Presenting her report to the annual session of the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva, UN High Commissioner for human rights, Navi Pillay criticised Sri Lanka for failing to examine abuses committed during the civil war last year between the government forces and Tamil Tigers.

Human rights abuses in Sri Lanka are damaging prospects for reconciliation after 25 years of civil war, Pillay, a former UN war crimes judge, told the council.

“In Sri Lanka, the opportunity for peace and reconciliation continues to be marred by the treatment of journalists, human rights defenders and other critics of government”

Repeating her call for an independent investigation into war crimes allegations in Sri Lanka, U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay told the U.N.'s Human Rights Council she was singling out outstanding cases in different countries.

"I am convinced that Sri Lanka should undertake a full reckoning of the grave violations committed by all sides during the war, and that the international community can be helpful in this regard," she said in a speech presenting her annual report.

Her comments on Sri Lanka and other states will reassure critics of the council who argue that the 47-member body often fails to deal with human rights violations as countries unite in regional alliances to shield each other from scrutiny.

Last May, the council held a special session on Sri Lanka just after the end of the war against the Tamil Tigers, but the government deflected criticism by introducing its own resolution praising its defeat of the separatist group, which was then passed.

Sri Lanka government maintains that there were no war crimes committed and says it will not allow any international investigations.

In an earlier interview with the BBC, Defence Secretary Gotabhaya Rajapaksa said he would not allow any such investigation as “there is no reason.”

Tamils in another three mainland European countries have mandated Eelam at referenda held in January. Over 99 percent of the voters in Germany, Switzerland and Holland who cast their ballots on the weekend of 23 and 24 January mandated the formation of Tamil Eelam as a solution to the oppression of Tamils in Sri Lanka.

99.2 percent of voters said yes to Tamil Eelam in an impressive turn out of more than 90% of eligible voters in Germany. 23,089 voters participated in the poll in 110 centres across the country and 22,904 of them said yes. 136 voters said no and 49 votes were invalid.

The International Human Rights Association in Bremen conducted the referendum on the question of forming an independent and sovereign state of Tamil Eelam in the North and East of the island of Sri Lanka.

Around 25,000 eligible Eezham Tamil voters are estimated to be present in Germany.

No record of voter registration was maintained considering the confidentiality of the identity of the voters. They were permitted to vote after verification of identity and eligibility. Indelible ink was applied to mark participation.

99.49 percent of 16,441 voters who participated in the referendum in Switzerland mandated the formation of an independent and sovereign Tamil Eelam in the North and East of the island of Sri Lanka.

The referendum was organised by a coalition of 2nd generation Eelam Tamils in Switzerland and the task of conducting the ballot process was undertaken by an independent election commission that was headed by M. Pagani, ex-Mayor of the city of Biel and included journalists, politicians and members of Young Socialist Party (JUSO) of Switzerland.

Estimating the number of eligible voters in Switzerland as 25,000 the organisers in their official website tamilelection.ch put the turnout at 65.76%. Considering the conditions of the Tamil diaspora in Switzerland, much varied in facing the brunt of the struggle in several ways, the turnout was considered to be very impressive by many diaspora observers, reported TamilNet.

Well-covered by the Swiss media, Pia Holenstein, a member of the federal parliament, described the process as something neatly organised and exemplary. Reporters of major media outlets such as NZZ Sonntag and Tages Anzeiger were present to cover the news of the referendum, the organisers said.

Of the 2,750 voters who participated in the poll in Holland, 99.2 percent aspired for the formation of Eelam. 2,728 said yes, 9 voted no and 13 votes were invalid.

The poll organised by an independent group of the diaspora in the Netherlands was conducted in 15 centres across the country under the supervision of non-Tamil election officials.

The organisers estimated roughly 4,000 eligible Eelam Tamil voters in the country and said the turnout was 68.7 percent. As the size of the country and the number of voters were small, the organisers were largely depending on a door-to-door campaign for participation.

A comment commonly heard in the four non English-speaking European countries, Germany, Switzerland and Holland, which went for the referendum last weekend, and in France where it was held in mid-December, was that the democratic exercise would have been much easier to organise, had there been a Tamil visual media providing adequate coverage.

Observers note that Tamils of Eelam origin have been consistent in their demand for Eelam. Polls have now been conducted in five mainland European countries, the United Kingdom and Canada, and in each case, over 99% of the voters have expressed their preference for the formation of Tamil Eelam.  

Violent clashes between opposition supporters and government supporters backed by the police have followed the arrest of the main opposition candidate at the last presidential polls.

Demonstrations were organised across Sri Lanka to protest the arrest of General (retd) Sarath Fonseka on various charges including plotting to overthrow the government and planning the assassination of President Mahinda Rajapakse.

There was a broad coalition of support for the protestors, with organizers including the Sinhala nationalist Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP), the main parliamentary opposition United National Party (UNP) and the Buddhist clergy.

Clashes were reported in at least 3 cities, including the capital, Colombo, where the first reports of violence came from 2 days after Fonseka’s arrest.

In Colombo, eye-witnesses reports of around 50 government supporters attacking a group of 2,500 opposition supporters with stones and bottles, resulting in a number of injuries, were carried by local media.

Protestors were also seen attacking the police personnel, reports said, adding that iron rods, clubs and stones were being used.

Journalists at the scene said they saw clubs being unloaded from a car to attack the protestors.

The press reports said that when the demonstrators retaliated, the police intervened and fired tear gas and water cannons to break up the crowds.

Police leniency against violent government supporters was obvious, the eyewitnesses said.

"They stoned us and attacked with clubs and even threw glass bottles at us in front of the police," one woman told Reuters news agency.

"Police are beating the protesters with batons," said a Reuters photographer at the scene of the protest in a Colombo suburb.

In Maharagama, Kandy and other parts of the south, the police used tear gas and water cannons to disperse protests, the press reports said.

Locals have expressed concern over the possibility of further clashes when the case against Fonseka’s arrest is heard later in February.

Meanwhile, Britain and the United States have expressed concerns over the general's treatment since his hotel was surrounded by army troops after his election defeat last month, the Daily Telegraph newspaper reported. But there has been little official reaction to the arrest.

But the Buddhist clergy has had a mixed response to the arrest, with different chapters taking varying positions.

The Mahanayaka of Malwatte Chapter initially said he was awaiting a response from the president, saying that Rajapakse "could have been in dark" while the arrest took place.

