p>\n\n\n\n

.23. Funding of the judicial mechanism could be from the UN and the\nshortfall met through international \u2018voluntary contributions\u2019. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Nobody in this country is going to accept that these are views that have\nbeen formed after consulting the public.  They are so over the top. This reads more like\na wish list written by a group of foreign funded NGO owners in a state of deep\nintoxication, said Chandraprema.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Chandraprema discusses some of the recommendations. The report says the\ngovernment should seriously consider establishing a secular state. What they\nmean by this is the removal of the special place accorded to Buddhism in the\nconstitution.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Sri Lanka has never been a theocracy. The special place accorded to\nBuddhism in the constitution is an acknowledgement of an age old tradition\nwhich is dear to the majority community in this country. Even though Buddhism\nis accorded a special place in the constitution, the state does not\ndiscriminate against other religions in this country. Quite on the contrary,\neven in an era when religious freedom was unknown in Europe, the Sinhala\nBuddhist Kings upheld religious freedom in this country, said Chandraprema.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The task force wants land in the north and east to be returned to their\nowners. What is interesting is the observation that even land \u2018occupied\u2019 by\nother state agencies such as the Forest Department and the Mahaweli Authority\nimpinges on the freedom of the people and is therefore an obstacle to\nreconciliation. If the observations made by the task force are turned into policy,\nthen Minister Rishard Baithiudeen would have to be given complete freedom to do\njust as he pleases in the environs of Wilpattu, said Chandraprema.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The task force has also talked about the \u2018secondary occupation\u2019 of\nfishing waters by members of other communities \u2013 an obvious reference to\nfishermen from the South visiting the East coast for seasonal fishing. These\nare fishermen moving from coast to coast in what has been an age old tradition\namong the fishing community in this country. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Task force has recommended that LTTE cemeteries should be\nrestored, the observance of \u2018Maaveerar Dinam\u2019 allowed to continue and the\nfamilies of deceased LTTE cadres permitted to display a photograph of the\ndeceased terrorist in LTTE uniform, in their homes. They also recommend the restoration of the\nLTTE cemeteries and that permission be granted to commemorate deceased members\nof the LTTE. These will help to keep the separatist dream alive and lionize the\nLTTE combatants who fell trying to achieve that goal. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

 We are told that these\nrecommendations and observations were prepared after consulting the public. how\nmany members of the public would have asked for the commemoration of deceased\nLTTE cadres, asked Chandraprema .If anything should be memorialized it is the\nfact that they were got rid of, he said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The judicial mechanism on war crimes is only to try members of the armed\nforces. No members of the LTTE are to be tried because they have been through\nrehabilitation or have been prosecuted under the existing judicial system. In\naddition, as a means of promoting reconciliation, all LTTE detainees who have\nnot been charged under the PTA or other laws are to be released forthwith. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Chandraprema made special mention of the fact that apologies should be\ntendered by the Sri Lankan State to the victims of the armed conflicts that\ntook place in this country. Furthermore, the government is to adopt a victim centered\napproach.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Following the lead of UNHRC Resolution 30\/1, the Task force has also\nrecommended that a war crimes tribunal with foreign participation be set up.\nBut going beyond anything that Resolution 30\/1 recommended, they have also\nsuggested that no LTTE members be prosecuted by this body if they have been\nthrough rehabilitation or have been prosecuted under the existing judicial\nsystem. They have suggested instead that leaders of the LTTE who left the\nterrorist organization and allied themselves with the government of Sri Lanka\nshould be tried for war crimes!.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

 No amnesties should be granted to\nmembers of the armed forces suspected of war crimes.  A\nphased demobilization of security forces personnel with an attractive early\nretirement package including pensions, admissions to good schools for their\nchildren, alternative civilian employment etc. has also been recommended.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The task force has called for full participation of\nforeign judges and other personnel including defence lawyers, prosecutors and\ninvestigators in transitional justice mechanism to address accountability\nissues, foreign participation was required as those who had suffered during the\nconflict had no faith in local judiciary, which lacked expertise to undertake\nsuch a task. Human Rights Commissioner Zeid Ra\u2019ad Al Hussein had also declared\nin Colombo in February 2016 that the judiciary here was incapable of\nundertaking the process. He questioned the integrity of the local judiciary.\nThe above are only a sample of what this task force report contains, concluded\nChandraprema <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The UN Human Rights Commissioner\u2019s update on Sri\nLanka presented to the UNHRC on March 22 was effusive in its praise for the\nreport of the Consultative Task force on Reconciliation Mechanisms and has\nrequested the government to implement its recommendations. Sarath Weerasekera   observed that this Task Force report was\nwelcomed by the Tamil National Alliance and the Global Tamil Forum. A copy of this outrageous report should be\narchived somewhere, for historical purposes. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

DRAFT COUNTER-TERRORISM ACT, 2018<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The draftCounter-Terrorism\nAct was approved by Cabinet on 11September 2018 and tabled in Parliament on 9\nOctober 2018.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

