NEW UPDATE: Challenges Faced by Tamil Victims in Communicating with UN Rights Chief Volker Türk (June 2025)

Empowering Tamil human rights defenders, civil society, and victims’ groups to engage directly with UN human rights mechanisms

The purpose

The purpose of this article is to examine the significant barriers Tamil war victims in Sri Lanka faced in communicating with United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk during his June 2025 visit. Despite the historic nature of the visit and the critical opportunity it offered for Tamil survivors to present their long-standing grievances—including enforced disappearances, militarization, and impunity for wartime atrocities—their voices were marginalized due to logistical limitations, surveillance and intimidation, lack of direct engagement, and broader institutional shortcomings. This report aims to highlight those challenges and underscore the urgent need for survivor-centred dialogue and international accountability.

Introduction

In June 2025, United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk paid an official visit to Sri Lanka – the first such visit by a UN human rights chief in nearly a decade. For Sri Lanka’s Tamil war victims – including families of the disappeared and survivors of mass atrocities – Türk’s four-day tour (June 23–26, 2025) offered a rare chance to convey their grievances and demands directly to a top UN official. However, these victims encountered numerous challenges in attempting to communicate with Türk during his visit. A combination of government-imposed constraints, fear of reprisal, language and logistical barriers, and historical distrust complicated the dialogue between Tamil victims and the UN Rights Chief. This report examines those key challenges and how they affected the victims’ ability to be heard, drawing on contemporary accounts and reports (Tamil Guardian, 2025; Straits Times, 2025).

Background:

Tamil War Victims’ Struggle for Justice

Sri Lanka’s civil war (1983–2009) ended with a brutal offensive in the Tamil-majority north, leaving tens of thousands of Tamil civilians dead or missing. The UN has estimated around 40,000 Tamil civilians were killed in the final months of the war, while Tamil sources claim the toll is even higher, with nearly 169,800 Tamils still unaccounted for and presumed dead from the war’s climax at Mullivaikkal in May 2009. In the war’s aftermath, thousands of Tamil families received no answers about their missing relatives, sparking a years-long campaign for truth and accountability. Since early 2017, Tamil families of the disappeared (predominantly war-bereaved mothers) have continuously protested across the Northern and Eastern provinces, demanding to know the fate of their loved ones. These peaceful protesters have maintained roadside vigils for over 3,000 days, yet to date they have been given almost no information or justice. Tragically, over 300 elderly parents in these groups have died in the past eight years without ever learning what happened to their children.

For these survivors, Volker Türk’s visit represented a critical opportunity to highlight issues such as wartime mass killings, enforced disappearances, ongoing militarization, and the lack of accountability for alleged war crimes. Their core demands include: an international inquiry into wartime atrocities, justice for perpetrators, information on disappeared persons, an end to military occupation of Tamil areas, and recognition of the suffering endured by Tamils (Tamil Guardian, 2025). A central symbolic demand was that Türk visit Mullivaikkal, the site of the 2009 massacre that many Tamils regard as a genocide, to pay respects and acknowledge their loss. The victims also sought a face-to-face meeting with Türk to share their stories and concerns directly. As detailed below, the process of conveying these messages was fraught with obstacles.

Appeals and Requests Ahead of Türk’s Visit

Anticipating the UN High Commissioner’s trip, Tamil victim groups and their advocates made public appeals to ensure their voices would be included. On June 4, 2025, associations of Tamil families of the disappeared sent an open letter to Volker Türk, urging him to meet them in person and hold a “direct discussion” during his stay. In their letter, they emphasized the urgency of hearing their stories first-hand, noting that they were even willing to skip attending the upcoming UN Human Rights Council session in Geneva, where they often advocate, to see Türk in Sri Lanka. They implored him to visit Mullivaikkal as well, describing it as the ground zero of Tamil suffering where “tens of thousands” were killed and entire families were wiped out in 2009. The letter poignantly stated that “as families who have endured immeasurable loss and continue to suffer in the absence of answers, we believe your engagement with us, and your willingness to witness the ground realities, will bring renewed hope and direction to our long-standing struggle” (Association of the Relatives of the Disappeared, 2025, p. 2) – underscoring how critical this communication was to them.