But the Mahanayaka of Asgiriya Chapter deplored the sudden arrest of Fonseka.

However the clergy, who were due to hold a meeting to discuss the arrest on 18 February postponed the meeting.

The monks were due to discuss a strategy for pressing the government to release Fonseka, but cancelled the meeting citing government pressure, reported AFP. 

The gathering at the Temple of the Tooth in the central city of Kandy was called off a day before the meeting, with the monks citing concerns for their safety in the "current political climate".

One of their spokesmen, Athangane Ratanapala, said the paramount Buddhist cleric, Thibbotuwawe Sumangala, had been subjected to "severe stress" ahead of the scheduled gathering, reported AFP.

"Many individuals representing the government as well as some members of the clergy who are working for the government used tremendous pressure on us to stop our meeting," he said.

Opposition leader Ranil Wickremesinghe went further, telling reporters in Colombo that specific threats had been made.

"They had been told that there could be bomb blasts at the Temple of the Tooth if they go ahead with the meeting," Wickremesinghe said.

There was no immediate comment from the government, which has maintained that it was not influencing the clergy.

Sri Lanka could overshoot its 2009 budget deficit target set by the IMF for a $2.6 billion loan, due to high post-war reconstruction costs, a central bank official said on Monday.

The IMF has set a budget deficit target of seven percent of gross domestic product for 2009, although both the global lender and the central bank have acknowledged it as a challenging one.

Government spending on reconstruction after the end of a 25-year war in May and low revenue due to a sluggish economy were putting pressure on the deficit, Ranasinghe said.

The budget data for 2009 is expected to be announced in the central bank’s annual report due in late March or early April. An IMF mission will be in Sri Lanka this week to assess December data before deciding on the third tranche of the loan.

Sri Lanka’s IMF resident representative Koshy Mathai has said whether or not the IMF is flexible in a country is determined on a “case by case” basis.

This week, Sri Lankan voters go to the polls to elect a new president. No matter the victor, neither of the two main candidates is likely to provide the justice and closure that Sri Lanka's thousands of war victims deserve.

In 2007-8, I was a member of an independent international advisory group observing Sri Lanka's investigation of human rights violations dating from 2006. I concluded that the government lacked the political will to hold accountable the perpetrators of these egregious crimes. When the United Nations secretary-general said this month that he is considering naming a commission of experts to "assist the government" of Sri Lanka to look at evidence its soldiers committed war crimes last year, my reaction was a chilling feeling of déjà-vu.

President Mahinda Rajapaksa established a domestic Commission of Inquiry in 2006 to investigate 16 cases of grave human rights violations by government forces and the Tamil Tigers. He appointed me and 10 other international experts as members of an International Independent Group of Eminent Persons to monitor the commission's work. We observed and commented on the transparency of its investigations, as well as their conformity to international norms and standards.

Our group quickly discovered that the commission's work didn't conform to those standards, and that the offices of the Attorney General and the Presidential Secretariat repeatedly created obstacles. These actions created a pervasive climate of fear, making potential witnesses reluctant to come forward. Many would testify only via video-conferencing after fleeing the country. But their statements were so devastating that the government arranged to have such testimony declared inadmissible as evidence.

The government ignored or rejected most of the suggestions we made. Official correspondence directed to us was often characterized by a lack of respect and civility. By our fifth quarterly meeting, we saw the mockery being made of the process, and unanimously decided to terminate our work.

The commission's mandate expired last July. It investigated only seven of its 16 cases. The president hasn't published its report and not a single person has been prosecuted because of the commission's work. The commission, like most of the nine such commissions appointed since independence in 1948, was a failure.

But now, there is impetus for another inquiry. Compelling evidence suggests that both the Sri Lankan government and the Tamil Tigers committed serious violations during what the UN called the "bloodbath" that marked the end of the armed conflict last May. In October, the U.S. State Department published a report with information on hundreds of alleged attacks killing and wounding civilians. Human Rights Watch has accused both sides of serious violations of international law, some of which may amount to war crimes. These credible allegations prompted calls for an independent investigation from the United States, the European Union, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, and organizations such as Human Rights Watch.

In October, the U.S. Ambassador at Large for War Crimes Issues Stephen Rapp called on the Sri Lankan government to "develop an accountability process that respects the interests of all." But Rapp's trust is completely misplaced in believing that an internal Sri Lankan investigation will produce any results.

Last May, President Rajapaksa promised UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon to investigate allegations of laws-of-war violations. No action was taken, however, until November, when the publication of the State Department report compelled Rajapaksa to appoint a six-member committee of "experts" to "examine [its allegations] carefully." The committee's only mandate was to provide recommendations to the president in December (now postponed to April), and its members do not appear to be independent-minded.

As with our commission, it appears this inquiry was intended not to bring accountability, but to avoid it. Sarath Fonseka, the army chief in charge during last year’s "blood bath" and now Rajapaksa's rival in the elections, isn't likely to bring about a credible investigation either.

The Sri Lankan government has proven time and again that it's unwilling to ensure accountability for serious violations, an absolutely vital precondition for genuine reconciliation and lasting peace. Secretary-General Ban should now take the initiative and establish a real independent international investigation. The United States, the European Union, and Sri Lanka's biggest donor, Japan, should support such an effort. A just and peaceful future for Sri Lanka depends on dealing forthrightly with its grievous past.

Arthur E. "Gene" Dewey is a former assistant secretary of state for population, refugees and migration and a contributor to Foreign Policy In Focus.

The last weekend in January saw the British Tamil referendum on the independent state of Tamil Eelam.

Along with several other Tamils up and down the country, my weekend had revolved around it.

Most of my family and friends had left early on Saturday morning in their cars, ready to drive the elderly to and from the polling stations or they set off to assist at the polling stations themselves.

On Sunday morning I rummaged through my desk drawers, found my passport and set off to cast my vote.

Stood in the queue outside the polling station, I nodded and smiled as I caught the eyes of other Tamils.

We didn’t know each other and it wasn’t merely the mutual recognition of each other’s undeniably Tamil face. This was different.

We were all there to play our part in the struggle for Tamil Eelam; to be the voice of our brothers and sisters imprisoned back at home.

The nod was a mutual acknowledgement of our shared and united belief in Eelam and the smile, a reciprocal appreciation of each other’s act of voting for our nation’s freedom.

Before leaving home, I had found my Tamil Eelam red-yellow scarf and wrapped it proudly around my neck. Glancing around, I was pleased to see I wasn’t the only one.