 The text is\navailable on  https:\/\/www.parliament.lk\/uploads\/bills\/gbills\/english\/6123.pdf<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Interestingly, a meeting had been held between the ambassadors of several\nEU nations and the Prime Minister to finalize plans to repeal the PTA and to\nreplace it with a new counter terrorism law acceptable to the EU. This meant that Ambassadors of foreign countries were directly involved\nin the process of drafting public security legislation of this country,\nobserved critics.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

 The meeting had taken place on\nDecember 16, 2016 at Temple Trees under the chairmanship of the Prime Minister. The ambassadors present were James Dauris – British HC, Jean-Marin Schuh\n– Ambassador of France, Tung-Lai Margue – Ambassador EU, Joanne Doornewaard,\nNetherlands Ambassador, Joern Rohde – German Ambasssador, Paolo Andrea\nBartorelli, Italian Ambassador and Victor Chiujdea, Romanian Ambassador. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The proposed Counter Terrorism Bill will encourage terrorists as it was\nmeant to stifle political dissent and the freedom of expression while treating\nterrorists with the utmost leniency, said Mahinda Rajapaksa.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The draft counter terrorism Bill has encountered opposition from\npolitical and media activists because its definition of \u2018terrorism\u2019 means that\nlegitimate political and trade union action as well as the dissemination of\ninformation and protection of sources by the media   can be labeled as terrorist activity said\nMahinda Rajapaksa <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Mahinda Rajapaksa has pointed out, inter alia, that the Bill is designed to treat terrorists with the\nutmost leniency to the extent where its actual effect will be that of\nprotecting and giving encouragement to terrorists \u2013 not countering terrorism. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

 Our Penal Code prescribes the death penalty\nfor killing just one person, but under the proposed counter terrorism law, a\nterrorist convicted of killing hundreds of or even thousands of people can only\nbe given a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. Furthermore while the Penal\nCode prescribes the death penalty for aiding and abetting in murder, the\npenalty for aiding and abetting in mass murder in the proposed law is just\nfifteen years imprisonment and a fine of up to Rs. one million. How is\nterrorism to be deterred by giving convicted terrorists lesser punishments than\nwhat the ordinary law of the land prescribes for the same offences, asked\nMahinda Rajapaksa.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The proposed counter\nterrorism law also requires the police and the armed forces to treat terrorist\nsuspects with the utmost solicitude. If a terrorist suspect is arrested by the\narmed forces, he has to be handed over to the OIC of the nearest police station\nwithin 24 hours. The latter has to examine him for injuries and present him\nbefore a JMO for treatment or a report. The Human Rights Commission has to be\ninformed within 24 hours of the arrest so that they can determine whether the\narrest has infringed the fundamental rights of the suspect. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

 When a terrorist suspect is arrested, the\narresting officer has to reveal his identity to the suspect and the suspect\u2019s\nnext of kin or associates despite a history in this country of terrorists\nhaving massacred entire families of armed forces personnel. The next of kin of\nterrorist suspects have to be provided \u2018reasonable\u2019 access to the suspect in a\nsituation where today, the next of kin may well be the next suicide bomber\ncoming to receive instructions. From the time of the arrest, the welfare of the\nterrorist suspect takes precedence over everything else, continued Mahinda\nRajapaksa  .<\/p>\n\n\n\n

All arrested\nsuspects have to be produced before a Magistrate within 48 hours and the\nMagistrate is required by law to personally look into the well-being and\nwelfare of the suspect. A suspect can be kept in detention only for two weeks\nand if this period can be extended only with the approval of a Magistrate. The\ntotal period of detention of a suspect cannot exceed eight weeks. Under the PTA\nin contrast, a suspect can be kept in detention for three months and this can\nbe extended up to a total of eighteen months.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

 A suspect arrested under the proposed counter\nterrorism law can be held in remand without instituting criminal proceedings\nfor six months and this period may be extended for another six months on an\norder of the High Court. If criminal proceedings are not instituted within this\nextended period, the suspect will have to be granted bail. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

 Under the PTA however, a suspect can be kept\nin remand until the conclusion of the trial. The proposed counter terrorism law\nrequires the Human Rights Commission and the Magistrates to make unannounced\nvisits to all places of detention and remand to look into the welfare of\nterrorist suspects and they have to ensure that the suspects are provided all\nthe basic facilities. If the trial against a person remanded under this Act has\nnot been concluded within one year, the High Court is mandatorily required to\nrelease the accused on bail said Mahinda Rajapaksa.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Even at the trial\nstage, terrorist suspects are afforded special relief. The proposed law states\nthat \u2018if death or grievous bodily injury has not been caused\u2019 or \u2018if the\nsecurity of the State has not been seriously affected\u2019 by the suspect\u2019s\nactions, and he displays contrition by among other things, publicly expressing\nremorse, providing reparations to victims and participating in a rehabilitation\nprogramme, the Attorney General may either suspend criminal proceedings or\nwithdraw the indictment altogether.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

