Jagath Jayasuriya joins the Sonia Modi club

Former Army Commander Jagath Jayasuriya

by C.A.Chandraprema-September 2, 2017, 7:37 pm

Former Army Commander Jagath Jayasuriya completed his stint as Sri Lankas
Ambassador to Brazil and arrived in Sri Lanka last week. It would appear that just
as he was leaving Brazil, some international human rights groups had filed war
crimes lawsuits against him in Brazil and Colombia. According to international
news reports on the matter, the petitioners had alleged that Jayasuriya oversaw
military units that attacked hospitals and killed and tortured thousands of
civilians. There was of course no risk of Jayasuriya being arrested in Brazil because
he had diplomatic immunity as an Ambassador. But the petitioners obviously
wanted to make it untenable for him to remain in that position. However,
Jayasuriya didnt really lose anything because his term as Ambassador was over in
any case.

The main figure behind this move is apparently Yasmin Sooka of the self styled
International Truth & Justice Project, Sri Lanka, which claims to have obtained
sworn statements along with evidence gleaned from medical and psychiatric
examinations from Tamil individuals who had arrived in the UK claiming asylum.
They had claimed to have been arrested, blindfolded, held in darkened cells and
subject to sexual attacks and repeated interrogations. A woman had claimed she
had been abducted in a white van, beaten with electric cables and suffocated,
using a plastic bag containing petrol and later raped. Another woman had claimed
to have been gang raped. A man had claimed to have been anally and orally raped
by a captor. About half the people interviewed by Sookas organization had
claimed to have attempted suicide after leaving Sri Lanka.

On the face of it, the evidence that Yasmin Sookas organization claims to have
unearthed looks like the usual stories related by asylum claimants trying not to
get expelled from Britain. It goes without saying that a refugee status claimant will
say what is calculated to get them what they want. All those arriving in Europe
seeking refugee status, claim to have been tortured and raped. Of the refugees
arriving from Syria and other parts of the Middle East who are mostly male, a
remarkable number claim to have been sodomized by their captors so much so
that one would think they had arrived from Sodom and Gomorrah rather than
from any part of the Muslim Middle East. Given the number of adult Syrian males
who claim to have been raped, one would think that the intermediary in the
Middle East peace talks should be the gay and lesbian movement and not the UN,
given the apparent preponderance of Sodomites among the armed forces and
terrorists of the Middle East.

Most Western nations are now wise to the false claims of torture and rape being
made to obtain refugee status. They know that many refugees deliberately cause
scars on their own bodies to give credence to their asylum applications. There is
even a term coined for this called self-infliction by proxy or SIPB. Some refugee
claimants sport scars that make them look like escapees from medieval torture
dungeons. The British House of Lords has rejected refugee applications from Sri
Lankan Tamils on the grounds that the scars they have are SIPB injuries. The
House of Lords has even dismissed reports obtained from medical experts
obviously because the medical reports may only provide details of the means by
which the scars were caused and not whether it was voluntary or involuntary.
Even though the victims accounts and the medical reports that professional
human rights activists like Yasmin Sooka collect may not stand up to scrutiny by
the UK immigration authorities or the courts, they can be put to a different use
such as by being used as purported evidence to file petitions in various courts
against prominent Sri Lankan individuals and that is obviously what has happened
in this case.

JJ in high company

Be that as it may, by having a criminal case filed against him in a foreign court, our
former army commander Jagath Jayasuriya joins an elite group of South Asians
including Sonia Gandhi and Narendra Modi who have been arraigned in foreign
courts for various crimes including mass killings. In September 2012, a US court
tried to serve summons on Sonia Gandhi while she was receiving treatment at the
Sloan-Kettering Cancer Centre in New York to face court on charges of protecting
and rewarding the perpetrators of the anti-Sikh riots of 1984. This was due to a
suit filed by a Sikh NGO in the Brooklyn District Court under the Alien Tort Statute
and the Torture Victim Protection Act of 1992 which give the victims of human
rights abuses overseas the right to sue the perpetrators in the US. Sonia escaped
the American justice system by saying that she did not receive the summons.