The man behind me wore a similar one, along with a badge reading ‘Free Tamil Eelam’.

He was there with an elderly lady, most probably his mother, who wore an identical badge as well as a red saree with a yellow border.

The gentleman in front of me, who appeared to be in his 70s, greeted me with a warm smile and shook my hand.

He told me how proud he was to see the younger generation carrying on the struggle and shared his memories of accompanying his grandfather to the Satyagrahas of the 1950s-60s.

I asked him whether he had ever lost hope in the possibility of freedom.

“Never” he replied.

Inside the polling stations, we were greeted by volunteers who guided us to the appropriate table.

Two independent officials, local councillors, sat in the corner watching over the volunteers, listening to the gentle hum of officials instructing voters of the procedure.

As I stood waiting for the official to flick through my passport, I sensed a buzz in the room.

Perhaps it was curiosity regarding the final results or anxiety over the possibility of a low voter turn-out.

The official handed my passport back to me and guided me to another table, where a man sat with a bottle of black ink and blotting paper.

A thick black mark was painted onto the tip of my finger and a yellow ballot paper given to me.

As we drove home from the polling station we compared the ink on our fingers.

Claims of the biggest, darkest and best were all rapidly put forward.

Our delight and zeal, was almost child-like in nature, as if we were comparing football cards in the playground.

We all wanted the pride of having the most prominent mark of our vote for Eelam.

Two hours to go till the polling stations close.

Pacing up and down with my mobile phone, I scrolled through my list of contacts, mentally dividing them into four categories: ‘can’t vote’ (they’re not Tamil), ‘would have definitely voted’, ‘two hours is not long enough to convince them to vote’ and ‘may have voted’.

One by one I called the latter; convinced that a bit of encouragement is all they need. 

“Have you voted?” There is a long silence, followed by a reluctant reply. “You won’t like what I have to say. I’m at work and I’m too busy.”

I try to hide my frustration and give directions to the nearest polling station, pointing out that it was less than 100m away.

After extracting a submission we say our goodbyes.

Thankfully, having gone through the rest of my phone book, such a conversation was not repeated.

Even members of my family who usually shy away from politics spoke enthusiastically about the idea of a democratic vote.

Later that night as the results started coming through there was a palpable sense of excitement.

Like with the ink on our fingers previously, once again my friends and I sat around and playfully boasted of our local area’s high turn-out and percentages of ‘Yes’ votes.

Shortly after 11pm, there was an electrifying cheer from the crowd as the final results were announced.

Over 64,000 votes cast; 99.33% of which were in favour of independence; an outstanding result.  

Surprisingly however, I did not feel the urge to celebrate.

Despite my previous enthusiasm, I was not jubilant or ecstatic.

Instead I had a feeling of immense satisfaction; content that the truth had prevailed.

It was then that it dawned on me – the buzz in the polling station earlier that morning was not anxiety or curiosity regarding the final result.

It was in fact the thrilling anticipation of what was to come.

As we voted that morning we had been excited, secure in the knowledge that today, the Tamil Diaspora in Britain would be able to prove to others what we have always known – the overwhelming majority of us want Tamil Eelam. 

The Sri Lanka government is guilty of crimes against humanity, was the conclusion of a war-crimes tribunal, conducted by Permanent Peoples’ Tribunal (PPT) based in Milan, which held hearings from 14 to 16 January in Dublin, Ireland.

The preliminary findings issued on Saturday January 16 stated that based on eye-witness accounts and other material evidence, Sri Lanka Government is "guilty of War-Crimes" and "guilty of Crimes Against Humanity."

Eye witnesses included several escapees from the final week of Sri Lanka offensive in the Mullaitivu "No Fire Zone" where more than 20,000 Tamil civilians were allegedly slaughtered by Sri Lanka Army training heavy weapons on them.

The tribunal also concluded that the charge of Genocide requires further investigations.

“Harrowing evidence, including video footage, was submitted by eye-witnesses of the use of heavy artillery and phosphorous munitions, and of the continuous violation of human rights by military activity to a panel of ten international jurors over two days,” the Peoples Tribunal on Sri Lanka (PTSL) said in a statement.

Using satellite imagery and witness statements, the tribunal was able to construct a timeline for attacks on Puthukkudiyiruppu (PTK) Hospital, for example.

"The presentation in Dublin on Satellite Image Analysis on PTK Hospital is the first step in making international institutions aware the type of legally acceptable evidence that can be gathered from the battle areas which were deliberately kept isolated from news organizations and NGOs by the perpetrator of war-crimes, the Sri Lanka Government,” a representative for the US based Tamils Against Genocide (TAG) told TamilNet .

“Attacks on other hospitals, destruction of schools and places of worship will be examined, and evidence collected as follow up steps,” they said, adding that this evidence will be used to bolster the case that the actions of the Sri Lankan government amounted to genocide.

The hearings were conducted in public as well as in camera to protect the identity of key witnesses.

The tribunal, chaired by Francois Houtart, also accused the international community, UK and the USA in particular, of being instrumental in the break down of the peace process between the Sri Lanka government and the Tamil Tigers.

The PTSL is an initiative of the Ireland peace process supported by the University of Dublin and Dublin City University.

The Irish Forum for Peace in Sri Lanka has urged the government to allow the UN to conduct an inquiry into the war crimes and to release all internally displaced people and former combatants.

The Irish Forum for Peace in Sri Lanka asserted that long term peace and stability can only be established on the basis of full justice and rights for all the inhabitants of the island.

The Sri Lanka government however has denied the findings with Secretary to the Ministry of Disaster Management and Human Rights, Prof. Rajiva Wijesinha, describing the Permanent People’s Tribunal as a ‘kangaroo court’.

A statement released by the Sri Lankan government said, the judgments of the ‘Permanent People’s Tribunal on Sri Lanka’ will do nothing to further permanent peace efforts in Sri Lanka, but pose a serious threat to the country’s  stability.

“We strongly condemn any unaccountable organization, whether it purports to be a quasi-legal entity or not, irresponsibly distorting events and seeking to selectively pass judgment from afar,”

The statement went on to claim that the members of the tribunal should be helping Sri Lanka unite and move on at the end of a terrible conflict, not continue to stoke it.

The member states of the European Union decided on Tuesday, February 16, to suspend trade concessions under the Generalised System of Preferences Plus (GSP +) for Sri Lanka because of violations of human-rights agreements.

