Unearth the Truth Beneath the UTHR (J) Report
(By Gomin Dayasiri)
There was a time when the University Teachers for
Human Rights (Jaffna) (UTHR(J)) commanded attention and respect for
their analysis in the Reports published by them. However, in recent
time, the quality and the standard of reporting, is questionable, more
so for the obviously inaccurate source material obtained and the faulty
interpretation thereon which makes both their research and reporting
bizarre. To be charitable, since the writing is from distant land, the
possibility of testing the credibility of source material becomes
awesome, which naturally leads unconsciously to incorrect conclusions.
Let us pick a few features from the UTHR(J) report to
highlight the lack of due diligence.
The recent report published by UTHR(J) - Special
Report No.30 - released appropriately on 1st April 2008 is a comedy of
errors. A cursory glance at this report is sufficient to realize that it
contains unsubstantiated facts and figures and is based primarily on
pure surmise. The degree of inaccuracy of the details given are indeed
shocking, certainly not befitting the noble teaching profession the
UTHR(J) claims to represent.
The report contains a desperate attempt on the part of
the UTHR(J) to pin the time of death to a date on which the Government
Troops were located in Mutur and cleanse the LTTE. Testimonies of
persons who, according to the UTHR(J)'s own admission, are
unidentified, unknown, uncontactable and untraceable, is relied upon
for this purpose. Furthermore, none of these testimonies relied upon by
the UTHR(J) have been directly received by UTHR(J). They are quoting
persons who have been told these "facts" by other unknown persons. Thus
the report is based not on first hand accounts from eyewitness
testimonies, but on 3rd party, hearsay evidence, which has no evidential
value or credibility whatsoever as demonstrated hereinafter, and should
not have been relied upon by the UTHR(J).
The findings of the SLMM and of the JMO and all other
medical and forensic determinations specifies the time of the death of
the 17 aid workers to have occurred "before 7.00 AM on 4th August
2006". Therefore the deaths could have occurred between the 3rd
night and 4th early morning, when the LTTE was in full control of the
Mutur Town. The UTHR(J), has challenged this forensic evidence, by
claiming in their report that they "received reports from
Trincomalee that calls were received from Mutur ACF staff on the 4th
evening and 5th early morning" and therefore the time of death
would have occurred between the 4th afternoon and 5th early morning and
not on 4th early morning as suggested by the forensic evidence. But in
the same paragraph of the UTHR(J) report, it is disclosed that "attempts
to track them to the reported sources brought negative results."
How can the UTHR(J) challenge the time of death confirmed by forensic
evidence, which was before 7.00 a.m. on the 4th August 2006, by arming
themselves with information provided from a source, who could not be
even traced and the confirmation of which information has brought them
"negative results" ? This amply demonstrates the irresponsibility with
which the UTHR(J) is firing accusations at the Government Troops?
UTHR(J) also cites testimonies of "direct or
indirect contact by Mutur residents" for their claim that the
deaths occurred between the 4th afternoon and 5th morning. However, as
demonstrated hereinafter, not a single source has been revealed in the
report nor a single statement or other acceptable proof cited to support
this position of the UTHR(J). It is extremely easy to level allegations
at the Government, the Armed Forces, or even the LTTE by citing
undisclosed sources but what is the credible and acceptable proof
produced by the UTHR(J) to back such a significant and important
assertion as to the time of death of the 17 workers? Reports must be
backed by hard evidence, which is sadly lacking in the UTHR(J) report.
On the contrary, there is ample proof to substantiate
the position of the SLMM and the forensic experts that the death
occurred between the 3rd night and the 4th morning. For instance, all of
those civilians who discovered the 17 bodies on the 5th Morning,
including Rajesh (who is mentioned by UTHR(J) in their report)
claim that the bodies of the 17 aid workers were bloated and had
an unbearable stench, which they smelt even from the road. Some
of the bodies were being attacked by birds and animals. In fact, many of
the witnesses who visited the scheme of the crime on the 5th morning,
have been guided to the death site by this bad ordour from the rotting
bodies. These statements from those who discovered the bodies, given
before various forums such as the Magistrate's Court, the Investigation
Unit, the Commission of Inquiry, are consistent with the forensic
evidence and remain uncontradicted. Therefore, the killings would not
have taken place on the 4th afternoon or 5th morning. Generally it takes
12-18 hours for Rigor Mortis to completely develop on the body and over
24 hours pass prior to the commencement of the decomposition and
bloating, as confirmed in any medical journal or by any medical expert.
