Canada's and the UK's Leadership Amid Evolving International Dynamics

Introduction

The 60th regular session of the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC), scheduled from 8 September to 3 October 2025, represents a pivotal moment in international engagement with the issue of accountability, reconciliation, and human rights in post-conflict Sri Lanka. This year's context departs sharply from previous sessions: Canada and the United Kingdom (UK) are set to take a leading role as co-sponsors of a new resolution to extend the mandate of the Sri Lanka Accountability Project and continue international monitoring and advocacy. The United States (US), a familiar presence and co-sponsor in earlier years, has withdrawn from the Council and will not participate, altering both the geopolitical balance and the composition of the so-called "core group" on Sri Lanka. Malawi, Montenegro, and North Macedonia—previously part of this group—are also not joining the 2025 initiative. At the same time, the Sri Lankan government, led by a new administration, has taken steps such as proposing an Independent Prosecutor’s Office, seeking to address international concerns about the credibility of domestic mechanisms.

Overlaying these developments is the impending release of a comprehensive report by UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk titled "Situation of Human Rights in Sri Lanka," which is expected to significantly influence the debate, notably by highlighting issues like the Chemmani mass grave site.

This report provides a comprehensive, in-depth analysis of the procedural framework for the 60th session, the political dynamics driving the 2025 resolution, the legacy and status of the Accountability Project, anticipated challenges, and the broader implications for international justice and reconciliation in Sri Lanka.

Procedural Framework of the 60th UNHRC Session on Sri Lanka

The 60th session of the UNHRC is convened in Geneva, running from early September through early October 2025. According to the official programme, the Council will host interactive dialogues and debates on a range of human rights issues, with the report on Sri Lanka scheduled for presentation on the opening day, 8 September 2025. Sri Lanka’s Foreign Minister Vijitha Herath will be present in Geneva to convey the government’s position, while the interactive dialogue on the High Commissioner’s report is expected to draw attention from member states, victim groups, and civil society.

The draft agenda sets aside ample time for the Sri Lanka discussion under Item 2, which includes the High Commissioner’s oral update and an enhanced interactive dialogue. This scheduling underscores the continued salience of Sri Lanka’s situation to both the Council’s daily operations and its broader political context. Draft reports, special briefings, and side events organized by NGOs and advocacy groups are expected to overlap with these formal proceedings, creating a dynamic environment for both advocacy and nuanced negotiation.

Canada and the United Kingdom: Co-sponsorship and Core Group Leadership

Transition in Leadership

Canada and the UK have emerged as the clear leaders of the 2025 resolution on Sri Lanka, following the US withdrawal from the UNHRC. They have formally notified the government of Sri Lanka that a new resolution will be tabled at the 60th session, and, according to multiple official statements and media reports, Sri Lanka has been informed to expect “softer” language compared to previous years.

Several factors underscore the importance of this reconfigured leadership. The Core Group on Sri Lanka, which as recently as 2024 had included the US, the UK, Canada, Malawi, Montenegro, and North Macedonia, is now reduced to the UK and Canada alone. The absence of these additional voices will likely alter the dynamics of debate and the perception of the resolution’s legitimacy or global reach.

Rationale for Co-sponsorship

Both Canada and the UK have substantial diaspora populations of Sri Lankan origin, a history of diplomatic engagement on transitional justice in Sri Lanka, and foreign policy commitments to human rights and international law. Their joint leadership is not new but rather an intensification of earlier roles: the UK has been penholder on Sri Lanka at the Council since 2017, and Canada has used both sanctions and advocacy to urge progress on justice.

Critically, the UK and Canada frame their intervention as part of a broader agenda to support reconciliation, accountability, and robust domestic mechanisms in Sri Lanka, while advocating for continued international oversight and the full implementation of previous resolutions (notably 46/1 and 51/1). UK foreign policy emphasizes durable peace, inclusive governance, and victim-centered justice; Canadian policy actively supports sanctions, humanitarian relief, and technical assistance directly linked to progress on human rights and democratic inclusion.

United States Withdrawal and Its Impact

The US withdrawal from the UNHRC in early 2025 marks a fundamental shift for the Council and for the handling of Sri Lanka’s accountability dossier. The White House order issued in February 2025 cited the Council’s alleged bias and ineffectiveness, a renewed focus on UNRWA and UNESCO, and a complete cessation of funding for the UNHRC. This pulls the US from not only membership but also co-sponsorship, as well as the diplomatic coordination at the core group level.

This absence affects both symbolic and substantive dimensions. Symbolically, the lack of a US imprimatur may embolden Sri Lanka and allies (China, Russia, Pakistan) who have long opposed “external” scrutiny, while also complicating efforts to muster broad consensus for a toughly worded resolution or for follow-up mechanisms with investigative or judicial roles. Substantively, the absence of US diplomatic pressure or sanctions linked to UNHRC outcomes may dilute the practical consequences of Council action.

Legal experts and political commentators in Sri Lanka and internationally note that US withdrawal could offer Colombo the opportunity to build new coalitions with states such as India, South Africa, and Japan, which may favor a more domestically anchored approach to accountability.