The announcement will trigger suspension only after 6 months from that date, providing "Colombo a fair opportunity to get the decision reversed," and preferences could still be reinstated if, at the European Commission's suggestion, a qualified majority of member states so chose according to European media.

"We will look to work with Sri Lanka to identify concerted steps and actions which could help us to plot the course together that would enable Sri Lanka to regain GSP+," a EU diplomat is reported to have said.

Sri Lanka gains about 150 million dollars annually due to preferential tariffs, according to trade estimates. The island's clothing industry is the main beneficiary, using the tax breaks to sell to high street retailers in Europe.

The GSP+ gives 16 developing countries access to EU markets with preferential conditions in return for implementing international conventions on human rights, labour standards, sustainable development and good governance.

The decision came after an "exhaustive investigation... identified significant shortcomings in respect of Sri Lanka's implementation of three UN human rights conventions," the commission said in a statement.

The suspension of the GSP+ (Generalised System of Preferences plus) benefits will not take effect for six months "giving Sri Lanka extra time to address the problems identified," the EU executive added.

"I would like to emphasise that I hope Sri Lanka will sit with us over the next six months in order to agree upon a set of measures that will result in rapid, demonstrable and sustainable progress in relation to the human rights shortcomings we have identified," said new EU Trade Commissioner Karel De Gucht.

Sri Lanka criticised the decision by European Union nations claiming that the decision refers to the situation on the ground when the country was at war against Tamil Tigers and argued that the situation has much improved since the Tamil Tigers were defeated last year. EU diplomats dispute this view and say that the problems are not all linked to the Tamil situation.

Sri Lanka's foreign ministry said the European Union had set "unattainable targets" for the island to avoid withdrawal of trade benefits and added it will continue its dialogue with the Commission, but said discussions should be "sensitive" to the island's sovereignty.

Colombo maintains that any probe of its rights record will be a violation of its sovereignty.

According to Apparel industry sources, the main benefactors of GSP +,

the withdrawal of European Union trade benefits would increase costs and erode their competitiveness.

“It will have an impact on the industry,” said A Sukumaran, a clothing exporter who is chairman of the Joint Apparel Association Forum, an industry body.

“Over 50 percent of our apparel exports go to the EU. Whatever apparel qualifies for GSP Plus, costs will go up by about 10 percent. Many of our buyers have told us we have to bear the extra cost.”

Loss of the GSP (Generalised System of Preferences) Plus benefits would mean Sri Lankan exporters lose duty free access to EU markets and their shipments would be charged an import duty of about 9.6 percent.

Many analysts have said they fear factories would be forced to close, resulting in large-scale lay-offs of workers.

According to data just released by the Central Bank, earnings from apparel exports fell eight percent to 343.5 million dollars in 2009 from the year before.

A British Tamil activist commenting on the EU decision said: "The European Union states have been reluctant to pressure Colombo to work towards a just and fair political solution to the Tamils in the North and East,"

"We hope that this time the EU moves beyond rhetoric and takes concrete action," he added. 

The arrest of the main opposition candidate at the recent presidential elections, General (retd) Sarath Fonseka, has drawn protests and condemnation from opposition parties in Sri Lanka, while the government claims it is now a natter for the courts.

Fonseka was arrested in a spectacular swoop on his political office by military police on the night of Monday 8 February.

The arrest as he was in discussion with political allies on challenging the presidential poll results and on campaign tactics for the upcoming parliamentary elections.

The retired General, who led the military onslaught against the Liberation Tigers between 2005 and 2010, had earlier in the day claimed that he was prepared to testify against anyone on war crimes in front of an international court.

The government has charged Fonseka with plotting, while he was in the military, to overthrow the incumbent regime.

The Military Police also charged him with conspiracy to assassinate President Rajapakse and making political moves while in military uniform.

Legal experts predict that the Sri Lankan military courts may attempt to pass a life sentence on Fonseka.

He was allegedly charged with attempting to topple the government by joining the opposition parties while serving in the post of Military General and Joint Forces Commanding Chief, attempting to divide the military, and for granting shelter to army deserters.

However, analysts speculate that the arrest may have had more to do with Fonseka’s threats to assist prosecutions of war-crimes charges against senior members of the military and the Rajapakse family.

“I am not going to save anyone who has committed war crimes. I am definitely going to reveal what I know, what I was told and what I heard," Fonseka said, speaking to journalists on the morning of the day he was arrested.

“Any one who has committed war crimes should definitely be brought into courts,” he said, adding "Those who reveal the truth are not traitors.”

Fonseka had earlier alleged that two of the President’s brothers had been complicit in the killing of unarmed members of the Liberation Tigers who were surrendering – which is a war crime.

In an interview with The Sunday Leader newspaper Fonseka had implicated Defense Secretary Gothabaya Rajapakse and Presidential advisor Basil Rajapakse in the incident in May 2009 when the LTTE political wing chief, B Nadesan, his deputy S Pulidevan and the LTTE police chief, Ramesh were killed with their families.

When the military police burst into his office, Fonseka was allegedly in a meeting with the leaders of Tamil and Muslim parties that had supported his presidential challenge.

Press reports said he was meeting Rauf Hakeem, the leader of the Sri Lanka Muslim Congress (SLMC) and Mano Ganesan, the leader of the Democratic People’s Front (DPF) at their Colombo campaign headquarters to discuss challenging the results of the presidential poll. Other reports suggested that Somawanse Amarasinghe, the leader of the Sinhala nationalist Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP) was also present.

The Sri Lankan media reported that Fonseka resisted arrest, and as a result was dragged away.

Reports said that Major-General Sumith Manawadu had stormed in with a group of military policemen and ordered them to arrest the general and his aide Senaka da Silva.

"They stormed into the conference room while the meeting was going on and assaulted Mano Ganesan, he [Major-General Manawadu] punched him and then a dozen army people walked in,” Mr Samaraweera told the Daily Telegraph.

“General Fonseka said 'this must be done by the police', at which point Manawadu punched Fonseka. The other armed fellows pinned him to the ground and dragged him by the legs. They carried him down the stairs and bundled him into a van along with his secretary. He was also assaulted," Mr Samaraweera said.

"He is retired, the military police can't arrest him, it must be under civil law. Until 2am General Fonseka's wife had no idea of his whereabouts, and we still don't know anything. You can't be assaulted and bundled into a car without a warrant," he added.