The witnesses' claims of decomposed bodies, is consistent with the
pathologist's report that the time of death was at about or prior to 4th
morning. It is shocking that the UTHR(J) rejects this solid forensic
evidence, on account of the testimonies of persons who they have never
met and from sources who cannot be traced!
How can the bodies be in such a decomposed and
deteriorated condition if the killings have indeed occurred on the 4th
afternoon or the 5th morning as claimed by UTHR(J)? The bodies were not
fresh at the time of discovery and this position is an accepted fact. It
is therefore, clear that this finding of the UTHR(J) on the time of
death of the 17 aid workers, is based on nothing but pure surmise and
the vivid imagination of the good professors, fuelled by interested
parties to further their objectives. What any reasonable person expects
from a academic body such as the UTHR(J) are hard facts and accurate and
reliable information with intelligent interpretation based on
intelligible material which is conspicuously absent from the said
report.
The UTHR(J) has challenged the pathologist's report by
stating that "Indications we received from the beginning
were that the SLMM's identification of the security forces as the likely
perpetrators was right, but their estimate of the time as early morning
4th August 2006, which was also the time given officially by the Sri
Lankan pathologist Dr. Waidyaratna, was wrong as we had testimony that
the victims had been seen until the afternoon." In short,
forensic evidence is brushed aside, by solely relying on the testimonies
of unknown witnesses who claim to have seen the 17 aid workers, after
the determined time of death.
Let us examine these important testimonies cited in
the UTHR(J) report, based on which the UTHR(J) has brushed aside the
pathologist's expertise, and concluded the time of death as being on the
4th August afternoon to 5th morning . There were two people whose
testimonies were primarily relied on by the UTHR(J). A Muslim Youth and
an Elder.
Citing the Muslim youth the UTHR(J) states:
"We also mention another testimony we received
in February 2007 from a youth known to the ACF staff who was in Mutur
two weeks after the incident. A Muslim elder met him in a shop and
told him that the ACF was in Mutur helping the Muslims during the
crisis by distributing potable water and relief during the siege and
also helping with sanitation in camps......He added that some of
'our boys' had been involved in the killings. He said that he was
on the road when he saw the security forces and some of the Muslim
home guards coming from the ACF. Two home guards were mounted on an
ACF motorcycle. One of them was Jehangir".
This youth, although giving us genuine
information, which matched the earlier testimony, made the kind of
mistake we initially made. He had in mind what the SLMM
concluded and said it happened on Friday morning. It was after several
conversations with this youth that he remembered that the elder had
also told him that he had seen this after he had attended prayers at
the Mosque, and was subsequently convinced that it happened in the
afternoon. His attempts at contacting the man again
proved futile."
As per the UTHR(J), the entire evidence of the Muslim
youth is based on what some village elder told him and his testimony
relied upon is that of an untraceable and unknown source who has
disappeared into thin air. The identity of the village elder is not
known even to the unidentified Muslim youth and is not traceable
according to the report. The UTHR(J) in the same paragraph, insinuates
that the Muslim youth himself has mistakenly confused in remembering the
date and times related to him by the purported Muslim elder, and it was
after several conversations that he was even able to recollect what he
now holds out which the UTHR(J) believes is the whole truth and nothing
but the truth. Is the UTHR(J) relying on 3rd party information provided
by a confused Muslim youth speaking of a unidentifiable and untraceable
Muslim elder? What degree of authenticity can be placed on an
unidentifiable Muslim elders statement in the mind of a confused Muslim
youth's or is it a continuation of the admittedly mistaken notions of a
Muslim lad? Do the learned teachers of UTHR(J) reach conclusions based
on such flimsy evidence. Next time it is possible source material will
originate from "gossip" in the Mutur bazzar. Do men of learning present
works of research with such footnotes as source material.