After she made her way back to India, the Brooklyn federal court asked Sonia to
file answers before a given date to charges of "shielding, protecting and
rewarding" perpetrators of the 1984 Anti-Sikh riots in the wake of Indira Gandhis
assassination and even asked Sonia Gandhi to submit a copy of her passport to
the American court for them to verify whether she was actually not in the USA
between 2 and 9 September 2012 when the courts wanted to serve her with the
summons that she claims she never got. The US court wanted to examine the
entry and exit stamps on her passport!

The Americans have routinely treated the Indians like coolies. How many Sri
Lankans are aware that the former Indian President Abdul Kalam has been
searched at US airports twice, on one occasion airport officials had boarded the
plane he was in and taken away the shoes and jacket he was wearing to screen for
explosives. This was the former President of the worlds largest democracy! In
June 2014, a US appeals court in New York dismissed the case filed by the Sikh
NGO against Sonia Gandhi and the latters lawyer was to say that the US appeals
court had delivered a historic ruling and that the judges have upheld a nations
sovereignty by declaring Gandhi free of any fault. So now its the courts in foreign
countries that have to preserve Indias sovereignty! Undoubtedly, India was far
better off under the British Raj than in her alliance with the USA.

The way the Americans have treated Narendra Modi, the present Prime Minister
of India, has been no different. In 2005, the US denied Modi a visa under an
obscure U.S. law on religious freedom. He was a persona non grata until he
became Prime Minister of India. The US political establishment did their best to
prevent him from becoming PM too. On 18 November 2013, a group of
Congressmen representing both the Republican and Democratic parties presented
in the US House of Representatives, a resolution against Modi. This US House of
Representatives motion bearing No: 417 against Modi and the BJP was presented
to Congress by Congressman Joe Pitts, a Republican. Several other Republican
Congressmen Steve Chabot, James Sensenbrenner, Frank Wolf, Mark Meadows,
Tim Huelskamp co-sponsored the resolution. Congressmen Maurice Ellison, John
Conyers, Jim McGovern, Albio Sires, Jim Moran, John Lewis, Raul Grijalva, Jared
Polis and Congresswoman Betty McCollum who also co-sponsoring this resolution
were all Democrats. This shows that both political parties in the USA were of one
mind with regard to Narendra Modi in particular and the BJP in general.
 This resolution which was titled "On the need to protect the rights and freedoms
of religious minorities in India" made a string of allegations against the Hindu
nationalist movement and Narendra Modi alleging that they had advanced a
divisive and violent agenda that has harmed the social fabric of India. Among the
specific charges against the Hindu nationalists were the destruction of the 16th-
century Babri Mosque in Ayodhya, on December 6, 1992, the communal violence
against Muslims in Gujarat, after 58 Hindus were burnt alive in a train coach fire
on February 27, 2002 which left an estimated 2,000 dead and 100,000 displaced,
the victimization of Christians in Gujarat, and the destruction of churches. The US
held Narendra Modi personally responsible for these acts while alleging that he
has acted against whistleblowers while making no effort to prosecute those
responsible for the anti-Muslim violence. One of the aims of this resolution was to
appeal to the Indian voters not to elect him PM in 2014.

One would think that things would change once Modi became Prime Minister, but
it was not so. After Modi became PM and was to make his first visit to the USA in
September 2014, the U.S. Federal Court of the Southern District of New York
issued a summons against him regarding his alleged involvement in the 2002 riots
in Gujarat. The summons required him to respond within 21 days of receipt,
barring which the court will decide in default against Modi for the damages
sought by the plaintiffs. The summons charged PM Modi with committing crimes
against humanity, extra-judicial killings, torture and inflicting mental and physical
trauma on the victims, mostly from the Muslim community. This lawsuit was filed
by the American Justice Center (AJC), a human rights organization representing
two survivors of the violence of Gujarat 2002.