 How can a person who has harmed no one and not\nendangered the security of the State end up being arrested and prosecuted under\na counter terrorism law? In practice, it is very difficult to collect\nsufficient evidence against a terrorism suspect largely because of the\nunsettled conditions that would be prevailing in the country. If a terrorist\nsuspect is arrested and charged in court but is still incongruously deemed to\nhave \u2018not caused any harm to anyone\u2019 or \u2018endangered the security of the\ncountry\u2019 that would only be due to the lack of evidence and not because he has\nnot committed the crime he is accused of, said Mahinda Rajapaksa .<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The proposed counter\nterrorism law acknowledges this reality by requiring an accused person to\nexpress remorse for something he is not supposed to have done and even pay reparations\nto victims he is not supposed to have harmed, before the Attorney General\nsuspends or withdraws the indictment against him. Such bizarre provisions in\nthe draft counter terrorism law is an acknowledgment of the practical\ndifficulties in prosecuting terrorism suspects under the ordinary law which\nrequires a high evidentiary bar. Most often what can be achieved through\nanti-terrorist legislation is the suppression of terrorism rather than\nprosecution and punishment of terrorists, which is why such laws have to be\ntough enough to enable its primary purpose to be achieved, said Mahinda\nRajapaksa  .<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Even in sentencing a\nterrorist after conviction under the proposed counter terrorism law, a reduced\nsentence can be handed down after considering mitigating factors such as a\npublic denunciation of terrorism, provision of reparations to the victims and a\npublic denouncement of violence etc. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The government\u2019s\nproposed counter terrorism law is in fact a comprehensive relief package for\nterrorists. If the proposed Counter Terrorism Bill is passed into law, it will\nseriously hamper ongoing efforts to suppress terrorism following the Easter\nSunday bomb attacks. Since this country is once again confronted with\nterrorism, the government should be prevented from making any changes to the\nPublic Security Ordinance of 1947 or the Prevention of Terrorism Act of 1979. Priority\nshould be given to the people\u2019s right to life over the rights of terrorists\nconcluded Mahinda Rajapaksa. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Several civil society activists and organisations raised objection to the\ndefinition of terrorism as contained in the Bill, claiming that citizens\nprotesting against state involvement in water pollution (such as Rathupaswela,\na state decision to dump garbage in their neighbourhood (such as post\nMeetotamulla), impact of development projects such as Hambantota development\nzones and Port City and citizens demanding the release of lands occupied by the\nmilitary could be treated as \u2018offences of terrorism\u2019. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Civil society representatives also raised objections to the Central Data\nBase for arrests and detention provided for in the proposed Counter Terrorism\nAct. The draft legislation provides the Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka\n(HRCSL) access from the outset and ensures every arrest and detention carried\nout under the law is logged at every stage. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Activists said that the database could result in information being shared\nbetween state institutions and international agencies, with the potential for\nthose merely detained or charged being adversely affected in terms of\nreputation and freedom of movement. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Centre for Policy Alternatives  on\nthe other hand, finds several improvements on the PTA in the draft, and in many\ncases has found provisions in the bill to be in line with international law and\nbest practices. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Everything is documented from the moment of detention to prevent people\nfrom disappearing, an official familiar with the drafting process said. In the\npast, there were allegations of people disappearing, after being supposedly\narrested under the PTA, these officials explained. With the central database in\nplace, all arrests under the proposed CTA will be documented from the moment of\ndetention and HRCSL will have full access to the information, resulting in\nsafeguards for the suspects. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The CPA report found that provisions that stipulate arrest with privacy,\nmedical examination of suspects, notification of arrests, the board of review\nfor detention orders, the entitlement of the magistrate to visit any place of\ndetention and the dramatic reduction of the maximum period of detention to\neight weeks were significant improvements on the PTA. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The power of the magistrate to order a forensic medical examination when\nthere is reason to believe a suspect may have been subject to torture, is a\nwelcome provision, the CPA report on the Counter Terrorism Bill said. The\nprovision is in line with Article 11 of the Sri Lankan constitution and Article\n7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), the CPA\nsaid in its report. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Media rights\nactivists urged the Sri Lankan government to withdraw proposed anti-terror\nlegislation, calling it a set of draconian laws aimed at suppressing media\nfreedom and democratic rights. . <\/p>\n\n\n\n

C. Dodawatta,\nconvener of the Free Media Movement, a local media rights group, said the\nproposed act could be used to arrest and detain journalists for “distributing\nor making available any information to the public.” “But\nso far the government has failed to repeal the PTA and instead now\nthey are bringing another legislation which seems worse than PTA,” he told\nreporters.  Dharmasiri Lankapeli, another media rights activist,\nsaid the legislation may result in the arrest of journalists for keeping\nsources secret, and “this would pose a great danger to media freedom and send\nmore journalists to prison.” <\/p>\n\n\n\n

 Rights\nactivist and lawyer Viranjana Herath said the proposed law could\nalso be used to ban such things as taking photographs, making video recordings\nand making sketches. It also “will affect the freedom of assembly and\nassociation and could pose a serious threat to the freedom of expression and\nmedia freedom,” Herath said. He said Sri Lanka does not need new laws to\ncombat terrorism, saying there are more than 20 existing laws and legal\nprovisions to deal with offenses on terrorism. “Therefore, bringing new laws\ncould be described as an attempt to suppress the voice of the people,” he\nsaid.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Chandraprema commented at length on the Bill. The\nnew counter terrorism law appears to be tailor made to protect future\nterrorists not to combat terrorism. Everything that this\ngovernment does seems to go in a certain direction,  he said <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The so called counter terrorism law that the Yahapalana\ngovernment intends replacing the PTA with is actually not a piece of\nlegislation designed to \u2018prevent\u2019 terrorism but to pamper terrorists, said\nChandraprema . <\/p>\n\n\n\n