Furthermore, what has the untraceable Muslim elder
told the confused Muslim lad on "double heresay" on which the
conclusions of the UTHCR(J) are reached? He is alleged to have said that
he saw two guards and some armed personnel on the 4th afternoon near the
ACF office. Yet the elusive mysterious elder who has disappeared into
thin air, has not mentioned whether or not a single gun shot has been
fired or heard the sound of gunfire. But on this vague and unreliable
evidence the UTHR(J) finds the government troops guilty and exonerates
the LTTE who were carrying arms and were around the vicinity. As per
UTHR(J) the 17 aid workers have not been shot once but repeatedly using
four different weapons. However, the missing Muslim Elder despite being
present near the scene of the crime has not mentioned hearing any
gun fire or seeing the firing How can UTHCR(J) conclude that it
was the Government troops who killed these aid workers, when the so
called eye witness never heard a single gun shot despite observing the
troops though being in the vicinity of the ACF office premises on the
4th afternoon? Furthermore, the bodies, when found on 5th morning by the
civilians were already decomposed and bloated. This can only happen
after 24 hours of death. Therefore, the killings could not have taken
place on the fourth afternoon, but at a time well before 4th Morning,
when the LTTE was conspicuously present of the Mutur town which fact is
conveniently overlooked and has not been taken into consideration in the
UTHCR(J) Report
The other so called "credible" testimony cited in the
UTHR(J) was as follows:
"From what we earlier knew the killings could
have taken place any time from 4th Friday afternoon to 5th Saturday
morning when the deaths were reported. Very early, in September 2006,
we obtained through one of our contacts the testimony of an elderly
man from Mutur who lived close to the ACF office that an army patrol
went into the ACF office at 4.15 PM. They left after a very short
time. At 5 PM masked men in commando uniform came in a cavalcade of
motorcycles. A senior officer followed in a vehicle with guards and
they entered the ACF office. In about half an hour, he said, they went
away."
The UTHR(J) supports it's conclusion that the killings
were done on the 4th afternoon to 5th morning, by citing the above
testimony. It is astounding how the mere fact that the government forces
were cited near the ACF office on the 4th afternoon around 5.00 p.m.
appears to have been sufficient for the UTHR(J) to conclude the killings
had occurred on the 4th afternoon to 5th morning. This demonstrates a
bias against the Armed Forces. Further, this conclusion has been reached
by this so called eminent group of academics, despite a "telling" detail
which emerged from both those testimony- "THE ABSENCE OF GUN FIRE". Non
of the testimonies cited in the UTHR(J) report of eye witnesses who have
seen Government Forces visiting the ACF office, speaks of any shooting
taking place or hearing gun fire at the time they spotted the Armed
Forces arriving and leaving the ACF office. If indeed they heard
gunfire, the elusive eye witnesses would have definitely mentioned such
a fact as it is a very impressionable and significant fact, and the
UTHR(J) would have certainly cited the same. But none of the so called
"witnesses" has mentioned gun fire during the visit of government troops
to the ACF office. There is silence for the moment but since this lacuna
is pointed out evidence may not now materialize of the sound of
gunfire.we for a moment do not subscribe such is the art practiced by
the UTHR(J) but suppliers of evidence can always conjure missing tell
tale marks.
Of the other so called credible testimony the UTHR(J)
has relied upon, their own report casts serious doubts as to the actual
existence of any of these so called witnesses and the credibility of the
information. The report states:
A circumstance that led the SLMM to decide on
the time of the incident as before 7.00 AM on 4th August 2006, was
that ACF Mutur was un-contactable by radio or other means from that
time. We received reports from Trincomalee that calls were received
from Mutur ACF staff on the 4th evening and 5th early morning. But
attempts to track them to the reported sources brought negative
results....."
On the other hand, other testimonies of direct
or indirect contact by Mutur residents earlier in the day appeared to
stand. A religious leader in Mutur told us that he had been to the ACF
around 8.00 to 8.30 AM in the morning and advised the staff to join
them as they were leaving Mutur on foot. The ACF staff refused saying
that their superiors had told them to remain in the office to be
picked up.
A member of the ACF staff who was not staying
at the office and left Mutur on foot with most of the residents, was
positive that the staff members were alive when they left about 10.00
AM on the 4th. He had not met them but a lady who cooked had met
them after 9.00 AM......"
"About mid-2007, a senior Sister at the Mutur
Convent told us that sometime after their exodus from Mutur, she met
some Muslims in Trincomalee, who told her that after the LTTE had
left, some at the ACF had walked down to a grocery store on the Main
Rd. close to the Hospital to buy tea and some eatables. This seemed
afternoon on the 4th since the general consensus was that the LTTE
vacated the town around noon on that day. Another source told us
that two boys from a Tamil family that was staying with Muslims had
met Narmathan and some others from the ACF at a shop close to the
Hospital late afternoon on the 4th. In neither of these were we
able to trace the sources.
