Sunila Abeysekera
Cases- Location of case in SG report
- 2012-038-001
- 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
affiliated with INFORM Human Rights Documentation Centre, Global Campaign for Women‟s Human Rights
- Type of rights defended
- Women’s rights
- Was the victim a civil servant, member of the security forces or of the judiciary?
- No
- Reported trigger of reprisal
at the nineteenth session of the Council
- Engagement with UN body
- UN Human Rights Council: UN Human Rights Council - General
- Dates of engagement
- March 2012
- Type of attempted engagement
- Participation in meeting on UN premises
- Dates of mentioned reprisals
- March 2012; Between 14 and 17 March 2012; 23 March 2012
- Location of mentioned reprisals
- Geneva; Colombo
- Reprisal information
reported that they were approached in the Palais des Nations by a Sri Lankan embassy staff member who told them that “they should not be in Geneva” and that “they were letting their country down”.
Between 14 and 17 March 2012, several articles appeared in the Sri Lankan press relating to human rights defenders, accusing them of working with the Liberation Tigers of the Tamil Eelam (LTTE) including: the Daily Mirror, Lanka C News, Dinamina, Lakbima, Silumina and the Nation. Some of these articles were reproduced on official Government web pages: On 14 March 2012, an article in the Daily Mirror entitled “Pakiasothy, Sunila and Nimalka working with LTTE rump” accused Ms. Abeysekera, Mr. Saravanamuttu (Director of the Centre for Policy Alternatives) and Ms. Fernando of supporting the LTTE and betraying Sri Lanka. On 15 March 2012, the article was reproduced on the website of the Ministry of Defence (defence.lk) and on 17 March 2012, the news website of the Government (news.lk) posted a similar article.
A number of programmes depicting the Human Rights Council session were broadcast on national television in Sri Lanka during the same period, reportedly portraying the human rights defenders in a negative light: On 15, 16 and 17 March 2012, the channel ITN reportedly broadcast visuals of Mr. Saravanamuttu, Ms. Fernando, Ms. Abeysekera and Sunanda Deshapriya (a journalist mentioned in my 2010 report), alleging that an “NGO gang” in Geneva had joined with the LTTE.
On 23 March 2012, the Sri Lankan Minister for Public Relations, Mervyn Silva, reportedly addressed a public demonstration in Kiribathgoda outside of Colombo on the Human Rights Council resolution, and named Dr. Saravanamuttu, Dr. Fernando, Ms. Abeysekera and Mr. Deshapriya as “traitors” and threatened to break the limbs of any exiled journalists who had gone abroad and made statements against the country, and dared them to set foot in Sri Lanka again. A video of the speech has been disseminated on the Internet through a social networking site. It was reported a few days later that the Minister of External Affairs, G.L. Peiris, had condemned the Minister involved for making public threats of violence and stated that such remarks could neither be condoned nor justified
- Types of reprisals suffered
- Defamation / Defamation campaign
- Online harassment
- Threats/Intimidations (incl. "fear of reprisal")
- Alleged/likely perpetrators
- Both state and non-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?
- 0