Genocide in Sri Lanka: an inconvenient finding

The Tribunal found that the evidence before them established beyond reasonable doubt that the following acts were committed by the government of Sri Lanka: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group and acting with the specific intent of destruction of a protected group. It also found that there was continuity of genocide through ongoing acts of genocide and that the state deliberately inflicted on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part.

The Tribunal also found that the British and United States governments were complicit in the crime of genocide and reserved judgement on India.

The Tribunal urged international organisations and agencies involved in Sri Lanka to be fully aware and informed of the genocidal process which characterises the situation of Sri Lanka and ensure that their presence, investments and interventions do not support the discriminatory practices of the Sri Lankan government.

The Tribunal declared that it would hold the Sri Lankan government responsible should any harm befall witnesses from Sri Lanka who testified before the Tribunal.

The gift of Australian naval vessels to Sri Lanka, the wilful labelling by Australia of asylum seekers from Sri Lanka as economic migrants and their enforced return to a place of danger, known legally as sur place, (Hathaway, 'The Law of Refugee Status', p 33) makes Australia complicit in the crime of genocide. An Australian mental health nurse working on Christmas Island spoke publicly in November 2013 of witnessing this process and the terror of those forced to return.

Lauren Smith, a former Immigration Officer working on Christmas Island, wrote on 30 January, 2014, that, "they were viewed as 'economic refugees', the government saw an opportunity to send a strong message: they were not wanted in Australia. A secret process was created: enhanced screening. This denied these asylum seekers access to legal representation and proper protection during interviews. The aim was simply to send them back as quickly as possible."

Geoffrey Robertson argues, "Where evidence establishes a prime facie case of genocide or torture, the defendant surely has a moral duty to respond: common sense would infer guilt from a defendant's refusal to explain the blood that the evidence plainly shows to be on his hands." (Robertson, 'Crimes Against Humanity', p 108)

It was while visiting Sri Lanka last year that the Australian Prime Minister said under certain circumstances he believed torture could be justified, demonstrating how far removed he is from the considered findings of the Tribunal.