Tamil civil society and diaspora organizations amplified these pleas. The British Tamils Forum (BTF) and ABC Tamil Oli (ECOSOC), a diaspora group, also wrote to Türk (on May 27, 2025), urging him to include Mullivaikkal in his itinerary and visit newly discovered mass graves in the North. Five leading international human rights organizations – including Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch – jointly called on the High Commissioner to meet Tamil families of the disappeared and visit the site of the 2009 massacre during his trip. Even local media in Sri Lanka highlighted these requests; for example, the Tamil press Virakesari reported Tamil victim groups pleading for an opportunity to meet Türk in person and for him to travel to Mullivaikkal (Virakesari, 2025).

These pre-visit appeals demonstrate that Tamil survivors were proactive in seeking communication. Yet, the fact they had to resort to open letters and public petitions hints at an underlying challenge: no formal mechanism was initially in place to guarantee their direct access to the UN envoy. This left them dependent on Türk’s willingness (and the Sri Lankan authorities’ permission) to heed their calls.

Key Challenges in Communicating with Volker Türk

Despite the extensive preparations and hopes, Tamil victims encountered multiple challenges that impeded effective communication with Volker Türk during his June 2025 visit. These challenges stemmed from both external constraints and internal community dynamics:

1. Government-Orchestrated Itinerary and Limited Access

ne major hurdle was the controlled nature of the official visit itinerary, which was largely coordinated by the Sri Lankan government. The announced schedule had Türk spending most of his time in formal meetings with government officials and religious leaders in Colombo, Kandy, Jaffna, and Trincomalee. Notably, Mullaitivu (Mullivaikkal) – the district of the final war zone – was not on the itinerary. Instead, in the northern city of Jaffna, Türk was slated to visit a recently uncovered mass grave site at Chemmani and meet local officials (such as the provincial Governor). While visiting Chemmani is significant, Tamil groups feared that bypassing Mullivaikkal meant sidestepping the most potent symbol of their suffering. This raised concerns that the voices of those in Mullaitivu and the full context of the 2009 atrocities might not be heard directly.

Furthermore, Tamil activists worried that Türk’s tightly managed agenda would minimize spontaneous interactions with survivors. High-profile visits often adhere to set pieces – official briefings, site visits arranged by authorities, and curated encounters – leaving little room for unscripted conversations with ordinary people. A Tamil Guardian editorial cautioned that there were *“clear concerns among Tamils that this visit will be used by the government to whitewash its record; [with] superficial photo shoots alongside government officials, reverent engagements with Sinhala Buddhist monks, and empty assurances”* that gloss over victims’ demands. In other words, there was a fear that political pageantry would eclipse genuine dialogue. If the visit turned into what some called “theatre” (Tamil Guardian, 2025), Tamil victims’ messages could be relegated to the sidelines.

The government, for its part, insisted it would not restrict the UN delegation. Sri Lanka’s Foreign Minister Vijitha Herath stated that Türk would have “unrestricted access to both people and places” during the tour. Indeed, permission was given for him to inspect the Chemmani mass grave excavation, where 19 skeletons (including those of children) had been exhumed earlier in June. However, skepticism persisted among victim communities. Their distrust stemmed from history – in prior instances, Sri Lankan authorities have been accused of stage-managing visits by international officials, ensuring that interactions occur only in heavily monitored settings or in the presence of minders. In the heavily militarized North and East, Tamil civilians often feel under surveillance, which can inhibit free expression (Sri Lanka Brief, 2025). Thus, even with formal “access” granted, the question remained whether Tamil victims would get adequate, unfiltered face time with Türk beyond the orchestrated meetings.

2. Intimidation and Surveillance by Security Forces

Perhaps the most direct impediment to open communication was the climate of intimidation in which Tamil victims are forced to operate. In the lead-up to Türk’s visit, there were alarming reports of Sri Lankan security agencies harassing and monitoring Tamil activists, apparently to deter them from organizing or speaking out during the UN official’s stay.

For example, on June 16, 2025 – just a week before Türk arrived – Sebastian Devi, the chairperson of the Trincomalee District Association of Families of the Disappeared, was summoned and interrogated for three hours by officers of Sri Lanka’s Terrorism Investigation Division (TID) (Tamil Guardian, 2025). The TID officers came to her home and aggressively questioned her about her work and connections, demanding details on her affiliations with 21 local and international human rights organizations. They even inquired about her past trips to Geneva for UN Human Rights Council sessions and who had funded her travel. Devi was bluntly accused of “acting against human rights” by her activism, and interrogators probed into her personal family matters as well. Later that same day, local military intelligence (CID) contacted one of her colleagues to ask whether they were planning any protest during Türk’s visit. This pattern suggests that authorities were trying to gather intelligence on – and likely discourage – any grassroots demonstrations or meetings with the UN High Commissioner.

