Tuesday, 11th November 2014
UN High Commissioner for Human Rights and the money issue
Did the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) distribute forms along with offers of monetary compensation for detailing war crimes charges against Sri Lanka or not?
In his criticism of Sri Lanka and his statement that the Sri Lankan government has obstructed the so called investigation he has at no point denied the allegations that the OHCHR distributed forms with the promise of monetary compensation for detailing war crimes charges against Sri Lanka.
This question has been raised by certain writers recently and one of them contributes a comment today in the opposite editorial page of this newspaper. (Please see full article on page 5)
He poses the question:
The UN Human Rights High Commissioner Zeid Ra’ad al-Hussein has issued a strongly-worded response to two recent allegations made by the Government: first, that the Panel investigating Sri Lanka (OISL) has made available war crimes complaint-forms to prospective signatories in the North and East; second, that the OHCHR and/or OISL had offered monetary compensation for testimony about war crimes.
The High Commissioner, in the aforementioned response, says, inter alia, “This continuing campaign of distortion and disinformation about the investigation, as well as the insidious attempts to prevent possible bonafide witnesses from submitting information to the investigating team, is an affront to the United Nations Human Rights Council, which mandated the investigation….Since the end of the conflict in 2009, Sri Lanka has continued to obstruct any independent investigation despite the persistent, compelling and widespread allegations that possible serious international crimes were committed by both sides during the conflict in Sri Lanka.”
In my view, given the Government’s allegations, the High Commissioner only needs to answer two questions. First, did the OHCHR or OISL at any time make available complaint forms to prospective signatories in the North and East? And second, did the OHCHR or OISL at any time make arrangements for monetary compensation to be paid for such signatures and/or testimony?
If the OHCHR or OISL did not do either of the aforesaid things, the High Commissioner is in the best position to say so. Interestingly, nowhere in his statement does he expressly deny the Government’s allegations. Instead, he accuses the Government of “distortion and disinformation,” and “insidious attempts” against possible bona fide witnesses.
In the circumstances, the need of the hour is for the Government (as well as foreign media that may be interested in getting to the bottom of all this), to insist that the High Commissioner answer the two aforementioned questions directly and clearly.
Depending on the answers to those questions, I am sure the public is fully capable of drawing the necessary inferences to decide whether the Government is guilty of “distortion and disinformation,” “insidious” tactics, and so on, or whether in fact it is the OHCHR that is guilty of such things.
From : http://www.dailynews.lk/?q=local/can-he-deny-it
