Correction

In yesterday’s leader page article, ‘Significance of EU Court Ruling on Banning LTTE’ by Neville Ladduwahetty’, a part of the section under the subheading, ‘COMMENT’, had been deleted due to a technical error, which we regret. The complete section is as follows:

COMMENT

It is evident from the admissions made by the LTTE that they were engaged in an armed conflict and that their acts should be judged under provisions of International Humanitarian Law. Furthermore, the Geneva Conventions of 1949, which specify that all ‘measures of terrorism are prohibited’, and the subsequent ones of 8 June 1977, ‘relating to the Protection of Victims of International and Non-International Armed Conflicts’, prohibit acts of terrorism at any time and in any place whatsoever (Article 4(2) of Additional Protocol II) and that acts or threats of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population are prohibited (Article 51(2) of Additional Protocol I and Article 13(2) of Additional Protocol II)”.

The significance of the EU Court ruling is the acknowledgement that since Additional Protocol II that is applicable to non-international armed conflict, as it was in Sri Lanka, it should be read along with the Geneva Conventions of 1949 because it offers greater protection for civilians. This means that provisions of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions and its expanded provisions in Additional Protocol II of 1977 should be factored in as regards all evaluations when addressing accountability. Furthermore, it means that Article 6 of the Additional Protocol II of 1977 should be followed in the case of “Penal prosecutions”. Since this calls for “anyone charged with an offence shall have the right to be tried in his presence” and on the “basis of individual penal responsibility” (Article 6, (b) and (e), the question of charging anyone associated with the armed conflict presents serious challenges because it rules out command responsibility, and because the inability to locate and identify former combatants becomes a barrier to prosecution. Therefore, the efforts the UNHRC is currently engaged in to collect evidence to exercise Universal Jurisdiction become futile.”