Such incidents have a chilling effect. As Sebastian Devi recounted, these repeated interrogations and constant surveillance take a severe psychological toll on victims’ family members. Victims fear that speaking candidly or organizing around the visit could lead to reprisals once the dignitary leaves. In fact, intimidation of families of the disappeared has been ongoing for years. Human rights observers note that Sri Lanka’s government often uses counterterrorism laws and security forces to harass and silence victims’ families and activists, especially those who engage with international mechanisms. The context in 2025 was no exception: Tamil relatives campaigning for justice remained under close watch by the military and police.

Tamil women activists in Jaffna described how State Intelligence officers would regularly shadow their protests and even call them on the phone to demand their daily plans. Mariranjini Nirmalanathan, a mother from Jaffna who leads a group of families of the disappeared, shared that *“as long as I continuously protest in search of my child, the CID will telephone me [asking] ‘Where are you? What is the plan today?’… They [the authorities] photograph and video [us] during our protests… There is constant military intimidation”*. Despite this harassment – *“they can take videos as they please. We are not telling lies; we are searching for our relatives”*, she said – the surveillance undoubtedly makes victims uneasy (Tamil Guardian, 2025).

Under these conditions, many Tamil victims would feel unsafe to speak openly to Volker Türk or his team. Meetings with the High Commissioner were likely observed by Sri Lankan security personnel or took place in official venues, further discouraging frank testimony. Some victims might have self-censored their statements or stayed away from scheduled interactions out of fear of being marked by authorities. In sum, the heavy militarization and surveillance in the Tamil regions created an environment of fear that posed a fundamental challenge to free communication (Sri Lanka Brief, 2025). Even when the UN’s intention was to listen, Tamil survivors had to weigh the personal risks of voicing their truths.

3. Language and Logistical Barriers

Communication was also hampered by more practical issues such as language differences and limited time for interaction. The vast majority of Tamil war survivors speak Tamil as their first (and often only) language. Volker Türk, however, does not speak Tamil; his discussions in Sri Lanka were conducted in English (with occasional Sinhala usage in the south). This necessitated the use of translators for any direct dialogues with Tamil victims. While interpretation was presumably provided (possibly by UN staff or local aides), relying on interpreters can inhibit the flow of conversation. Some elderly Tamil mothers and villagers may have felt uncomfortable pouring out their stories through a third-party interpreter, doubting that their full emotion or nuance would be conveyed. There is also an issue of trust in translation – victims might worry if the interpreter is from a government service or unfamiliar with their dialect, potentially skewing their message. All these factors can make communication less spontaneous and candid than if both parties shared a common language.

Besides language, the tight schedule of the visit presented logistical constraints. Over just four days, Türk had to cover four different regions of Sri Lanka, attend high-level meetings, and visit multiple sites. The time allocated to meet victim groups was therefore limited. Reports indicate that meetings with civil society and victims were arranged, but likely in a brief, roundtable format – perhaps an hour or two in each location – with only a handful of representatives from each community. Many Tamil families who had been protesting on the roads for years simply could not physically be in the room due to space and security restrictions. Those who did attend had to be succinct, which is difficult when relating complex personal tragedies or decades-long struggles.

Moreover, some key war-affected areas were logistically left out of the itinerary. For example, Mullaitivu district (where Mullivaikkal is) and Vavuniya (where large groups of protesting families reside) were not on the travel plan. Victims from those areas would have had to travel to Jaffna or Trincomalee to possibly catch the High Commissioner’s attention. This was not feasible for everyone, especially elderly parents or those with limited means. In essence, geography and scheduling meant that only a fraction of the Tamil victim community could directly interface with Türk during the visit.

Even the format of engagement could be a barrier. If the interactions were conducted in formal settings – such as a conference hall in Jaffna or the Governor’s office – some victims might have found the atmosphere intimidating or alien to their usual way of expressing grievances. A less formal, on-site visit (for instance, visiting a protest site or a village) might have encouraged more open communication, but the official nature of the trip likely precluded unscripted stops. The families had invited Türk to come *see them where they protest and witness ground realities*, yet it is unclear if he was able to do so. Travel logistics, security protocols, and time pressure thus collectively curtailed the depth and breadth of direct exchanges between Türk and the full spectrum of Tamil victims.