Those present at the meeting condemned the manner of the arrest and described it as disgraceful.

“He was dragged away in a very disgraceful manner in front of our own eyes,” Rauff Hakeem told Reuters. Mano Ganesan claimed he was “dragged away like a dog”.

“There was no decorum. To call it an arrest gives dignity and legality to what was a brutal abduction. He was beaten, dragged along the floor and bundled into a van," said opposition politician and Fonseka’s campaign spokesperson Mangala Samaraweera.

Fonseka was taken to Navy Headquarters where he still remains without being charged while evidence is being put together in preparation for a General Court Martial.

Fonseka’s wife Anoma gave a tearful statement to international media the day after his arrest, pleading for his release.

"This is not an arrest. It is an abduction," a tearful Anoma Fonseka told a news conference at her home in Colombo.

Mrs Fonseka complained that her 59-year-old husband had been "dragged out and treated like an animal" by the soldiers after he objected to being arrested by military rather than civilian police.

"We always knew that the Government will try to arrest my husband, but we never thought they would do it in such a disgusting manner," she said through sobs.

Mrs Foneska was later forced to give a statement to police investigators, who raided her home at midnight and questioned her until 2am, press reports said.

In a joint statement the main parliamentary opposition said they are in fear for his life while he is in detention and called for protests over the arrest.

"We will take this matter to courts, we will take it before the people and we will take it before the international community," said Rauf Hakeem.

Former Prime Minister Ranil Wickramasinghe, also leader of the main opposition party United National Party (UNP), alleged that the time taken to file charges is used by the government to fabricate evidence.

Mrs Fonseka has been a rallying point to the fractured opposition coalition, with press reports indicating that she will be spearheading his parliamentary election campaign unless he is released from detention.

Analysts say that he will contest the election with a new coalition, the Democratic National Alliance (DNA) which was formed in an alliance with the JVP and various other parties.

The government denied all claims that Fonseka was being ill-treated or denied access to his family or lawyers.

“Family members are allowed to see him and he has been allowed to obtain legal advice also,” said Major General Prasad Samarasinghe, a military spokesman, adding that the former army commander was not even in a cell.

President Rajapakse also defended the arrest.

“Only after going through all the evidence was the Army given the green light to do what they wanted,” he told The Hindu.

“This is an enquiry [under military law] to see if there is a prima facie case against Fonseka. I don’t want to get involved in the judicial process,” he said.

“One thing is that I am a lawyer myself, so I always respect the law. I never say anything against the courts, against the judges,” the President added in defense of the move against Fonseka.

Fonseka is boycotting all proceedings according to a statement by his attorney Mr. Wijedasa Rajapakse (no relation to the President) to The Sunday Times.

The Sri Lankan Supreme Court has agreed to hear a challenge to Fonseka's arrest.

"The court granted leave to proceed with the case because it appeared, on the face of it, there had been a breach of fundamental rights of Gen Fonseka," a court official told Agence France-Presse news agency.

The court is expected to reconvene on 23 February to hear evidence.

The manner in which the army conducted its final assault in the Tamil-dominated north and east precluded such a possibility in the short run. And neither President Mahinda Rajapaksa nor army chief Gen Sarath Fonseka made much of an effort to suggest they would be gracious in victory.

Who could have guessed, though, that they would turn into implacable foes within weeks of that military triumph, and that one of them would imprison the other just a few months later?

Fonseka has been threatened with court martial on the charge of conspiring to overthrow the government. And a military trial has been justified on the basis that the plot was hatched while he was still in uniform.

That’s an implausible scenario. Sri Lanka does not have a tradition of military coups. There is no question that its armed forces have grown progressively stronger and more influential in recent decades as the country has morphed into a security state, and that is always an unhealthy sign. But that troubling circumstance can hardly be construed as evidence of Fonseka’s culpability.

The fact is that he left the army and took on Rajapaksa in last month’s presidential election. That isn’t how military plotters generally behave.

Rajapaksa won by a substantial margin and, notwithstanding the misgivings of Fonseka and some of his supporters, international observers found few signs of electoral fraud.

The retired general had managed to rally behind his presidential bid a remarkably broad coalition that ranged from Sinhalese radicals to Tamil parties, and included former president Chandrika Kumaratunga, who not so long ago headed the Sri Lanka Freedom Party that Rajapaksa now leads.

By and large, however, this reflected not so much an endorsement of Fonseka as a desire to relegate Rajapaksa, whose reputation for corruption and predilection for nepotism is compounded by a disturbing personality cult and a disinclination to countenance dissent. That desire appears to have been widely shared in the capital Colombo, where Fonseka handsomely outvoted his rival.

But the Sinhalese countryside appears to be solidly behind Rajapaksa, who has every intention of capitalising on his current standing and the opposition’s confusion: he has prematurely dissolved the national parliament and elections are expected to take place by early April. A two-thirds majority — which may prove hard to achieve, but isn’t out of the question — would hand him unprecedented power.

As executive president, Rajapaksa is already head of state and government as well as commander-in-chief of the armed forces. In addition, he has kept the defence and finance portfolios for himself, and — ominously —has expressed an interest in taking over the information ministry as well. One of his brothers, Basil, is a senior presidential adviser; another, Gotabhaya, is the defence secretary. The president’s 23-year-old son, Namal, is likely to be a candidate in the coming parliamentary elections.

Some years ago, Rajapaksa told a long-time friend that his sons were his greatest joy and he loved spending time with them, so he left it to his brothers to operate the machinery of state. This intriguing snippet emerged when that friend, prominent newspaper editor Lasantha Wickremtunga, was shot dead in Colombo in January last year. He left behind a remarkable indictment of the Rajapaksa regime, in which he said: “When finally I am killed, it will be the government that kills me”, but also hinted at a military role in silencing him.

In the same article, Wickremtunga accurately described the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam as one of “the most ruthless and bloodthirsty organisations to have infested the planet” and called for its eradication, but added: “To do so by violating the rights of Tamil citizens, bombing and shooting mercilessly, is not only wrong but shames the Sinhalese, whose claim to be custodians of the dharma is forever called into question by this savagery — much of it unknown to the public because of censorship.”

Equally aptly, he pointed out that “a military occupation of the north and east will require the Tamil people of those regions to live eternally as second-class citizens”. Until recently, huge numbers of Tamils were incarcerated in concentration camps where they were routinely maltreated. Estimates of the civilian toll in the final stages of the civil war tend to be speculative, but it would have been uncharacteristic of either the Tigers or the army to go out of their way to avoid civilian casualties.

