US embassy cable - 03COLOMBO536

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 COLOMBO 000536 
 
SIPDIS 
 
DEPARTMENT FOR SA, SA/INS, DRL; NSC FOR E. MILLARD 
 
LONDON FOR POL/RIEDEL 
 
E.O. 12958:  DECL:  3-28-13 
TAGS: PGOV, PHUM, KJUS, SOCI, CE, LTTE - Peace Process, Political Parties 
SUBJECT:  Sri Lanka's Supreme Court rules that 
December 2001 election was unfair for many Tamils 
 
Refs:  (A) Colombo 485; (B) Colombo 147 
 
(U) Classified by Lewis Amselem, Deputy Chief of 
Mission.  Reasons 1.5 (b,d) 
 
1. (C) SUMMARY: Sri Lanka's Supreme Court ruled March 25 
that the previous government violated the fundamental 
rights of numerous Tamils by preventing them from voting 
in the December 2001 general election.  Human rights 
activists applauded the ruling, stating that it set a 
precedent for freer-and-fairer elections in the future. 
Observers believe that the surprise ruling is a 
political black eye for the People's Alliance (PA) and 
the radical JVP, which were in power at the time.  END 
SUMMARY. 
 
2. (U) In a dramatic ruling, the Supreme Court announced 
March 25 that the fundamental rights of voters in the 
north and east were violated when they were not 
permitted to vote in the December 2001 general election. 
Agreeing with the case presented by the Tamil 
plaintiffs, the court ruled specifically that the Sri 
Lankan military, acting on orders from the PA-Janantha 
Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP) government then in power, 
prevented Tamils in the Vavunia and Batticaloa areas 
from passing through military check points in order to 
vote.  (Note:  Accounts by election observers placed the 
numbers of Tamils prevented from voting that day in the 
north and east in the tens of thousands -- please also 
see the 2001 human rights report for Sri Lanka.)  The 
Court also held that VIPs in the government (including 
the president and several of her key ministers) were 
given special treatment and allowed to vote illegally 
before the election. 
 
3.  (U) As for its remedy, the court allowed that there 
could be no vote recount at this point, but it fined Sri 
Lanka Army Commander Lt. General L. Balagalle, then- 
Commissioner of Elections D. Dissanayake, and the 
government a total of 391,000 Sri Lankan Rupees 
(approximately USD 4,100) each for their roles in 
mismanaging the election.  From what Mission understands 
(with the proviso that it is sometimes very difficult to 
understand Sri Lanka's almost Dickensian legal system), 
the case cannot be appealed. (Note:  The ruling was made 
by a three-justice bench of the 11-member Supreme Court. 
The bench was apparently acting with full-and-plenary 
powers.) 
 
4. (C) Human rights observers were pleased with the 
ruling, hoping that it would set a precedent for freer- 
and-fairer elections in the future.  Kingsley Rodrigo, 
the head of PAFFREL, a well-known local NGO involved in 
election monitoring, told us that the ruling showed that 
the oft-criticized Supreme Court can act in a decisive 
fashion and in the public interest.  He hoped the ruling 
would have a positive impact on proposed local elections 
in the north and east which might take place later this 
year.  (Note:  Per Ref A, at the end of the recent sixth 
round of peace talks, a joint statement was issued 
stating that the Tigers would "favorably consider" 
allowing local elections to be held in the north and 
east, including, presumably, in Tiger-controlled areas.) 
 
5. (C) Regarding potential political ramifications, 
observers have told us that the ruling was a black eye 
for the PA and the JVP (who are currently trying to 
unite and form an alliance again).  Desmond Fernando, a 
prominent lawyer and human rights advocate (with close 
connections to the prime minister), told us that the 
Supreme Court's decision was a huge embarrassment for 
President Kumaratunga, the leader of the PA, and a blow 
to her image as tolerant toward all communities. 
Tamils, he commented, will be sure to view Kumaratunga 
in an increasingly bad light, given that it was her 
government that prevented members of their community 
from voting.  (Note:  Re the December 2001 election, 
Kumaratunga is also in some trouble from a different 
angle.  Her close relative, former minister Anuruddha 
Ratwatte, and two of his sons and 13 others, are 
currently on trial for alleged involvement in the 
slaying of ten Muslims on election day.) 
6. (C) COMMENT:  The outcome of the case is clearly a 
victory for Tamils and human rights advocates, who have 
long fought for judicial acknowledgement of electoral 
abuses.  The fact that individuals (Balagalle and 
Dissanayake) were held directly responsible for their 
actions was another small, but important, step in 
overcoming Sri Lanka's history of impunity regarding 
human rights matters.  On the political side, the ruling 
was clearly a blow to the PA and JVP, including the 
president herself.  The fact that the ruling emerged 
from a court reportedly controlled by an ally of the 
president's (Chief Justice Sarath Silva) was also a bit 
of a surprise.  END COMMENT. 
 
7. (U) Minimize considered. 
 
WILLS