Mahinda Samarasinghe excoriates Pillay
We also note that an inordinate amount of attention is paid to Sri Lanka
In its presentation at the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) Sessions in Geneva, Sri Lanka made several allegations yesterday against UN Human Rights High Commissioner Navi Pillay.
Sri Lanka’s Human Rights Envoy Minister Mahinda Samarasinghe alleged that Ms. Pillay, on the pretext of preparing the groundwork for a future visit, had sent officials from the Office
of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) to Sri Lanka to gather information for her report which was released recently.
“Thus it now appears that the team’s agenda was purely to collect material for her present report and not to ‘help prepare the ground’ for a visit by her,” he said.
He told the Council that the Sri Lankan Government had invited Ms. Pillay in April 2011 to visit Sri Lanka. And in May last year she had said that the visit to Sri Lanka would be undertaken after an advance visit by a team of officials from the OHCHR to explore possi- ble areas for cooperation.
“In granting the team unfettered access, the Government acted in good faith expecting that it would in fact prepare the ground for her visit. Subsequently, the High Commissioner sent a letter in November last year proposing possible areas for technical cooperation between the GOSL and the OHCHR. She also chose to introduce a new condition stating that meaningful progress needed to be achieved in areas outlined for technical cooperation, before visiting Sri Lanka at some time in the first half of the following year,” he said.
He also called into question the excessive attention being focused on Sri Lan- ka. “We also note that an inordinate amount of attention is paid to Sri Lanka in the High Commissioner’s statements within and outside UN forums. Whether it be in the UN Security Council or successive sessions of the Human Rights Council, democracy conferences or merely comments from her on incidents or events in Sri Lanka ranging from economic migrants to the judiciary, the High Commissioner has had, from around the end of the conflict in May 2009, a regular negative observation to make,” he said.
Mr. Samarasinghe accused the High Commissioner of making statements to the media which could influence the voting by delegations on the upcoming resolution. “Her frequent comments to the media, some in close proximity to sessions of
Comments from her on incidents or events in Sri Lanka ranging from economic migrants to the judiciary
the Council, could well have the effect of influencing delegations, especially when Resolutions are being contemplated.
This runs counter to the detachment, objectivity and impartiality expected from the holder of such an exalted office. Sweeping generalisations using such terms as “massive violations” of human rights and the constant targeting of Sri Lanka – based on unsubstantiated evidence founded on conjecture and supposition –only supports the impression of a lack of objectivity,” he said.