Sri Lanka’s drift towards one-man — or at least one-family — rule through an ostensibly democratic process (albeit in the absence of a free flow of information, a crucial ingredient of meaningful democracy) is deeply unfortunate, but even more tragic is the apparent lack of concern among most Sinhalese for the plight and prospects of their Tamil compatriots.

There are, thankfully, sections of the intelligentsia and other segments of society that tend to speak out against human rights abuses, but what are the chances that they will be able to resist Rajapaksa’s determination to silence them?

It’s harder to say how he will react to a plea from the country’s leading Buddhist monks that Fonseka be freed. After all, Rajapaksa loves being photographed in temples on national occasions.

Be that as it may, the dispute between the two of them comes across as a personality clash more than anything else. A disgruntled ex-general miffed at having been offered the humiliating post of sports minister probably won’t count for much in the slightly longer run, unless Rajapaksa is foolish enough to make a martyr of him.

Like many of its South Asian neighbours, Sri Lanka deserves a far better leadership, a redistributive development strategy (based in part on a sharp decline in ‘defence’ expenditure, now that the war is over), and a more pluralist form of democracy.

British Tamils made a united democratic call for the independence of Tamil Eelam in a nationwide referendum held over the weekend of January 30 and 31.

Inside the Ballroom at the Park Lane Hotel in London, after two days of voting, the results were announced to a jubilant crowd: 64,256 of 64,692 voters said yes to Tamil Eelam (99.33%), whilst 185 voted against (0.29%) and 251 votes were void (0.39%).

This was the latest in a string of referendums taking place in Tamil Diaspora strongholds across the world, in countries such as Norway, France, Canada and Germany.

The referendums are a re-mandate of principles endorsed by the 1976 Vaddukoddai Resolution, where Tamils of Sri Lanka declared that they believed the only answer to the decades of discrimination and persecution was an independent, sovereign state of Tamil Eelam in the contiguous North and East parts of Sri Lanka.

The resolution, ratified through an electoral victory the following year, proved that the overwhelming majority of Tamils desired independence from Sinhala oppression.

This British referendum was conducted in 65 polling stations situated across the country’s major towns and cities, with a heavy focus on the capital.

Outside of London polling stations, open on Saturday only, ran from Glasgow to Southampton. Eager voters remained undeterred by icy motorway conditions and set off in their thousands.

Polling stations reported an evening rush as those who had been at work or busy with their children at Saturday school during the day, arrived just in time to cast their votes. 

Across the capital, polling stations were open both days of the weekend. Widespread engineering works on the tube and even a layer of snow did not stop Tamil Londoners getting out in force both days. 

Organisers indicated that almost one thousand votes were cast within the first hour.

Observers at one polling station reported that a steady stream of cars, sometimes packed full with three generations of Tamils, pulled up outside the polling station.

At another polling booth, a grandmother dressed in a red and yellow saree in  the colours of Eelam was assisted out of the car by her grandson wearing a hoodie declaring “STOP the GENOCIDE of TAMILS”.

At one booth, Mrs Sathyabhama Kumarasamy, now 89 years of age, spoke of her memories of voting in the 1976 referendum and remarked passionately "I love my country as I love my mother and that is why I have come to vote in the referendum".

Young Tamils, born and raised in Britain, made up a large proportion of voters.

A medical student with her first semester exams approaching took time out of her revision schedule to make an early morning visit to the polls. “This is my duty to my people,” she explained.

Children wrapped up in woollen hats and scarves, although too young to vote, frequently accompanied their parents.

Holding their parents’ hands, they watched eagerly as their parents had their identities verified and were given yellow ballot sheets.

One father, a social worker in North-West London, carried his young daughter in one arm as he filled the ballot paper, all the while talking to her about his belief in Tamil Eelam and why he was voting for it.

Both young and old had taken time to volunteer. Determined that no one should be denied the opportunity of democracy, volunteers arranged a makeshift transport service, driving elderly voters to and from the polling stations.

Due to the unexpected influx of voters at polling stations such as South Harrow, volunteers were drafted in from other areas to assist.

Independent observers declared that the referendum, organised by the Tamil National Council, and conducted with the cooperation of a number of British Tamil organisations, had run very smoothly.

As Sunday evening drew near, those who had been unable to vote earlier flocked to the polling stations. Queues were building up outside, as voters glanced nervously at their watches.

One shop keeper, visibly short of breath, spoke of how he had shut up shop ten minutes early and ran to make sure he had time to cast his vote.

Given the long queues, officials at some polling stations were compelled to extend the voting time by two hours in order to accommodate the unprecedented numbers.

But by 8pm all polling stations had closed, and counting began at various locations across London.

Under the glistening lights of the Ballroom, guests including several members of parliament, councillors and journalists, settled down for supper as the final votes were counted.

Volunteers and independent officials, under the scrutiny of referendum monitors, painstakingly examined each and every yellow ballot paper that was counted in the central London Park Lane hotel.

Professor Bryan Woodriff, chairman of the referendum monitoring committee, wove his way through the crowd of vote counters, inspecting the proceedings and discussing the conduct of the referendum with other members of the monitoring committee.

At other locations across London, officials there were engaged in a similar process, examining each ballot paper and ensuring that all were accurately tallied, all under the eagle eyes of independent election monitors.

Shortly after 11pm on Sunday, the Ballroom erupted with cheering and applauds as Professor Woodriff announced the final result.

With no clear census information, an accurate number of eligible voters remains impossible to verify, but the guests expressed absolute satisfaction at a turn out of over 64000.

Although a result of over 99% in favour of independence was widely celebrated, the prevailing mood amongst British Tamils appeared to be one of vindication than elation.

The night concluded with one of the speakers asking the crowd ‘What do we want?’

‘Tamil Eelam!’ they cried out in unison.

Perturbed by such an overwhelming call for independence and the significant national media coverage the referendum received, Sri Lankan officials have swiftly attempted to discredit its significance.

Sri Lanka’s Defence spokesman, Minister Kehiliya Rambukwella, was reported to have said they were not concerned by any referendum conducted by any community or country.   

The Tamil Diaspora however remains defiant and resolute. They want Tamil Eelam.

Following the end of decades of armed struggle in May last year, western states, led by the United States of America and the European Union, are reviewing their policy on Sri Lanka. Having followed a path of working with the state to defeat terrorism, the West now has to choose between working with an oppressive state or attempting to reform Sri Lanka into a liberal state with respect for human rights and liberal values.

