Sandya Ekneligoda
Cases- Location of case in SG report
- 2012-038-003
- Relevant SG report
- Year of the report
- 2012
- From Country
- Country Geolocation
Latitude: 7.87305399999999
Longitude: 80.7717969999999
- Country Geolocation (linked Cases)
- Sri Lanka
- From Region
- UN body that raised the case prior to the SG report
- UN Human Rights Council: Council Presidency
- UN (Dep.) High Commissioner on Human Rights
- Dates of prior UN action
- 6 March 2012; 23 March 2012
- Type of record
- Named individual
- Gender
- Female
- Was the victim a foreign national?
- No
- Was the victim a minor?
- No
- Individual's/organization's activity
human rights defender and the wife of missing Sri Lankan political cartoonist Prageeth Ekneligoda
- Type of rights defended
- Civil/political rights
- Was the victim a civil servant, member of the security forces or of the judiciary?
- No
- Reported trigger of reprisal
At a Human Rights Council side event which took place on 19 March 2012
- Engagement with UN body
- UN Human Rights Council: UN Human Rights Council - General
- Dates of engagement
- 19 March 2012
- Type of attempted engagement
- Participation in meeting on UN premises
- Dates of mentioned reprisals
- 19 March 2012; after return
- Location of mentioned reprisals
- Geneva; Colombo
- Reprisal information
At a Human Rights Council side event which took place on 19 March 2012, Sandya Ekneligoda, a human rights defender and the wife of missing Sri Lankan political cartoonist Prageeth Ekneligoda, was reportedly harassed by members of the Sri Lankan delegation who attempted to prevent the continuation of the event. A day after returning to Colombo, Ms. Ekneligoda appeared in the Homagama Magistrate‟s Court in relation to her disappeared husband‟s habeas corpus case and her request for the former Attorney General to be summoned for questioning regarding a statement made by him to the Committee against Torture on 9 November 2011, indicating that the Government had information on the whereabouts of Mr. Ekneligoda. Ms. Ekneligoda was reportedly questioned by the Deputy Solicitor General regarding her participation in the March 2012 session of the Council. In response to the defence counsel‟s objection to the relevance of this, the Deputy Solicitor General reportedly said: “I am entitled to ask any question to find out whether international organizations and NGOs are provoking something against the State.”
- Types of reprisals suffered
- Threats/Intimidations (incl. "fear of reprisal")
- Alleged/likely perpetrators
- State actors
- Was the reprisal based on new legislation?
- No
- Does the report make general comment about country’s environment for engagement with UN?
- Yes
- Government response dates
- 23 March 2012
- Government response content
It is noted that Sri Lanka, in comments made on 23 March 2012 to the Human Rights Council, at its nineteenth session, asked for clarification on allegations that there had been threats to and intimidation of human rights defenders by members of its delegation, indicating that it treated such allegations with the utmost seriousness and did not condone such violations. In its comments, Sri Lanka denied allegations of intimidation or harassment of human rights activities in its reply under agenda item 4 of the twentieth session of the Council. In that statement, Sri Lanka also noted that “any individual expression of opinion as to the conduct of civil society activists in the local media and elsewhere cannot be interpreted as intimidation and the Government cannot be expected to assume responsibility for the free expression of opinion of third parties”.
- Is the country cited for a "pattern of reprisal" in the context of this case?
- No
- Is a pattern of reprisals mentioned otherwise in the context of this case?
- No
- Does the report cite "self-censorship" as an issue in the context of this case?
- No
- How many times has the case been followed up in subsequent SG reports?
- 1
- In which SG report was this case followed up on? 0
- 2022
- Follow up information provided in SG report 0
- The case of Ms. Sandya Ekneligoda was included in the 2019 report of the Secretary-General on allegations of harassment, including online attacks, in reprisal for her efforts to seek the truth about the fate and whereabouts of her husband, disappeared journalist Mr. Prageeth Ekneligoda, including her engagement with the United Nations Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances (WGEID) that registered the case of her husband in 2010 (LKA 2/2018).
- On 17 November 2021, special procedures mandate holders addressed allegations of intimidation for cooperation with the United Nations against Ms. Ekneligoda following a letter she received dated 4 August 2021 from the Office on Missing Persons (OMP) asking her to disclose her private correspondence with the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) and the WGEID (SLK 5/2021). Mandate holders enquired why Ms. Ekneligoda had been requested by the OMP to disclose her private correspondence with the WGEID and how this request was compatible with her rights to privacy and safety as well as unhindered access to and communication with the United Nations. They expressed concern that such a request could discourage other victims and relatives from engaging with the United Nations and lead to self-censorship. The case of Mr. Ekneligoda with the WGEID remains pending (SLK 5/2021).
- On 25 January 2022, the Government replied to mandate holders providing information about the court case of the disappearance of Ms. Ekneligoda’s husband. It informed that in December 2019 Ms. Ekneligoda had lodged a complaint with the OMP on the disappearance of her husband and the verification that followed deemed that there was not enough information to draw a conclusion. According to the Government, the OMP letter to Ms. Ekneligoda only invited her to share voluntarily any documents she may have shared with other bodies, such as the WGEID, and at no point she was intimidated or coerced into sharing information. The Government further held that the objective of the request was to obtain more information with a view to investigate the complaint.
- Followup Trends 0
- Deterioration/further reprisals
- Date of follow up 0
- 17 November 2021
- Did the government respond? 0
- Yes