Core Group Composition and the Non-Participation of Malawi, Montenegro, and North Macedonia

The previous “core group” for Sri Lanka included, apart from the UK and Canada, the US, Malawi, Montenegro, and North Macedonia. Official statements confirm that, this year, all three latter countries are absent from the initiative, leaving only the UK and Canada as principal sponsors.

The reasons for their non-participation are not officially documented but likely relate to a combination of diplomatic fatigue, changing priorities, and perhaps the reshuffling caused by the US withdrawal and the shifting contours of the geopolitical debate around Sri Lanka. The consequences are notable: without the presence of smaller, diverse countries from different regions, the resolution may be seen as less globally representative or may require new coalition-building to secure passage or widespread endorsement.

Statements by core group members in 2024 and early 2025 emphasize willingness to work “constructively” with Colombo, but they also voice consistent concern over limited progress on accountability, the use of emergency laws, the slow pace of cases on enforced disappearances, and the need for mechanisms that have the confidence of affected communities.

Table: Key Actors, Resolution Objectives, and Domestic Steps

Actor/Country	Role/Status in 2025 Resolution	Resolution Objectives	Colombo's Reported Steps
United Kingdom (UK)	Co-sponsor, core group leader	Extend SLAP, continue monitoring, urge progress on accountability, victim-centered justice	Pledges support for Independent Prosecutor’s Office, increased engagement with UNHRC
Canada	Co-sponsor, core group leader	Extend SLAP, urge measurable domestic reforms, sanctions for serious offenders	Active on sanctions; supports technical/legal assistance; backs Independent Prosecutor’s Office
United States (US)	Absent (withdrawn from UNHRC)	N/A (previously: accountability, hybrid mechanisms)	No participation, no direct diplomatic pressure
Malawi	Not participating (core group exit)	N/A	N/A
Montenegro	Not participating (core group exit)	N/A	N/A
North Macedonia	Not participating (core group exit)	N/A	N/A
Sri Lanka (GoSL)	Country under review, target of resolution	Highlight domestic steps, stress sovereignty, propose Independent Prosecutor’s Office	Drafting legislation for Prosecutor’s Office, pledging judicial transparency, allowing exhumations (e.g., Chemmani)
High Commissioner Volker Türk	Report presenter, technical advice	Provide situation report, recommend further steps	Visited Chemmani, issued calls for independent investigation, flagged legacy of impunity

This table highlights the shifting diplomatic landscape and the interplay between international objectives and domestic measures. The core group’s contraction and the shift in draft language reflect both external and internal pressures for a "softer" but still meaningful response.

Anticipated Moderate Tone of the 2025 Draft Resolution

Sources across diplomatic and media reporting, as well as statements by Sri Lankan officials, converge on the expectation that the 2025 resolution will employ more moderate language than earlier iterations. This reflects several realities:

Diplomatic Fatigue and Geopolitical Shifts: With international attention divided by multiple major crises and the absence of the US from the Council, momentum for a hard-line approach is at a low ebb.
Sri Lankan Government Engagement: Sri Lanka's new administration, led by President Anura Kumara Dissanayake and Foreign Minister Vijitha Herath, has sought to proactively engage with the UNHRC and donor states. The government has emphasized a willingness to enhance domestic accountability, most notably through the proposal for an Independent Prosecutor’s Office, portraying this as evidence of seriousness in addressing past impunity.
Philosophy of Constructive Engagement: UK and Canadian officials have repeatedly stressed their preference for supporting domestic reforms and international technical assistance, rather than imposing punitive or intrusive mechanisms, at least for now.

According to official Sri Lankan government comments and reporting by reputable outlets, this more conciliatory language is being interpreted domestically as a diplomatic “win,” making it less likely that Colombo will attempt to force a vote or campaign for the resolution’s defeat. Instead, consensus passage by the Council is anticipated, possibly with a strong official statement of regret or opposition by Sri Lanka but without a divisive recorded vote.

The Sri Lanka Accountability Project (SLAP): Mandate, Achievements, and Future

Origin and Mandate

The Sri Lanka Accountability Project (SLAP) was created by the 2021 Council resolution 46/1 and reinforced under resolution 51/1 in 2022 and 57/1 in 2024. Its primary purpose is to:

Collect, consolidate, analyze, and preserve information and evidence concerning serious human rights violations, crimes under international law, and related crimes in Sri Lanka.
Provide strategic analysis to support future accountability initiatives, both domestically and in third-party jurisdictions with relevant authority.
Advocate for and support victims and survivors, including by facilitating information-sharing for judicial or non-judicial proceedings.

The Council has rolled the SLAP’s mandate forward, most recently until September 2025, with the present resolution aimed at extending it further.

Achievements to Date

The SLAP has amassed a repository of over 101,000 documents and materials, including several thousand new documents since its inception. It has supported several requests for assistance from competent jurisdictions, created detailed profiles of alleged perpetrators, and produced analytical reports on enforced disappearances and related crimes.