4. Distrust and Disillusionment with Official Responses

Another significant challenge was the psychological barrier of distrust. Tamil survivors have endured years of unmet promises from both the Sri Lankan governments and the international community. This history has bred a deep skepticism about whether speaking out to officials will lead to real change. By 2025, many victims felt that they had “talked endlessly” – to Sri Lankan commissions, to visiting dignitaries, to UN agencies – yet impunity still prevailed and their plight remained largely unaddressed.

This sentiment was articulated by Jaffna activist Mariranjini Nirmalanathan in an interview ahead of Türk’s visit. She noted that every new Sri Lankan government sets up some commission or office (such as the Office of Missing Persons), and families dutifully give their testimony over and over, but *“we are tired of wandering around and giving evidence each time a new government comes into power. That is why we are turning to the international community”*. However, even turning to the international community has been fraught with disappointment. The UN Human Rights Council has passed multiple resolutions on Sri Lanka and called for justice, but on the ground, not a single perpetrator of serious war crimes has been held accountable to date. Successive governments – including the current one led by the National People’s Power (NPP) party – have openly rejected international inquiries and continued to stall or undermine justice initiatives. This track record left many Tamil victims with a jaded view: they worry that even if they manage to communicate their suffering to someone like Türk, it may not translate into concrete action.

Adding to this is a sense of disillusionment with the UN system itself. The UN is often seen by these communities as having failed them in 2009 (when it withdrew staff from war zones, leaving civilians without protection) and thereafter by not enforcing its resolutions. A common perception among Tamils is that the UN and international powers have been “toothless at best, and complicit at worst” in the face of Sri Lanka’s human rights violations. Thus, there is an emotional hurdle: why speak up yet again, risking retaliation, when the outcome might be another polite acknowledgement but no justice? Victims had to overcome this internal doubt to engage optimistically with Türk.

During the visit, this distrust manifested in cautious messaging. Tamil representatives likely emphasized their lack of faith in domestic mechanisms and the need for international intervention. Nirmalanathan, for example, stressed that *“we don’t trust or accept domestic mechanisms… [the Sri Lankan state] are the ones who committed the crimes, how will they give justice?”*, advocating for avenues like an International Criminal Court referral. While conveying such strong sentiments was important, it also meant the conversation with Türk was not just a simple sharing of stories, but also a hard political message of frustration. Communicating decades of betrayal and pain in a diplomatic meeting is inherently challenging. There is a risk that blunt messages could alienate listeners or prompt defensive responses from Sri Lankan officials in the room.

Moreover, the Tamil victims had to entrust that Türk would genuinely heed their words and not be swayed by the Sri Lankan government’s narrative of progress. The Sri Lankan side, including even the new reformist-leaning administration, was keen to showcase improvements and push their line that domestic reconciliation processes just need time (Daily News, 2025). Indeed, at the UNHRC earlier in the year, Sri Lanka’s foreign minister claimed they would strengthen local institutions like the Office of Missing Persons, a claim Tamil families strongly dispute. This created a scenario where Tamil victims’ accounts of ongoing abuses and unmet justice could be indirectly contradicted by official assurances during the same visit. The competing narratives might dilute the impact of the victims’ communications.

In summary, psychological and political factors – past disappointments, cynicism about outcomes, and parallel government messaging – formed a less tangible but powerful barrier to effective communication. The Tamil victims had to continuously insist on their truth and urgency, even when they sensed that sympathy might not translate into action. Overcoming this sense of talking to a seemingly unresponsive system was a challenge in itself.

Efforts to Overcome the Barriers

Despite the above challenges, Tamil victim groups took creative and courageous steps to make their voices heard as much as possible during Volker Türk’s visit. They understood the constraints and tried to work around them:

Organizing Peaceful Demonstrations:

Tamil activists staged symbolic protests timed with Türk’s presence. In Jaffna, youth and civil society groups held a continuous three-day vigil at the Chemmani mass gravesite during his visit, dubbed *“Anaiyaa Vilakku”* or “Everlasting Lamp”. They lit lamps and displayed banners calling for justice, hoping Türk would see their demonstration when he came to Chemmani. Such peaceful protests served to visibly communicate messages (e.g., “International Justice for Tamil Genocide”) even if direct dialogue was limited.

