“There is nothing in the Sri Lankan constitution that talks about the nationality of Judges. It only requires an Oath to be taken. In my view that Oath can be taken by any person [who aims] to protect and defend the constitution,” said Attorney-at-Law and Co-Founder of South Asian Centre for Legal Studies Niran Anketell.
The Government has issued statements to the effect that a hybrid court is not feasible as it is not in line with Sri Lanka’s constitution.
Perhaps the reason that credibility has become such a central issue stems from the Government itself. Over the past two years, the Government has issued many confusing (and often directly contradictory) statements on accountability.
After the presentation of UN High Commissioner Zeid’s report on Sri Lanka, the United States said, “Government statements against international participation in any future Sri Lankan judicial mechanism raise understandable concerns among victims and families about the integrity of any judicial process.”
Human Rights Watch said Sri Lanka’s increased unwillingness to consider international involvement “directly contravenes the call by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights for a “hybrid” justice mechanism given the shortcomings of domestic institutions to ensure impartial investigations and witness protection… It is a core component of the resolution, which the Sri Lankan government embraced through its co-sponsorship, and an important recommendation of the CTF.”
Amnesty International in a statement to the Human Rights Council said Sri Lanka “must not back away from the commitment [to include international investigators, prosecutors and judges]. “International support will…help encourage trust and a perception of fairness on the part of victims, many of whom express deep disillusionment regarding the implementation of Sri Lanka’s commitments.”