Most of the above "testimonies" are from "sources"
admittedly cannot be verified or traced or named. Can such testimonies
be considered sufficient or acceptable by any reasonable person, to
counter the forensic/scientific evidence which places the time of death
from 3rd night to 4th early morning? Even Henrickson from the SLMM
quoting ACF sources stated ACF office in Trincomalee lost contact with
Mutur office shortly after 6.00 am on the 4th of August. Tamil Net
emphatically states of LTTEs dominant presence of Muttur throughout the
4th. But UTHCR(J) dogmatically desires to nail Sri Lankan forces
The UTHR(J) has concluded from the above testimonies
that the killings have taken place on the 4th afternoon. But
interestingly, none of the so called reliable testimonies (apart from a
sister who has been told by an unidentified refugee of seeing some of
the workers in the afternoon- which source is once again untraceable)
mention the fact that these 17 aid workers were seen in the afternoon on
the 4th of August. Even the lady who one of the ACF workers claim cooked
for the Mutur staff has last seen them on the 4th morning. The same
UTHR(J) report confirms that the LTTE left only on the 4th afternoon - "This
seemed afternoon on the 4th since the general consensus was that the
LTTE vacated the town around noon on that day." Therefore, even
assuming the killings took place on the 4th morning, who else but the
LTTE was in control of the Mutur town at the time of the killing?
In a desperate attempt to establish the time of death
of the 17 aid workers as the 4th afternoon, where the government troops
had been cited by the witness, the UTHR(J) asserts that "The Sri
Lankan pathologist contrary to what he put down in the inquest reports
had, we later learnt, told Peter Apps of Reuters that the probable time
of death was the 4th afternoon." Has the UTHR(J) spoken to the
pathologist and obtain a confirmation by the Sri Lankan pathologist of
such conversation with Peter Apps? The report quotes neither Peter Apps
nor the pathologist but merely states that "they learnt" of such
conversation? Obviously another one of those elusive and untraceable
witnesses?
Much is stated about the weapons used and the bullets
purportedly found on the crime site - the 5.56 mm projectile and the
7.62 mm projectile. The Report states " Our sources said that
while the Police were generally issued with T-56 weapons, which fired
7.62 mm bullets, Susantha's personal weapon was black in colour, the
barrel about the size of one's forearm and fired bullets about the size
of revolver bullets, thick and squat, like 9 mm bullets. From this and
further information in the Addendum, we conclude that Susantha's was an
18.5 inches long Uzi submachine gun. Nilantha had an LMG (Light Machine
Gun), which fired bullets fed by an ammunition belt. (The bullet types
are 9 x 19 mm for the Uzi, 7.62 x 39 mm for T-56 and 5.56 x 45 mm for
M-16.)"Is it the position of the UTHR(J) that LTTE do not
possess T- 56 weapons which fired 7.62 bullets or Uzi Sub machine Guns?
What is the information relied upon by the UTHR(J), to rule out the
possibility that these weapons may have been used by either the LTTE, or
even the armed Muslim Group, which the UTHR(J) has in the Appendix I to
the Special Report has confirmed as having operated in this area? LTTE
possess one of the most sophisticated arm caches in the world. What
convinces the UTHR(J) that the LTTE does not possess these arms? The
mere citing of weapons in the hands of certain police officers are
sufficient for UTHR(J) to conclude that the bullets would have been
fired from those particular weapons, ignoring the fact that these are
common weapons used by both the terrorists and the Military. Has the
UTHR(J) at the least obtained a report that has examined the weapons of
those police officers and concluded that the bullets have been fired
from those particular weapons, before making these accusations?
There is good and necessary reason for UTHR(J) to
bring the time of death closer to the 5th morning rather than 3rd night
to 4th morning. All of the witnesses from Mutur, who did not evacuate
Mutur during the crisis, have repeatedly confirmed that the LTTE was in
control of the town upto 4th afternoon as admitted by Tamil Net in their
domain. Therefore, this new claim of the UTHR(J) that the deaths
occurred between the 4th afternoon and 5th morning is not surprising.
This false assertion is merely yet another attempt to discredit the
Government Forces who are engaged in the final thrust towards
eradicating terrorism in this country. The eradication of conflict from
this country will also spell the end to the existence and operation of
many a Human Rights Organizations who thrive on conflict situations.
Thus discrediting the Government and the Armed Forces by making
frivolous allegations is to safeguard their own continuous sustenance
and is clearly the first priority of many a NGO's.
