Presidential pardon for former Army Sergeant Sunil Ratnayake: UN Human Rights Chief expresses concern

The Office of United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights has expressed serious concern over President Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s decision to pardon former Army Sergeant Sunil Ratnayake, convicted perpetrator of the Mirusavil massacre.

Rupert Colville, Spokesperson for the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, noted that Sergeant Ratnayake was sentenced in 2015 for the murder in 2000 of eight civilians, including a five-year-old child, after more than a decade long trial. Five defendants were brought to trial but only Sgt Ratnayake was convicted. The conviction was confirmed by the Supreme Court of Sri Lanka in May 2019.

This was one of the rare human rights case from the decades-long conflict that had ever reached conviction, he pointed out.

“The Presidential pardon is an afront to victims and yet another example of the failure of Sri Lanka to fulfil its international human rights obligations to provide meaningful accountability for war crimes, crimes against humanity and other gross violations of human rights. Victims of such violations and crimes have the right to a remedy. This includes equal and effective access to justice and reparation, and that perpetrators serve a punishment that is proportionate to the seriousness of their conduct,” the spokesperson asserted.

“Pardoning one of the sole convicted perpetrators of atrocities committed during the Sri Lankan conflict further undermines the limited progress the country has made towards ending impunity for mass human rights abuse,” he further added.

Besides the 5- year- old boy, victims of the Mirusavil massacre, which occurred in December of 2000, also included two teenagers aged 13 and 15.

Last year, a five- judge bench of the Supreme Court comprising Justices Buwaneka Aluwihare, Sisira De Abrew, Priyantha Jayawardena, H. N. J. Perera and Murdu Fernando unanimously upheld the guilty verdict given by the Trial- at- Bar which heard the case. The SC also upheld the death sentence imposed on the accused.

The prosecution’s case hinged on testimony provided by Ponnadurai Maheshwaran, the only person to survive the massacre. He testified that six army personnel were involved and identified five suspects including Sgt. Ratnayake during a subsequent identification parade.

All the eight deceased persons had sustained the identical fatal injury, a cut on the neck inflicted from behind, as disclosed by the medical evidence. All bodies were buried in the same location which is proximate to the location where Maheswaran and the group were confronted by the Army personnel.

Officers from the military police who arrested the suspects also gave evidence at the subsequent Trialat- Bar. At the conclusion of the trial, the court acquitted four of the accused but found Sgt. Ratnayake guilty on all counts, sentencing him to death.

In his judgement, Justice Buwaneka Aluwihare noted that it is clear that the acquittal of the other accused by the Trial- at- Bar had resulted not due to disbelieving the evidence of Maheshwaran, but due to the failure on the part of the prosecution to establish the identities of the other accused to the degree of proof required by law.

Considering the evidence, court noted that the “irresistible inference” that could be drawn is that it was the accused-appellant and the group of men who had inflicted the fatal injuries to the deceased. Furthermore, from the nature of the injuries it can be concluded that the injuries were inflicted with the intention of causing their deaths, the court observed. Thus, it concluded that the prosecution had established the counts of murder of the deceased and of causing hurt to Maheshwaran.

“When one considers the participation of the Accused- Appellant coupled with the evidence with regard to the participation of the others, it is clear that the AccusedAppellant is not only liable for the acts committed by him, but also for the acts committed by others who were with him as well by virtue of Section 32 of the Penal Code,” the court concluded.

Justice Aluwihare stressed that it is the Supreme Court’s view that the Trial- at- Bar was justified in treating witness Maheswaran as a credible witness and acting on his testimony and concluded that the judges of the Trial-at-Bar were correct in coming to the conclusion that Sgt. Ratnayake was guilty. As such, he affirmed the conviction and the sentences imposed on the accused-Appellant.