Leveraging Media and Social Media:

Tamil rights groups and diaspora activists made sure that media outlets covered their concerns. Tamil Guardian, TamilNet, and other Tamil-focused media provided daily coverage of the families’ demands and any incidents (like the TID interrogation in Trincomalee) – information that likely reached Türk’s team. International media (e.g., AFP via The Straits Times) also highlighted that Tamil victims were urging accountability for wartime crimes and pressing Sri Lanka on impunity. By generating press coverage, victims indirectly communicated their plight to the global audience and the UN delegation.

Intermediaries and Advocates:

Tamil community leaders, religious clergy, and opposition politicians acted as intermediaries to amplify victim voices. For instance, reports noted that Tamil political parties sought meetings with Volker Türk to convey human rights concerns (Hiru News, 2025). These leaders carried the victims’ messages to those meetings – raising issues like land grabs, political prisoners, and stalled investigations – effectively speaking on behalf of voiceless victims in more official forums. While this filtered the direct voice of victims, it ensured the issues were at least tabled in Türk’s discussions.

Direct Engagement Where Possible:

 In some instances, victims *did* get to speak to Türk directly. According to civil society reports, a delegation of Tamil families of the disappeared met Türk in Jaffna during his northern visit (International Truth and Justice Project, 2025). They handed over memoranda detailing their cases and verbally appealed for a UN-supervised mechanism to trace missing persons. Though these encounters were brief, the survivors made use of every minute to press key points: they reportedly told Türk about the years of state stonewalling, the threats they face, and their unwavering demand for international justice (ITJP, 2025). Such direct testimonies, even if few, were victories in overcoming the communication barriers.

In essence, the Tamil victims and their allies engaged in a determined struggle to be heard, employing both public demonstrations and private petitions. Each strategy sought to circumvent or mitigate a particular barrier: protests countered the invisibility imposed by restrictive itineraries; media exposure countered attempts to silence or intimidate; allies in politics countered language or access gaps; and personal resolve countered despair and distrust.

These efforts yielded some acknowledgment – for example, at the conclusion of his visit, Volker Türk publicly emphasized the need for accountability in Sri Lanka and recognized the pain of victims who have waited too long for answers (OHCHR, 2025; The Straits Times, 2025). He urged the government to “hold to account the perpetrators of the most severe crimes… vital for the victims who have suffered inconceivable pain and loss” (Türk, 2025, as cited in *The Straits Times*). Such remarks indicate that he heard the core of their message, even if many individual voices could not directly reach him.

Conclusion

Volker Türk’s June 2025 visit to Sri Lanka shone a spotlight on the island’s unresolved human rights issues, but it also highlighted the formidable challenges that Tamil victims face in simply communicating their truth to the world. The Tamil survivors of war approached the UN High Commissioner’s visit with hope and determination, viewing it as a rare opportunity to seek justice and recognition. Yet, as this analysis shows, their attempts to engage with the UN Rights Chief were hindered at every turn by structural and situational barriers – from government-controlled access and oversight, to intimidation by security forces, to practical hurdles of language and scheduling, and the weight of historical mistrust.

These challenges meant that Tamil victims had to fight just to be heard. They had to appeal in writing and protest in public for a meeting that should have been a given. They had to speak under watch, choosing their words carefully in fear of reprisal. They had to distill decades of suffering into moments of testimony. And they had to place faith in the same international system that they feel has let them down before. The courage and resilience shown by the Tamil families – the mothers clutching photographs of disappeared sons, the fathers standing at protest sites despite failing health – were extraordinary in the face of such impediments.

Ultimately, some communication breakthroughs were achieved: Türk did hear from a number of Tamil victims and took note of issues like mass graves, land seizures, and the anguish of the disappeared (Tamil Guardian, 2025). However, many in the community remain uneasy that their core appeals (such as visiting Mullivaikkal or initiating international trials) did not materialize during the visit. The true measure of success will be if their messages lead to concrete international action rather than fading away after the visit.