UTHR(J) throughout the report, refers to the fact that
there were "Sri Lankan Naval Special Forces" deployed in
the Mutur Town during the crisis. Though there is a permanent naval
detachment based at Mutur pier which was subject to heavy LTTE
bombardment from the commencement of the attack, it did not have men or
material to counter the offensive and was nearly overrun by the ferocity
of the LTTE attack and had to seek assistance to hold its perimeter. The
"Sri Lankan Naval Special Forces" never took part in the
clearing operations conducted in the Mutur Town or had visited the Mutur
Town or the surrounding areas between 01st to 6th August 2006 a task
which was entrusted to other forces who were ferried by the Navy between
Trincomalee and Mutur. None of the investigations carried out by several
organizations both foreign and local including the government indicates
any involvement of the "Naval Special Forces" or the Navy
in the events within the Mutur Town and UTHR(J) has not cited an iota of
evidence to support their claim that the Naval Special
Forces were in the heart of the Mutur Town engaged in clearing
operations, except of providing transportation by sea and securing the
Naval Base, acts that did not require entry to the town. This reference
alone speaks volumes for the careless and frivolous manner in which the
UTHR(J) report has been prepared by a group of persons, who had once a
upon a time, acted responsibly.
The killing of the 17 aid workers is indeed a tragedy
and the perpetrators must most certainly be punished, whoever it is, in
the name of justice However, pointing the finger at any one of the
Government Forces for these killings, without any acceptable proof is
unjust and extremely unfair. Has the UTHR(J) addressed their superior
minds to the possibility that this may have been a "last ditch" effort
on the part of the LTTE before leaving Mutur to create a human
catastrophe and blame the Government Forces and tarnish their
reputation? Are not the LTTE permanent perpetrators of human rights
violations? Will they not travel any distance or stoop to any level to
extract a benefit? By August 2006 the LTTE had to shift the world focus
away from their brutal and inhumane act in closing the Mavil Aru Annicut
which provided drinking water for thousands of farmers? The deprivation
of their only available source of water for thousands of farmers, was
considered as one of the most blatant violations of Human Rights world
over and gave the Sri Lankan government the platform to launch the
offensive against the LTTE. It was only days before the killings of the
17 aid workers that the Government Troops became the heroes in the eyes
of the people and won their confidence by launching the operations to
open the Annicut which was mined heavily by the LTTE. The Government
Forces had to embark on one of the toughest operations risking the lives
of their troops as the entire area was severely mined. They did it with
gusto and in no time secured the annicut and ensured the supply of
drinking water for these thousands of people winning their love and
confidence. What better way to tarnish their name than create a human
catastrophe by killing 17 aid workers and blame it on the Forces? There
was a motive.
In fact the UTHR(J) concedes that the LTTE may have
visited the ACF office on Friday morning:
"It is conceivable that the LTTE did visit the
ACF office on Friday morning, as they did the Methodist Church, and
again advised them to leave. If the ACF staff had told them that their
orders were to stay, the LTTE may have got angry and done something
to the radio. But there is nothing to support this except a report
from some of the ACF staff of a cable linking the radio to the antenna
being pulled out."
However, the UTHR(J) does not think one of the most
deadliest terrorist group in the world, who had massacred thousands of
civilians from all communities, Sinhala, Tamil and Muslim, is capable of
carrying out these killings, despite being angry that their orders are
being disobeyed! Only the pulling of a radio wire is attributed to these
mass murderers who kill thousands of innocent civilians at their whim
and fancy. This is indeed a very "telling" conclusion of the mindset
with which this report has been compiled. The intention is to whitewash
the LTTE and discredit the Government Forces.
Then again, the UTHR(J) should have also considered
the role of the Muslim Armed Groups (cited by them) as operating in the
Mutur area? Between the 1st and 5th of August 2006 a large number of
Muslims were displaced and killed. Did these Muslim Armed Group carry
out these killings as a act of revenge, in the mistaken belief that the
17 aid workers were part of the LTTE, the terrorists who killed their
families and dispossessed them of their homes?
UTHR(J) has a duty to act responsibly and sensibly, by
considering all possibilities and scenarios before blindly accusing the
Government Forces of committing this crime. Let us not forget that of
all the Groups that operated in Mutur, the Government Forces was one
party who had no motive to kill the 17 aid workers.
It appears that the UTHR(J) has been guided by
extraneous considerations in making this report. The Special Report
No:30 of UTHR(J) is indeed a modern day Alice in Wonderland with mad
hatters and invisible characters!
-The Ministry of Defence bears no responsibility for the ideas and opinion expressed by the numerous contributors to the “Opinion Page” of this web site-
|
