Sri Lanka’s statement at the Review, Rationalization and Improvement (RRI) of the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions
05-06-2008
Sri Lanka joined India, the Russian Federation, Singapore, the Philippines, Bangladesh and Algeria in the Human Rights Council supporting the extension of the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, while expressing concerns with regard to the execution of this important mandate by the present mandate holder Prof. Philip Alston.
The full text of the statement delivered by Mr. Shavindra Fernando, Deputy Solicitor-General is as follows:
“Mr. President, Sri Lanka has a long-standing record of co-operating with the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions. The mandate holder has visited Sri Lanka twice since the establishment of the mandate and a number of recommendations have been made. The second and the latest visit to Sri Lanka was conducted by the present mandate holder in 2005.
Mr. Shavindra Fernando, Deputy Solicitor-General of Sri Lanka
As we have confirmed in our statement during the interactive dialogue with the Special Rapporteur yesterday, Sri Lanka is firmly committed to continue its cooperation with the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions and therefore we strongly support the extension of the mandate, which in our view, is one of the most important in the international human rights protection system that we all endeavor to further strengthen.
At the same time Mr. President, my delegation would like to support several statements made during this debate highlighting the distinction between the renewal of the mandates and renewal of the mandate holders, and expressing some concerns with regard to the execution of this important mandate by the present mandate holder.
Mr. Philip Alston,
Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions
Mr. President, while acknowledging the commitment and enthusiasm with which the present mandate holder set about his task, it is our view that the present mandate holder has failed to understand the terms of reference and proper nature of his mandate.
Further, we are of the view that the present mandate holder has failed to achieve the required standards of mandate holders with regard to cooperation, transparency and dialogue with all stake holders, in particular with States. This has resulted in a failure to fully observe the Code of Conduct, resulting in loss of confidence in his ability to continue to discharge his mandate in an objective and balanced manner.