Given the manner in which Indias Prime Minister and the leader of its ruling party
have been treated by the USA which is supposed to be Indias closest ally, the case
filed against Jagath Jayasuriya a former Sri Lankan army commander in far off
Brazil pales into insignificance. This is the mad world we live in today and we have
to adjust accordingly.
The Disappearances Bill

One thing this episode highlights is the need to bury forever the yahapalana
governments Bill to give effect to the International Convention for the Protection
of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance. This was to be taken up for debate in
Parliament in early July this year, but the government postponed the debate due
to protests by the Joint Opposition and pressure from the Buddhist establishment.
The purpose of this Bill was to give effect in Sri Lanka to the provisions of the
International Convention against Enforced Disappearances which the government
signed in 2016. Even though many people may think this is just an international
convention to criminalize enforced disappearances, it goes far beyond that. In fact
the most important parts of the International Convention on Enforced
Disappearances relates to extraditing suspects in cases relating to enforced
disappearances.

Article 10 of this Convention makes it clear that any State in whose territory a
person (who can be a citizen of any other member state) suspected of having
committed an offence of enforced disappearance is present, can take that person
into custody. According to Article 11, after making an arrest in that manner, the
member state concerned can take one of three alternative courses of action - (a)
extradite that person to another country in accordance with its international
obligations, (b) prosecute that person under its own laws or (c) hand him over for
prosecution to an international criminal tribunal whose jurisdiction that member
state has recognized. These two Articles of the International Convention Against
Disappearances read together gives a clear picture of the action that any member
state of this Convention can take against one of its own citizens or the citizen of
any other member state who may be present in its territory.
Article 13 of the international convention also states that any member state may
request the extradition of a person suspected of being responsible for enforced
disappearances in any other member state and all member states are supposed to
respect such requests for extradition. Because Sri Lanka is now a signatory to the
International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced
Disappearance, the provisions of Articles 10, 11 and 13 form a part of our
obligations under this Convention. In this context, Clauses 8 and 21 of the Bill to
give effect to the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from
Enforced Disappearance which was tabled in Parliament by Prime Minister Ranil
Wickremesinghe assumes special importance. Clause 21 of the Bill says that the
Minister may issue guidelines or directions to give full effect to Sri Lankas
international obligations under the Convention.

Clause 8 says that where a request is made to the Government of Sri Lanka, by the
Government of a Convention State for the extradition of any person accused or
convicted of causing an enforced disappearance, the Minister shall, on behalf of
the Government of Sri Lanka, forthwith notify the Government of the requesting
State of the measures which the Government of Sri Lanka has taken, or proposes
to take, for the prosecution or extradition of that person for that offence. When
you read Articles 10, 11 and 13 of the International Convention Against Enforced
Disappearances together with Clauses 8 and 21 of the Bill that had been
presented to Parliament to give effect to that convention in Sri Lanka, it is clear
that once the Convention becomes operational in Sri Lanka, foreign countries
which are members of the International Convention will have complete
jurisdiction over Sri Lankans who are alleged to have been involved in causing
enforced disappearances in Sri Lanka.

Even if a person believed by foreign states to have been involved in enforced

disappearances in Sri Lanka happens to be in Sri Lanka, any interested foreign
government can request the Sri Lankan government to extradite that person to
their country to be prosecuted or handed over to an international criminal
tribunal to be prosecuted. By signing and ratifying the International Convention
against Enforced Disappearances Sri Lanka has accepted that its citizens can be
handed over to an international criminal tribunal for prosecution under Article 11.
Nobody will be able to argue that the ICC does not have the jurisdiction to
prosecute a Sri Lankan handed to them by a third country because Sri Lanka has
granted authority to all member states of the International Convention against
Enforced Disappearances to take action against Sri Lankans for offences under this
Convention and one of the actions specifically sanctioned is the handing over of
suspects to an international criminal tribunal.

