By: Ovindi Vishmika
September 12, Colombo (LNW): Sri Lanka once again finds itself under the microscope of the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC), as High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk tabled a critical report at the Council’s 60th session in Geneva. The report called on Colombo to establish a dedicated judicial mechanism, with an independent special counsel, to address allegations of wartime atrocities and systemic human rights abuses.
The High Commissioner emphasized that while accountability primarily lies with Sri Lanka’s government, international engagement remains “essential” to ensure long-term reconciliation and sustainable peace. This recommendation, however, reopens a familiar debate: Should accountability be pursued through domestic institutions, or is international involvement necessary to guarantee impartiality?
Foreign Minister Vijitha Herath, representing Sri Lanka, addressed the Council with a firm message: reconciliation and reform must be rooted in “nationally-led, inclusive processes.” He argued that the new administration, now in its first year in office under the National People’s Power (NPP) coalition, has already embarked on meaningful reforms ranging from legislative changes to initiatives for intercommunal dialogue and asked the world for “time and space” to allow these domestic efforts to bear fruit. Yet, victims’ families and rights advocates remain skeptical.
The lingering wounds of atrocities such as the 1983 Welikada Prison massacre where 53 Tamil political prisoners were brutally killed have never been addressed through credible judicial mechanisms within Sri Lanka. Campaigners insist that only international involvement can deliver justice in such cases, pointing to decades of state impunity and political shielding of perpetrators. This tension between domestic and international approaches has profound implications not only for reconciliation and justice, but also for Sri Lanka’s fragile political stability and its place in the international community.
The Domestic Path: Sovereignty, Reform, and Political Risks
Minister Herath’s intervention at the Council reflected Sri Lanka’s long-standing position: accountability must remain in the hands of Sri Lankan institutions. The government argues that international mechanisms undermine sovereignty, politicize human rights, and risk alienating sections of the population who view such moves as foreign interference.
A domestically led accountability process allows Sri Lanka to uphold its sovereignty and demonstrate that it is capable of addressing its internal issues without external imposition. For many in the majority Sinhala community, this is seen as vital to national dignity. Domestic processes may also be more palatable to the military and political establishment. Since the armed forces remain powerful stakeholders, especially in the north and east, reforms implemented domestically could avoid the perception of being externally forced, potentially making them more sustainable.
Proponents further argue that accountability cannot be divorced from broader democratic renewal. By tying justice to ongoing institutional reforms such as repealing the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA), strengthening judicial independence, and restoring land rights,Sri Lanka could embed accountability into a wider project of political transformation. Moreover, national ownership of the process could foster dialogue between communities. The government insists reconciliation is not merely about trials and prosecutions, but about reshaping political culture and rebuilding trust.
But there are serious drawbacks. Successive governments have pledged reforms at Geneva, only to stall, dilute, or abandon them once international pressure eases. From the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC) to various domestic inquiries, credibility has been undermined by poor follow-through. The record of state-enabled violence against Tamil detainees—including the Welikada Prison massacre, the 1997 Kalutara killings, the 2000 Bindunuwewa massacre, and the 2012 Vavuniya prison deaths—shows that domestic mechanisms have consistently failed to deliver justice. Investigations were obstructed, inquests flawed, and prosecutions non-existent.
With the military and political figures implicated in many abuses still influential, there are serious doubts about whether domestic institutions can operate independently. Critics fear that trials will be symbolic, or that lower-level officials will be scapegoated while senior figures escape accountability. Above all, for Tamil communities, trust in the Sinhala-dominated state machinery remains weak. As the son of slain political prisoner Selvarajah Yogachandran (Kuttimani) asked: “How can the court say genocide is not a crime? Then is there no one accountable?” Such voices underline the deep skepticism toward domestic-only solutions.
The Case for International Engagement
High Commissioner Türk’s report underscores that international engagement remains vital to prevent a cycle of promises without progress. Victims’ groups and civil society have long demanded independent international investigations, pointing to cover-ups and the destruction of evidence in cases like Welikada.
International mechanisms are seen as free from domestic political pressures. For victims, this offers a measure of hope that justice will not be derailed by vested interests within the Sri Lankan state. UN-led evidence-gathering also keeps alive the possibility of prosecutions abroad under the principle of universal jurisdiction. This deters future abuses and signals that impunity will not be tolerated. Continued UN scrutiny ensures that Sri Lanka cannot simply delay indefinitely; it keeps human rights on the agenda even as economic or political issues dominate domestically. International engagement need not mean replacing domestic mechanisms; it can complement them through technical assistance, expertise in forensic investigation, and independent monitoring, strengthening Sri Lanka’s capacity while ensuring credibility.
Still, international involvement comes with its own risks. For many Sri Lankans, particularly within the Sinhala majority, international intervention is perceived as a violation of sovereignty and an attempt to punish the nation collectively for the civil war. This perception risks fueling nationalist backlash. Externally driven mechanisms may also deepen ethnic and political divides, with reforms portrayed as foreign impositions serving separatist interests.
Even if evidence is collected internationally, prosecutions often face practical and jurisdictional hurdles. Without cooperation from the Sri Lankan state, such efforts may stall, frustrating victims further. Finally, some states argue that country-specific mechanisms risk politicizing human rights and diverting limited UN resources. They warn that imposing accountability frameworks from outside may undermine national institutions rather than strengthening them.
Legal Dimensions: Between Domestic Law and International Norms
At the heart of this debate lies a legal dilemma. Under international humanitarian law and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), Sri Lanka is obligated to protect detainees and investigate serious violations. The Welikada massacre, where prisoners under state custody were killed, represents a textbook breach of these obligations.
Yet, Sri Lanka’s legal framework through instruments such as the Emergency Regulations and the Public Security Act allowed successive governments to override judicial oversight, as seen in the disposal of Welikada victims’ bodies. This entrenched a culture of impunity within domestic law itself. International law, however, insists that crimes such as torture, extrajudicial killings, and enforced disappearances cannot be shielded by claims of sovereignty. The challenge is how to reconcile these universal principles with the realities of Sri Lanka’s fragile political landscape.
Between Memory and Justice
For the families of the victims, legal debates are inseparable from human grief. As Yogachandran’s son, now in exile, pleaded: “Just tell us where they were burned. Let us mourn them with dignity.” Four decades after Welikada, and over a decade since the end of the civil war, the struggle for truth and accountability continues to shape Sri Lanka’s relationship with the international community. Each UNHRC session becomes a stage where Colombo defends sovereignty, while victims’ groups demand that the world not look away.
A Nation at a Crossroads
Sri Lanka faces a dilemma that is both moral and strategic. If it pursues a domestic-only process, it risks reinforcing skepticism, particularly among Tamils, that justice will never arrive under Sinhala-majority rule as they believe. This could deepen ethnic grievances and undermine reconciliation. If it accepts international mechanisms, it may face nationalist backlash, political instability, and charges of ceding sovereignty but could also regain international credibility and ensure that victims’ voices are heard. Both paths carry risks. Both paths also carry possibilities.
The Question Ahead
As Sri Lanka’s delegation returns from Geneva and the High Commissioner’s report reverberates across international capitals, the question remains unresolved: Should accountability for Sri Lanka’s past abuses be pursued through a domestically-led process, or does the history of impunity demand international oversight? The answer may determine not only the fate of justice for the victims of Welikada and countless others, but also the future of reconciliation and democracy on the island.
What do you think? Is justice better served by trusting Sri Lanka’s own institutions to reform themselves, or by inviting international involvement to guarantee impartiality?