 It seeks to\nprovide terrorism suspects with a degree of safety and comfort not available to\nsuspects being tried under the ordinary criminal law. For example, the\npunishment for the offence of terrorism is restricted to a maximum of 20 years\nin prison. It is only if deaths have taken place as the result of a certain act\nthat a life sentence can be handed down. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Whereas the ordinary law of the land prescribes the\ndeath penalty even for the murder of a single person, any act of mass murder by\na terrorist will attract only a life sentence at most. Aiding and abetting in an act of mass murder by terrorist will attract\nonly a sentence of 15 years and a fine. Under the ordinary\nlaw even helping a person to commit suicide attracts a death sentence. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Under the proposed counter terrorism law, there is a\ncategory of offences called “Terrorism related offences” which include\nthe following: a) committing the death of a specified person. b) committing the\ndeath of any person in the course of committing terrorism related offence c)\nattempting to cause the death of a specified person. d) committing the\nabduction or wrongful confinement of a specified person. e) taking a specified\nperson  or a member of his family or a person of importance to such person\nhostage f) committing criminal intimidation of any person. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The list includes 36 other offences including\nkilling witnesses, robbery, destroying state property, digital data theft,\nrecruiting people to join a terrorist movement. Many people would be hard put\nto figure out how these terrorism \u2018related\u2019 offences differ from terrorism per\nse, continued Chandraprema .<\/p>\n\n\n\n

 But these\n\u2018terrorism related offences\u2019 carry an even lighter sentence of a maximum of 15\nyears, a fine and confiscation of property. In the case of a terrorism related\noffence too, a life sentence can be handed down only if death occurs as a\nresult of that act. One gets the\nimpression that this category of offences called terrorism related offences has\nbeen created only to hand down lighter sentences to terrorist suspects. As for\ndeaths occurring as a result of a certain act, this needs to be proved in court\nand if the prosecution is unable to prove that a certain person died due to a\nterrorist attack then the terrorist gets a light sentence. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Many terrorist leaders would be charged with aiding\nand abetting in the commission of terrorism related offence and this carried\nonly a sentence of 10 years and a fine whereas under the ordinary law aiding\nand abetting carries the same penalty as the offence itself. Knowing of the commission of a terrorist or terrorist related offence and\nfailing to inform the authorities carries a sentence of three years\nimprisonment plus fine. The law also stipulates that “Every practicable\nmeasure shall be taken to protect such persons from physical harm,”  continued Chandraprema .<\/p>\n\n\n\n

When a person is arrested, in addition to issuing an\nacknowledgement to a person nominated by the arrestee, the arrest has also to\nbe notified to the Sri Lanka Human Rights Commission within 24 hours. The IGP has to maintain a central register and database of those arrested\nunder the counter- terrorism law. All suspects\narrested have to  be presented before a\nMagistrate within 72 hours..If not the Magistrate will remand the suspect if\nthe police make the request. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

 However to\nremand a suspect, the Magistrate has to be convinced that the request is\nreasonable. What this means is that the Magistrate has the discretion to refuse\na request to remand a suspect under the proposed law and to personally see the\nsuspect and inquire into his wellbeing and welfare. Such interviews will be\nheld in private in the absence of any police officer investigating the offence.\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

there is also to be a Board of Review chaired by the\nrelevant Ministry Secretary and two other persons appointed by the Minister in\ncharge of the subject. Any detainee can appeal against his detention to this\nBoard of Review and the latter has to hand down a decision within two weeks. The decision of the Board of review can then be challenged in court if\nthe suspect so wishes it. the obvious\nintention of such window dressing is to camouflage the laxity and indeed the solicitude\nthis proposed law displays towards terrorists, said Chandraprema .<\/p>\n\n\n\n

.The Yahapalana government\u2019s proposed counter\nterrorism law has an inbuilt amnesty mechanism through provisions for the\nsuspension or deferment of indictment at the discretion of the Attorney\nGeneral.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The AG can impose conditions such as a public\nexpression of remorse before a Magistrate, the provision or reparations to the\nvictims as directed by the AG, voluntary participation in a programme of\nrehabilitation, social service or community services and a pledge to refrain\nfrom committing similar acts in the future. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

 A confession\nmade to a police officer will be valid only if the person who made the\nconfession is presented for a medical examination both before and after the\nstatement is given. The burden of proof\nwill be on the prosecution to prove that such statement was made voluntarily. We see from the above that the purpose of the Yahapalana government\u2019s\ncounter terrorism law is to stand the old PTA on its head, observed Chandraprema\n. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