The takeaway is that future engagements of international human rights officials in Sri Lanka (or similar post-conflict contexts) must proactively address these communication barriers. This could mean ensuring private, secure forums for victims to speak freely without surveillance, allocating more time to hear from marginalized groups, employing trusted translators, and consulting victims in planning the itinerary (so that critical sites like Mullivaikkal are not overlooked). Only by removing fear and obstructions can the voices of victims genuinely inform and influence human rights efforts.

For the Tamil victims of Sri Lanka, the struggle to be heard is intimately tied to their struggle for justice. As one activist said, *“We are not telling lies; we are searching for our relatives”* – a simple yet profound assertion of truth that they want the world to understand. The case of Volker Türk’s visit in June 2025 serves as a powerful reminder that listening to victims – openly, respectfully, and without hindrance – is essential for any meaningful reconciliation or accountability process. Removing the barriers to that communication is, therefore, an urgent task for both Sri Lanka and the international human rights community moving forward.

References (APA Style)

1.        Agence France-Presse (2025, June 24). *UN rights chief asks Sri Lanka to punish war criminals*. The Straits Times. Retrieved from https://www.straitstimes.com/asia/south-asia/un-rights-chief-asks-sri-lanka-to-punish-war-criminals

2.        Association of the Relatives of the Disappeared – North & East. (2025, June 4). *Open letter to UN High Commissioner Volker Türk [Letter]*. (As reported in Tamil Guardian). Retrieved from https://www.tamilguardian.com/content/tamil-families-disappeared-request-meeting-un-high-commissioner

3.        British Tamils Forum. (2025, May 27). *Letter to UN High Commissioner Volker Türk urging visit to Mullivaikkal and Chemmani* [Letter]. (As reported in *The Island*, June 18, 2025).

4.        Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR). (2025, June 20). *UN Human Rights Chief Volker Türk to visit Sri Lanka from 23-26 June* [Media advisory]. United Nations. Retrieved from https://www.ohchr.org/en/media-advisories/2025/06/un-human-rights-chief-volker-turk-visit-sri-lanka-23-26-june

5.        Sri Lanka Brief. (2025, June 14). *Open letter to Rights Commissioner Volker Türk from militarised North & East of Sri Lanka*. Retrieved from https://srilankabrief.org/open-letter-to-rights-commissioner-volker-turk-from-militarised-north-east-of-sri-lanka/

6.        Tamil Guardian. (2025, June 4). “Tamil families of the disappeared urge UN human rights chief to visit Mullivaikkal.” *TamilGuardian.com*. Retrieved from https://www.tamilguardian.com/content/tamil-families-disappeared-request-meeting-un-high-commissioner

7.        Tamil Guardian. (2025, June 8). “Türk must go to Mullivaikkal” [Editorial]. *TamilGuardian.com*. Retrieved from https://www.tamilguardian.com/content/lead-turk-must-go-mullivaikkal

8.        Tamil Guardian. (2025, June 20). “Trincomalee activist interrogated by Sri Lanka’s TID ahead of UN visit.” *TamilGuardian.com*. Retrieved from https://www.tamilguardian.com/content/tid-questions-trincomalee-disappeared-families-chairperson-over-international-links

9.        Tamil Guardian. (2025, June 22). “Jaffna activist calls for ICC referral ahead of UN High Commissioner’s visit.” *TamilGuardian.com*. Retrieved from https://www.tamilguardian.com/content/un-high-commissioner-must-meet-and-listen-us-says-jaffna-mother-disappeared

10.   Tamil Eelam Liberation Org. (2025, June 24). *UNHRC chief given unrestricted access to Chemmani mass gravesite*. TELO News. Retrieved from https://telo.org/unhrc-chief-given-unrestricted-access-to-chemmani-mass-gravesite/

11.   Virakesari. (2025, June 8). *“Please allow us to meet directly”: Families of the Disappeared urge UN Human Rights High Commissioner* (in Tamil). Virakesari.lk. [Online]. (Original article in Tamil reporting Northern/Eastern families’ request for meeting Volker Türk and Mullivaikkal visit).

By following these steps, the path forward aims to break the silence and end the cycle of impunity. The article concludes that only through truth-telling and accountability can Sri Lanka move toward a future where all its communities live with dignity and security. Achieving justice for past atrocities is not just about righting historical wrongs – it is presented as a necessity to ensure lasting peace and to prevent such horrors from happening again.

     In solidarity,

     Wimal Navaratnam

     Human Rights Advocate | ABC Tamil Oli (ECOSOC)