The Pinochet episode

Former Chilean President Augusto Pinochet was arrested in London on 16 October

1998 while receiving medical treatment at a hospital there. Ironically, he was
arrested under the provisions of the International Convention Against Torture
which Chile had joined during his tenure as President which highlights the fact
that every government must be mindful of what they sign and ratify. The way
Pinochets arrest in Britain was engineered by professional human rights activists
was by filing a motion for an arrest warrant before the Spanish National Court in
which a Sonia-Modi style suit against Pinochet had been filed earlier by people
claiming to be victims of repression under him. This arrest warrant was sent to the
UK authorities for action under the extradition laws.

What saved Pinochet was a House of Lords Judgment in December 1998. Earlier in
November 1998, the House of Lords has decided in a three to two division, to
allow the arrest warrant issued by a British Magistrate to stand. It was
subsequently discovered that one of the Law Lords who had declared against
Pinochet was closely associated with Amnesty International, one of the human
rights groups that was pushing for his arrest and prosecution. Lord Hoffmanns
wife had been working at the International Secretariat of Amnesty International
for decades in administrative positions and Lord Hoffmann himself was found to
be an unremunerated Director and Chairperson of Amnesty International Charity
Limited, a registered charity belonging to Amnesty International.
In December 1998, Pinochet lodged a petition with the House of Lords asking that
the order of November 1998 should be set aside completely or the opinion of
Lord Hoffmann should be declared to be of no effect (which would deprive the
judgment against him of its majority). The House of Lords declared that "the links
between Lord Hoffmann and AI were such that there was a real danger that Lord
Hoffmann was biased in favour of AI or alternatively that such links give rise to a
reasonable apprehension or suspicion on the part of a fair minded and informed
member of the public that Lord Hoffmann might have been so biased". The House
of Lords declared that the fundamental principle is that a man may not be a judge
in his own cause. Pinochet won his case and went back to Chile where he died in
2006.

The point to note here is that despite being a Law Lord, Hoffmann never thought
it necessary to reveal his relationship with Amnesty International and recuse
himself as any self respecting judge would if there was a conflict of interest in
relation to a case being heard before him. No one else on the bench or at the
hearing before him knew of his close links with Amnesty International and it came
to light purely fortuitously. All do-gooders in their self righteousness tend to be
forgetful of their own obligations so accustomed are they to playing investigator,
judge jury and executioner all in one.

This is a part of the human rights nightmare that the world faces. In an ordinary
commercial case or criminal case in Britain, would a distinguished Law Lord have
forgotten or failed to declare a conflict of interest by sitting in judgment over a
case in which one of the interested parties was closely connected to him? The
cavalier attitude that all human rights activists display in the case of persons they
demonize before the world was apparent in the way Lord Hoffman kept secret his
association with Amnesty International throughout the proceedings against
Pinochet. Given the fact that the opinion on the bench was divided, Hoffman
obviously realized that his vote counted and he kept his association with AI under
wraps. This is the kind of gross injustice that can occur in cases where people are
declared guilty in public before a court gets to hear the case. Fortunately for
Pinochet, he was arrested in Britain where the courts are principled enough to
reverse a faulty judgment.

In any event, how can any country ever hope to conduct a trial regarding a crime
committed in another country? In Pinochets case Britain was not going to hear
any case against him. The decision before Britain was whether they are going to
arrest and extradite him to Spain. But in a case like that faced by Sonia Gandhi and
Narendra Modi in the USA, if things had got to the trial stage, would justice have
ever prevailed? How is an American court supposed to hear a case against the
nationals of a foreign country over an incident that took place in a foreign
country? Is such an exercise even logistically possible? Whos going to spend
money taking witnesses to and fro? If only one side is able to bring witnesses and
the other side is not able to do so because they cant afford it, that will be a
serious miscarriage of justice.

Filing a court case against Jagath Jayasuriya in Brazil shows how far this insanity
has gone. It takes days and several transits just to get to Brazil even by air. How is
a court in Brazil going to hear a case over events that took place in the Vanni in Sri
Lanka?
Posted by Thavam