 Terrorist\nsuspects are to be given more protection and lighter sentences than ordinary\ncriminals committing the same crimes. Prison sentences ranging from five years\nto life could be handed down for offences coming under this Act. The PTA conferred\npowers on police officers above the rank of Sub-Inspector to carry out arrests,\nsearches of premises and any vehicle including aircraft and to seize anything\nrelated to unlawful activity. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Persons arrested under the PTA have to be presented\nbefore a magistrate within 72 hours unless a detention order has been taken out\non him. The magistrate can order such person to be kept in remand continuously\nuntil the conclusion of the trial. He may be released on bail if the Attorney\nGeneral consents, said Chandraprema .<\/p>\n\n\n\n

There are primarily three areas that are problematic\nin the so called draft counter terrorism law. These relate primarily to the\nprocedures relating to the arrest, detention and trial of terrorism suspects.\nIt can be seen that the provisions relating to the arrest and detention of\nterrorism suspects has been designed more with a view to ensuring the welfare\nof the terrorist suspect than dealing firmly with an extraordinary situation to\nprotect the lives of ordinary people who expect the State to provide them with\nbasic security. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

 But the\nsystem was by no means as rigid as the one mooted under the proposed counter\nterrorism law. The executive arm of the state has to have some leeway to\nidentify and arrest people they deem to be dangers to society without being put\nin a straitjacket of regulations that will afford protection to the terrorist\nbut not to the ordinary people at the receiving end of that terrorist\u2019s\nactions. Without the executive having that leeway, they will not be able to\nperform their duty of maintaining law and order, said Chandraprema . <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Under the existing PTA, the detention order in the\nfirst instance is up to three months and can be extended up to 18 months with\nno court of law being able to question such detention. But under the proposed\nlaw a detention order is valid only for 30 days and cannot be extended beyond\nsix months and if a detention order is to be extended beyond three months, a\nmagistrate has to grant his approval. And the suspect can challenge the\nmagistrate\u2019s ruling in the High Court. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Not only are terrorist suspects to be afforded the\nmaximum protection by putting the security forces in a straitjacket, the new\ncounter terrorism law is to function as a kind of \u2018Truth Commission\u2019 for\nterrorist suspects too. if the terrorist suspect agrees to fulfill one or more\nof the conditions such as  tendering a public expression of remorse or an\napology, provision of reparations to victims as specified by the AG, voluntary\nparticipation in a program of rehabilitation, giving a public undertaking not\nto commit any offence in this act and engagement in specific community service.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

.Even when a terrorist is found guilty, the\nsentencing guidelines proposed in the new counter terrorism law stipulate that\npublicly denouncing terrorism, expression or remorse, young age or old age at\nthe time of sentencing, coercion or duress under which the offense had been\ncommitted, consent on the part of victims to pardon to the terrorist, voluntary\nprovision of reparations by the convict to the victims of the crime, public\ndenouncement of violence and terrorism, genuine commitment to the preservation\nof the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Sri Lanka, participation in a\nprogram of rehabilitation prescribed by the judge will act as mitigating factors\nto reduce the sentence said Chandraprema . <\/p>\n\n\n\n

This gives even a convicted terrorist a way to avoid\nlong jail sentences. There will be no minimum sentence in the proposed counter\nterrorism law, so even convicted terrorists will be able to get away with minimal\npunishment by pretending to be remorseful or undergoing \u2018rehabilitation\u2019 or\ndoing any of the other things recommended to win lighter sentences. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The existing PTA sought to give the government\nadditional teeth to combat offences such as killing, abducting or\nintimidating specified persons such as politicians, members of the armed\nforces, police and government servants, the robbery of state property and\nbanks, the collection, possession or manufacture of firearms and explosives or\ncarrying out propaganda promoting the commission of acts of violence or causing\nreligious, or communal disharmony, said Chandraprema. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Chandraprema \nalso observed that it was Minister Sagala Ratnayake who got this\nproposed counter terrorism law drafted. It was also he who headed the\nConstitutional Assembly Subcommittee on Police, Law and Order where it was\nproposed that all police powers (except in relation to a few specified and\ncomparatively rare offences) be transferred to nine provincial police forces\nwhich would do their own recruiting from within the province on linguistic and\nresidential criteria without transfers between provinces. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

 It was also\nproposed by this Subcommittee that an unspecified special majority in\nparliament be required to extend a declaration of emergency and that such\ndeclarations and the emergency regulations themselves be subject to judicial\nreview. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

 If the\nchanges to the structure of the police force and the restrictions on\ndeclarations of emergency envisaged by Minister Ratnayake\u2019s subcommittee are\ncombined with the counter terrorism law he has proposed, there will be no\ncontrol at all over any terrorist problem that occurs in the North and East\nbecause it will be the police in those provinces that will have all powers over\nterrorists in their areas with the armed forces having to hand over all\narrested persons immediately to the local police, concluded  Chandraprema. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Sunday Times<\/em> carried comments on the Counter Terrorism Act. .The draft \u2018Policy and\nLegal Framework relating to the proposed Counter Terrorism Act of Sri Lanka\u2019\nwas approved by the Cabinet on Tuesday. It was drawn up over the past\none-and-a-half years with select provisions in earlier versions drawing\ncritical comments from rights activists. The latest draft, a copy of which was\nobtained by the Sunday Times, has addressed many of these concerns. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