Over the past three decades, in the presence of an armed non-state actor, Sri Lanka had successfully managed to mask its genocidal actions as fight against terrorism. Till now, the international community, keen to maintain the international order, has always backed the Sri Lankan state despite the legitimate grievances and aspirations of the Tamils. The argument was that Sri Lanka was a liberal democracy in the making, but was being constrained by the ‘terrorists’ causing violence within its borders.

But today, even in the absence of an armed non-state actor in the island, Sri Lanka continues its violent oppression of the Tamils. Further, the government has made no attempt to take any meaningful steps towards political reconciliation. Thus, the dynamics at play in post conflict Sri Lanka and in particular the illiberal practices of the Sri Lankan state have forced the Western governments to review their policy towards the South Asian island.

Since Mahinda Rajapakse took over as President in 2005, Sri Lanka has increasingly distanced itself from the West and moved towards Asian powers.

During the last stages of the war, Sri Lankan air raids and artillery fires killed and maimed tens of thousands of Tamil civilians cornered in a small strip of land in the north west of the island. Despite numerous calls from western countries to stop the use heavy weapons, Sri Lanka with diplomatic support of China and India continued its military onslaught that culminated in the killing tens of  thousands Tamils.

Following the end of the war in May last year, Sri Lanka imprisoned 300,000 Tamils in barbed wired concentration camps, raising further concern within the West. Further frustrating the western states, their repeated calls to open up the camps to aid agencies and work towards resettling the displaced were brushed aside by government. Sri Lanka paid lip service to the West by promising to take action but defaulted on every single promise, including repeated deadlines for releasing the displaced.

Further, the Sri Lankan state was able to escape Western attempts to censure it at the United Nations by relying on the support of its new Asian friends – China and India in particular. Sri Lanka not only defeated the western resolution but in a humiliating blow to the western states, with the support of its Asian and African allies, successfully passed its own resolution praising itself for winning the war.

With no inquiry into past atrocities and Sri Lanka continuing its flagrant violation of human rights, concerned western states attempted to link developmental aid to improved human rights. Instead of mending its methods, Sri Lanka turned to China, Iran, Libya and Myanmar – countries with equally questionable human rights records – for financial and diplomatic support.

With diplomacy no longer a viable avenue of pressure, the West turned to reform from within.

According to analysts, most of the western states saw the recently concluded presidential elections as an opportunity for change. Recognizing that the choice was between the man who ordered the killing of civilian Tamils and the man who carried it out, they nevertheless felt that a win by opposition candidate Sarath Fonseka was a way to bring Sri Lanka back into the global liberal democratic order.

This was evident in an interview given by a US official in the run up to the elections. Asked if the election could change relations with Washington, a senior US official said: "It already has changed the dynamic in a positive way."

"A lot of the progress we've seen in the last two months or so is contributable at least in part to the election," the official told AFP on condition of anonymity.

The US official was upbeat about pledges made by Fonseka including greater media freedom and independent commissions to oversee the judiciary and other key institutions.

"I'm hesitant to make predictions about the future, because candidates promise all sorts of things and then they don't deliver, but certainly General Fonseka has been making some good pronunciations," he said.

During the election campaign both the United States and Norway were attacked by the government and supporters of the incumbent for allegedly funding the Fonseka election campaign – a charge denied by both countries. Some media reports cited the presence of James McGrath, a public relations aide to the British Conservative party, on the Fonseka campaign as evidence of western support for the challenger.

Rajapakse supporters also accused Western media of taking a biased stance. Almost all media reports in the English language media outside Sri Lanka predicted a Fonseka win – or at least a close race – with many print media running pictures of Fonseka supporters celebrating the day after the polls.

The reality however, as proven by published election results, was that there was never a close contest. President Rajapakse won by a considerable margin – over 57% of the voters chose the incumbent, while Fonskea was only able to garner 40% of the vote. Independent election observers from those same western states also found that there were no significant irregularities, suggesting a genuine vote for the policies of Rajapakse over those of Fonseka.

While this may not have been the outcome the western states were hoping for, it has resulted them facing the dilemma set out at the beginning of this article: to deal with an oppressive regime, or to pressure it into change (from within or without).

A report published by Foreign Relations Committee of the US Senate late last year is a clear indication of some parts of the United States exploring all avenues including working with the Sri Lankan state. The report recommends that the US disregard allegations of war crimes and human rights abuses and instead provide financial investment towards the rebuilding of the country, especially the southern areas.

A more recent report by the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington-based think tank, espouses a similar view, stating: “given Sri Lanka's critical strategic location, the United States cannot afford to disengage with the country.” The CSIS report calls for “a subtle and sophisticated approach to rethinking the partnership, recognising that the political game has changed in Sri Lanka, but also focusing on US economic, trade, and security interests, will benefit both sides.”

These recommendations are contrary to other statements made by western actors on the expectations they have about Sri Lanka. The European Union for example has announced that it will suspend Sri Lanka from the countries eligible for GSP+ subsidies in six months, unless the country’s human rights record improves. The United States government continues to call for the Sri Lankan government to put forward a political solution acceptable to all the communities on the island, including the Sinhalese, Tamils and Muslims.

In order for the west to ignore the past and focus on the future, Sri Lanka today has to at least start reigning in its human rights violations. This includes stopping the targeting of the media and presenting a political solution that addresses the state politics of oppression that contributed towards the armed conflict.

In other worlds, the expectation of those presenting this argument is that Sri Lanka should start showing some signs that it is prepared to work towards becoming a good international citizen. This may be driven by a principled stance on values and human rights, but is also argued by many who see the need for Sri Lanka to reform from a purely pragmatic perspective – unless the conditions of oppression are addressed, the evidence from other conflict zones has been that violent conflict will resume and this will have a destabilizing effect on the country, the region and globally.

The dilemma now facing these western actors is that the actions of the Sri Lankan state after the electoral victory by President Rajapakse in no way suggest Sri Lanka is willing to reform. The intimidation of Fonseka and his supporters – the deployment of troops around his residence soon after the election results were announced, the closure of a newspaper critical of the government, etc – are not the actions of a state intent of respecting human rights. Further, the attempted deportation of a foreign journalist who questioned the election results and a visit to Russia to seal a USD300 million arms deal are all indication that Rajapakse is going to continue with his ‘East is Best’ policy .