For instance, some previous drafts made confessions to police admissible\nin court. The latest version does not. Only confessions made to a magistrate\nare admissible; that, too, provided the magistrate who took the confession\nimmediately prior to and after recording it causes the person who made the\nstatement to be examined by a Government forensic medical specialist. Such\nreport must be produced by the prosecuting authority during the voir-dire\ninquiry (a preliminary examination of a witness or a juror by a judge or\ncounsel) that may be conducted for verifying the admissibility of the\nconfessional statement, said Sunday Times.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The bill, once enacted, will replace the draconian Prevention of\nTerrorism Act (PTA) which gives police a 72-hour window to produce a suspect\nbefore a magistrate; allows detention orders to be extended every three months\nup to 18 months; and confines suspects to remand till the end of their trials,\nmany of which take years to conclude.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It is reported, however, that the Cabinet sanctioned the draft CTA only\non the understanding that it will be amended during the committee stage debate\nin Parliament to bring back admissibility of confessions made to police\nofficers. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Cabinet has approved a draft Counter Terrorism Act (CTA) that\nrequires suspects to be produced before a magistrate within 48 hours and limits\ndetention orders to a maximum of eight weeks. It also grants a magistrate the\ndiscretion to refuse an extension after two weeks and entitles suspects to bail\nsix months after arrest if criminal proceedings are not instituted during that\ntime frame, continued Sunday Times.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

.The CTA places an obligation upon the magistrate to personally see the\nsuspect, and look into his wellbeing and welfare through a private interview;\nand record any comment the suspect may provide\u201d. Any magistrate shall also be\nentitled, without advance notice, to enter an approved place of detention as\nwell as inspect such place, registers, detention orders and other books and\ndocuments and interview persons being held therein.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

 Legal analysts pointed to other\nissues with the proposed law. For instance, the provisions on abetting\nterrorism make it illegal to gather any confidential information\u201d with the\nintention or purpose of supplying it to a person who commits an offence or is\nconspiring, preparing, abetting or attempting to commit and offence under the\nAct.Confidential information\u201d, as defined by the CTA, would also include any\ninformation relating to the police or the armed forces, on the conduct of any\nofficial activity, including law enforcement or military measure which is intended\nto be carried out or is being carried out, or has been carried out\u201d. But the draft law does have a proviso\nexcluding as an offence anything published in good faith with due diligence\nfor the benefit of the public or in national interest in registered print and\nelectronic media, or in any academic publication\u201d  said\nSunday Times .<\/p>\n\n\n\n

.Another point of concern is a clause authorising Deputy Inspectors\nGeneral of Police to issue detention orders which activists say confers great\ndiscretion on the police. This is problematic given the patterns of abuse of\ndetention orders to coerce money from people,\u201d the analyst pointed out.\nTechnically, there is provision for a board of review but these things don\u2019t\nwork in practice.\u201dOn the whole, the new draft contains several aspects deemed\nwelcome by the rights community. While it does contain a long list of offences,\nthe Act strictly provides for identification, detection, apprehension, arrest,\ntaking into custody of, detention, investigation or prosecution only of persons\ncommitting offences within the meaning of the Act, added Sunday Times .<\/p>\n\n\n\n

the Bill also states: Any action taken by any person in good faith in\nthe lawful exercise of a fundamental right, or in pursuance of, or to give\neffect to a lawful order given to him, or in accordance with or to give effect\nto a judicial order, shall not amount to an offence under this Act.\u201dAt the time\nof an arrest, the arresting officer shall inform the suspect the identity of\nthe arresting officers; the offence alleged to have been committed by the\nsuspect; and the right of access of the suspect to an attorney-at-law as\nprovided for in written law.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

  Every arrest shall be carried out with due regard to the privacy\nof the suspect. The next of kin or an adult member of the suspect\u2019s family\nshall be issued an acknowledgment of arrest and custody within 24 hours. It\nmust include the date, time and place of arrest; reasons for arrest; location\nof custody or detention; name identification and rank of arresting officer; and\nso on. The Officer-in-Charge (OIC) of the police station wherein the suspect is\ndetained shall within 24 hours notify the Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka\n(HRCSL) with all of the above as well as other information. The HRCSL is also entitled to prompt access\nto the suspect, continued Sunday Times .<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The draft CTA mandates the Inspector General of Police (IGP) to establish\nand maintain a central database and register containing information with regard\nto each arrest, detention, remanding, grant of bail, discharge, prosecution,\nconviction or acquittal, and punishment of persons arrested under the Act. It\nshall include such other information as required to determine the lawfulness of\nthe arrest, custody and detention; lawfulness of the deprivation of liberty of\nthe suspect; and the need for continued detention or remand. The IGP shall\nprovide information included in the database and register to the HRCSL upon\nrequest.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

No person shall be held in remand for a period exceeding six months from\nthe date of arrest without instituting criminal proceedings. If such\nproceedings are not instituted within six months, the magistrate shall release\nthe suspects on conditions to be stipulated by the magistrate. A board of\nreview will be set up to grant administrative relief for appeals against\ndetention orders. Rulings must be made within two weeks. Whenever a suspect is\nreleased from remand or detention, the HRCSL shall be informed said Sunday\nTimes .<\/p>\n\n\n\n

.The police must obtain a judicial order to gain access to information\nrelating to any financial service provided by banks, non-banking financial\ninstitutions or designated non-finance business to a suspect; details of any\nfinancial transaction carried out by any person; details relating to bank\naccounts, deposits, remittances and withdrawals and financial services provided\nby such bank institution or business; details relating to securing of financial\nservices by any person; and a certified statement of any account or other\ninformation pertaining to any account or transaction. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Judicial orders are also required for the police to, among other things,\nintercept, listen or record any postal message or electronic mail or any\ntelephone, voice, internet or video conversation or conference or any\ncommunication through any other medium, said Sunday Times . <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The draft CTA gives discretion to the Attorney General (AG) to suspend\nand defer the institution of criminal proceedings on a suspect for a period of\nnot less than five years and not exceeding ten years. In such instance, the AG\nshall apply to the High Court for the imposition of one or more conditions on\nthe suspect: to publicly express remorse and apology before the High Court\nusing a text issued by the AG; to provide reparation to victims of the offence,\nas specified by the AG; to participate in a specified programme of\nrehabilitation; to publicly undertake that such person refrains from committing\nan offence under this Act; to engage in a specified community or social\nservice; or to refrain from committing any indictable offence or breach of peace.\nThe law also proposes day-to-day trials, other than during weekends, public\nholidays and court vacations, concluded Sunday Times <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Prof. G.L. Pieris,  observed that\nthe proposed Counter Terrorism Bill would encourage those still pursuing a\nseparatist agenda. Instead of countering the threat of terrorism, it would\ndefinitely facilitate the terrorism project, Section\n72 empowers the Attorney General to delay serving indictment for a period of 10\nyears. In terms of Section 77, if an indictment was served, it could be\nrecalled right up to the moment of the delivering of a judgment. The provision for the Attorney General to\naccept an apology or\/and offering to do community service in lieu of\nprosecution is a joke, Pieris said. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Pieris also criticized the need for the Human Rights Commission of Sri\nLanka and the IGP to be informed as regards arrests made in terms of the new law.\nThe new law was meant to mollycoddle terrorists\/ However, the proposed law\ncould be applied selectively to target trade unions, student community and even\nthe media, he said. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Sub Section c, d and f under Section 3 could be exploited to prosecute\nthose opposed to the incumbent government. the\nprovision for remanding of a suspect in case he or she declined to answer\nquestions violated the Article 13 Sub Article 5 of the Constitution. The new\nlaw challenged the presumption of innocence until proven guilty enshrined in\nConstitution,  Pieris said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

 Kishali  Pinto Jayawardene  made forceful observations on the Bill. Sri\nLanka\u2019s draft Counter Terrorism Act (CTA) is not a curate\u2019s egg of mostly good\nwith a little bit of bad thrown in. Rather, it is the reverse, she said.. The\ndraft Act is a whole lot of bad with some good thrown into the unappealing\nmixture, she said. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

These are ingenious traps set by \u2018deep state\u2019 security agents who have\nlearnt to survive Governments and political regimes with consummate ease.\nFlippant assessments of the gazetted draft CTA are a deadly mistake.\nUnquestionably this is an aggravation of the existing counter-terror regime,\nnot a reduction, as blissfully believed by some.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Those first drafts of a supposed Counter Terror framework staggered the\nnation as their contents were preposterous. In analysing the drafts \u2018leaked\u2019 to\nthis newspaper at the time, it was pointed out in these spaces that, if this\nwas the cure for the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA, 1979), then \u2018the cure\nwas worse than the disease.\u2019 said Kishali.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Granted, the gazetted Bill is without the most outrageous clauses. Some may even suspect that the perversity of\nthose drafts may have been on the calculated assumption that the outrage would\nsubside once the clearly perverse clauses were taken out. what is required is the crafting of a\nnarrowly tailored anti-terror law with tightly drafted clauses limiting\nthemselves to few acts that are not captured by the ordinary law enforcement\nregime. That, this Bill is not, observed Kishali <\/p>\n\n\n\n

There is over-breadth of offences and risks\nfor media, she observed. <\/strong>Merely\nhaving an omnibus clause, (Clause 2(2)), that the Act \u2018shall be enforced\u2019 only\nin respect of defined \u2018offences\u2019 and not in regard to offences in the Criminal\nProcedure Code, falls far short of this objective. That clause is rendered\nlargely meaningless for the reason that there is too much overlap between the\noffences in the Bill and ordinary criminal offences. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