During the course of the presidential polls, the Rajapakse campaign also succeeded in fanning the distrust of the West that has long existed in the Sinhala population. While opposition parties like the JVP have long argued that the US and the EU countries are ‘anti-Sri Lanka’ the last presidential campaign has succeeded in establishing in the minds of most Sinhalese the ‘fact’ that if Rajapakse had not been President, the West would have saved the Tamil Tigers. Thus any future action by these western states will be viewed with suspicion and perhaps even open hostility by the Sinhalese population.

Thus the western choice is perhaps no choice at all. Even working with the Sri Lankan state will not remove the suspicion and hostility of the Sinhalese – unless the west is completely prepared to accept the ongoing oppression of the Tamils. And as history has shown again and again, such an accommodation can have only one outcome. From Palestine to Iran, from Ireland to Argentina, an oppressed people will always resist by whatever means are available to them.

Tamils from across Europe gathered in Geneva Saturday to commemorate the life Murugathasan Varnakulasingham, who died in February last year to draw attention to the plight of hundreds of thousands of Tamils being starved and killed in the Vanni, Sri Lanka. The commemoration coincidentally followed soon after former UN official, Gordon Weiss, admitted that the Sri Lankan government was responsible for the deaths of up to 40,000 Tamil civilians in the last days of the war alone. This is a figure far larger than the 7,000 the UN had previously claimed as being the number killed in the Vanni, but even that figure was disputed by the Sri Lankan government.

"We Tamils, displaced and all over the world, loudly raised our problems and asked for help before [the] international community in your own language for three decades. But nothing happened ... So I decided to sacrifice my life ... The flames over my body will be a torch to guide you through the liberation path," Murugathasan had said in a letter he left near his body before self-immolating himself in front of the UN office in Geneva.

Marking the anniversary of his death, the protestors said it was still not too late for the UN to act, as the Tamils continue to be oppressed in Sri Lanka. They pointed to the recent acknowledgement by Mr Weiss that Sri Lankan officials had knowingly and deliberately downplayed the numbers of civilians in the war zone so as to restrict the amount of food and medical care taken into the theatre of conflict.

“It is time the UN recognized the deliberate genocide of Tamils in Sri Lanka, and did something before the Tamil people are wiped off the island,” said one participant. “The UN must not fail in its genocide obligations now.”

The event began with the raising of the national flag, followed by a moment of silence in memory of all the Tamils who have been killed in the war. The flame of sacrifice was lit by Mr Murugathasan’s father, following which all those gathered laid floral tributes in front of a Mr Murugathasan’s picture. Speakers from across Europe also spoke on the cause for which Mr Murugathasan gave his life and the need for Tamils across the globe to continue to draw attention to it.

United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and key international actors should take steps to bring accountability for Sri Lanka's grave human rights violations so that the thousands of victims will not continue to be denied justice during President Mahinda Rajapaksa's second term, Human Rights Watch said, after the President succeeded in winning his second term in office in late January.

The human rights situation in Sri Lanka deteriorated markedly during Rajapaksa's first term, and he failed to hold perpetrators accountable, the rights organisation said.

During the final months of the 26-year-long war with the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), both government and LTTE forces committed numerous serious violations of international humanitarian law, the report said.

"The human rights situation in Sri Lanka plummeted to new depths on Rajapaksa's watch," said Brad Adams, Asia director at Human Rights Watch.

"The president deftly played a false conflict between rights and the fight against terrorism in his first term. But with the war over, the UN and other international actors should loudly insist on justice for victims."

Rajapaksa was elected to a second term on January 26, 2010, in a hotly contested election in which his former army chief, retired Gen. Sarath Fonseka, was the runner-up.

Although election day was relatively peaceful, according to election monitors, the campaign was marked by hundreds of incidents of violence in which at least four people were killed.

During and after the war, Rajapaksa's government confined nearly 300,000 internally displaced persons to large detention camps, where they were deprived of their liberty and freedom of movement in violation of international law.

The government has separated more than 11,000 LTTE suspects from their families at checkpoints and in the camps, denying them due process, such as right to legal counsel and the right to have a court review their detention, HRW said.

Threats and attacks against outspoken and critical civil society figures increased, and the government used anti-terror laws and emergency regulations against peaceful critics, further diminishing the space for public debate.

The hostile, sometimes deadly, media environment drove dozens of journalists into exile, the rights group noted.

Enforced disappearances and abductions, a longstanding and widespread problem in Sri Lanka, sharply increased in 2006, when military operations between the government and the LTTE intensified following the collapse of the 2002 ceasefire.

In 2006 and 2007, the UN Working Group on Enforced and Involuntary Disappearances recorded more new "disappearance" cases from Sri Lanka than from any other country in the world.

Politically motivated killings during Rajapaksa's first term also remain unresolved, including the extrajudicial executions of five students in Trincomalee in January 2006 and of 17 aid workers with Action Contre la Faim in Mutur in August 2006.

Rajapaksa took no effective steps to bring accountability for human rights violations, Human Rights Watch said.

In July 2009, Rajapaksa disbanded, before it could complete its work, a presidential commission of inquiry created in 2006 to investigate 16 cases of grave human rights violations.

In April 2008, the International Independent Group of Eminent Persons (IIGEP) had withdrawn from monitoring the commission because it had "not been able to conclude ... that the proceedings of the Commission have been transparent or have satisfied basic international norms and standards."

The vast majority of the hundreds of new "disappearances" and politically motivated killings from the past few years have never been seriously investigated, and none of the perpetrators have been punished.

In May 2009 Rajapaksa promised Ban that the Sri Lankan government would investigate allegations of human rights and laws-of-war violations during the war's final months. No such investigation has taken place.

Instead, the government has set up a team of lawyers to respond to allegations about rights violations in reports by the US State Department and the UN special envoy on extrajudicial executions.

Because of the government's failure to investigate serious human rights abuses, Human Rights Watch has long called for an independent international investigation into abuses by all parties to the conflict.

Thus far, the secretary-general's office has stated that Ban was "considering" establishing a committee of experts to "assist the government" of Sri Lanka to look at evidence that its soldiers committed war crimes last year.

"The various investigatory bodies set up by President Rajapaksa have spent more energy trying to deflect serious inquiries into abuses than actually conducting them," Adams said.

"Ban and key governments should not fall for the same trick again and instead should call for an independent international investigation. The ball is now in Ban's court."