 Further, vague and general\nprohibitions remain. The use of terms such as \u2018wrongfully\u2019 compelling the\nGovernment to do or abstain from doing any act (Clause 3 (1) (b) as one\ningredient of the primary offence is one illustration. There are plenty more  said Kishali\n.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Another example of obvious over-breadth is the juxtaposition of distinct\ncategories of offences, variously titled \u2018other offences associated with\nterrorism\u2019, \u2018specified terrorist acts\u2019 and aggravated criminal acts associated\nwith terrorism.\u2019 These extended categories of various linked offences are\ndefined as acts committed with \u2018the intention of, or having the knowledge of,\nor having reasonable grounds to believe that such conduct has the effect of,\nadversely affecting the territorial integrity, national security and defence of\nSri Lanka or, intimidating or terrorizing a civilian population. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u2019For the media in particular, there are palpable risks at hand. Clause 10\n(g)) of the Bill summons chilling recollections of the harm caused by similar provisions\nin the past. That Clause defines aiding terrorism as  \u2018intentionally and\nunlawfully distributing or otherwise making available any information to the\npublic having intent to incite the commission of the offence of terrorism or\nother offence under this Act and to cause \u2018the fear of such offence being\ncommitted.\u2019 This is specifically \u2018notwithstanding that such conduct does not\nexpressly advocate such offence\u2019  noted\nKishali.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Read together with the primary offence of terrorism with its vague\nwording of \u2018wrongfully\u2019 compelling the Government to do or abstain from doing\nany act,\u2019 the threat is explicit. Facing\na practical situation, how is an editor or a journalist supposed to assess this\n\u2018fear\u2019 that is so airily referred to? <\/p>\n\n\n\n

 Significantly, the conduct in\nissue need not \u2018expressly\u2019 advocate such an offence. This reduces the bar at\nwhich the offence of \u2018aiding terrorism\u2019 comes into existence. Moreover, use of\nthe term \u2018confidential information\u2019 in additional offences specified in these\nsub clauses raises further concern in the light of the new \u2018information regime\u2019\ntrumpeted by this Government. The \u2018good faith\u2019 defence (Clause 10(L) is little\nprotection in this respect. These are legal abstracts that can swing one way or\nanother depending on who the judge is sitting on the Bench, observed Kishali.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

.We have seen this peculiar phenomenon innumerable times. Where\ninflammatory terms such as \u2018terrorism\u2019 or national security\u2019 comes into issue,\nit requires a judge of tremendous mettle and prowess to stand up to the task.\nUnfortunately we do not have that stern calibre of judges in our courts as a\ngeneral rule, apart from a few exceptions. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

 What is dangerous is that the\nproposed CTA will be part of the permanent law of the land, not an emergency\nregulation subject to challenge for fundamental rights violation in the Supreme\nCourt. Consequently, to advocate for\nthe Bill on the basis that only a little \u2018fiddling\u2019 is required to make it a\npreferable alternative to the PTA speaks to a remarkable lack of foresight. Its\ncontents should surely have caused free expression advocates to take a well\nmeasured step back, said Kishali.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

 Instead, we have a happy hunting\npack of proponents of the draft CTA whose consternation at being strongly\nrebutted is rather amusing. But with the Bill on the perilous cusp of being\nenacted into law, these games are ill advised. The character and contents of\nthis draft must be fundamentally revised, not just tweaked in parts. Timidly\npussy footing around the definitions of terrorism or pruning the clauses\nrelating to proscription orders, as objectionable as those clearly are, will\nnot do. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

In the alternative, journalists, dissenters and trade unionists will pay\nthe price, not the \u2018privileged\u2019 here and overseas. Our familiarity with the\nhorrors of the PTA will be nothing compared with the nightmarish possibilities\nimplicit in its proposed successor. For there is enough ambiguity left in the\ndraft CTA to make a national security autocrat, whose species we saw in full\nform during the Rajapaksa years, dance in unholy glee. It is the height of\nasininity to cheer on a draft such as this in the radically uncertain times\nthat we live in. In fact, it is akin to the merry drunk who dances to the edge\nof a cliff, little knowing what awaits him on the rocks below. The difference\nis that here, it will be a nation dancing to disaster concluded Kishali.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Lasanda Kurukulasuriya also commented on the subject. She noted that  the PM urged the swift passage of the\nproposed Counter Terrorism Act (CTA), claiming that had it been passed the\nEaster Sunday massacre could have been prevented. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The government\u2019s proposed new Counter Terrorism Act (CTA) has been\nopposed on the grounds that it could be used to suppress student unions, trade\nunions, media freedoms and the Opposition. It is also faulted for being lax in\nrespect of terrorists, unlike the existing Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA).\nCritics argue that the government\u2019s real objective is to get rid of the PTA in\ncompliance with the Geneva resolutions. Strangely, in cases where the terror\nsuspect is a foreigner, the new law is said to prohibit action being taken\nwithout the consent of the country in which the suspect is a citizen. The\nconsideration that such a provision could help protect ex-LTTE elements or\nsympathisers domiciled abroad, raises questions as to whether the drafting of\nthis law had external inputs, said Lasanda ( continued)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

KAMALIKA PIERIS Revised 26.1.20 This essay    deals with two matters, the Report of Consultation Task Force on Transitional Justice and Reconciliation\u2019 (Muttetuwegama Report) and   Yahapalana\u2018s proposed amendments to the Prevention of Terrorism Act. CONSULTATION TASK FORCE ON TRANSITIONAL JUSTICE AND RECONCILIATION\u2019 In January 2016   Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe   appointed an 11 member body styled the […]<\/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-97632","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\/97632","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=97632"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.lankaweb.com\/news\/items\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/97632\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lankaweb.com\/news\/items\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=97632"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lankaweb.com\/news\/items\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=97632"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lankaweb.com\/news\/items\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=97632"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}