Key pillars of the Project’s operating model include:

Evidence Collection: Extensive repository management, with strong protocols for source protection, metadata, and informed consent.
Judicial Support: Sharing information, with victims’ consent, with national or international proceedings, including universal jurisdiction cases.
Victim Advocacy: Dedicated outreach to survivor groups, including women, children, and those subject to conflict-related sexual violence.
Strategic Options: Mapping legal pathways and potential jurisdictions outside Sri Lanka that may be able and willing to prosecute international crimes.

Significance and Controversies

The SLAP has both supporters and critics. Its evidentiary achievements have formed the backbone for continued Council monitoring and allowed for modest progress in select international judicial actions. However, the Sri Lankan government has periodically denounced the Project as “external interference” and objects to any mechanism that could, in their view, prejudge or undermine domestic legal and constitutional processes.

Civil society organizations and victim groups, while welcoming the Project, routinely call for more robust mandates and for the extension of SLAP for at least two years at a time, arguing that annual renewals are subject to political winds and create uncertainty for victims awaiting closure.

Continuing Mandate: Reconciliation, Accountability, and Human Rights

Historical Backdrop

International engagement with Sri Lanka’s accountability deficit dates to the final phase of the armed conflict (2008–2009) and subsequent reports of mass civilian casualties, enforced disappearances, and systematic violations by both the government and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE). The Council’s resolutions since 2012 have focused on establishing the facts, supporting truth-telling mechanisms, and urging domestic and international accountability.

A portion of the international community, particularly the core group states, has regularly raised concerns about the lack of credible domestic investigation, the failures of past commissions, the needs of survivors (including families of the disappeared), and the protection of civic space and media freedom.

The 2025 Context

The forthcoming resolution at the 60th session aims both to renew SLAP’s mandate and to maintain pressure for meaningful progress. It is expected to include calls to:

Sustain and enhance accountability measures, including international avenues when domestic remedies are inadequate.
Prioritize victim-centered justice.
Encourage Sri Lanka to finalize and operationalize the Independent Prosecutor’s Office.
Report progress on emblematic cases (notably Chemmani and other mass graves).
Invite technical assistance or international support where appropriate.

This approach balances between supporting Sri Lanka’s domestic initiatives—if credible—and sustaining external scrutiny to deter impunity.

The High Commissioner’s Report: Türk’s Assessment and the Chemmani Site

The ‘Situation of Human Rights in Sri Lanka’ Report

On 8 September 2025, High Commissioner Volker Türk will present his comprehensive report on the human rights situation in Sri Lanka. Advance reporting and public statements following his June 2025 country visit indicate several likely themes:

Legacy of Unresolved Mass Graves: Türk’s visit included inspection of the Chemmani mass grave site in Jaffna. Over 100 skeletal remains, including children, have been recovered in 2025 alone, and the site is a powerful symbol of both past atrocity and slow-moving justice. Türk is expected to highlight the need for investigations that satisfy international forensic standards and provide closure to families of the disappeared.
Enforced Disappearances and Victim Advocacy: Continued calls for international participation in mass grave exhumations, greater support for the Office on Missing Persons, and reopening stalled investigations are likely to be featured prominently.
Domestic Mechanisms and Legal Reform: The report is likely to urge Sri Lanka to finalize the establishment of the Independent Prosecutor’s Office, ensure its genuine independence, and repeal or revise problematic legislation, such as the Prevention of Terrorism Act and the Online Safety Act.
Protection of Civil Society and Human Rights Defenders: Türk has previously noted the persistence of intimidation and surveillance, and the need to protect spaces for activism, commemoration, and independent journalism.
Gender and Minority Rights: Persistent structural inequalities facing women, Muslims, and Tamils—and the importance of addressing them as part of reconciliation—are anticipated to be emphasized.

Chemmani Mass Grave Site: Symbol and Test Case

The Chemmani site, first investigated in 1998 and the focus of renewed excavation since February 2025, remains central to both the domestic and international debate on accountability. Initial testimony in the late 1990s suggested 300–400 bodies, but slow and sometimes controversial investigations, as well as long delays, have generated deep mistrust among families of the disappeared and survivors’ groups.

International organizations and legal experts (e.g., ICJ, OHCHR) call for compliance with international forensic standards, full protection of evidence, and active participation of victims’ families. The conduct of the Chemmani investigation is widely viewed as a test of the government's professed commitment and the capacity of domestic mechanisms to deliver justice.

Türk’s visit to the site, his reported dialogue with family members and victims, and his calls for international participation have elevated Chemmani from a national issue to a focal point for global advocacy on Sri Lankan accountability.

The Planned Establishment of an Independent Prosecutor’s Office in Colombo

Political and Legal Background

Underlying both the draft resolution and the High Commissioner’s report is the Sri Lankan government’s stated intention, dating to the 2024–2025 period, to create an Independent Prosecutor’s Office. This measure is part of the election manifesto of the National People’s Power (NPP) government, which has sought to reassure the international community that genuine steps are being taken to buttress impunity and political interference.

A technical committee was formed in early 2025, including senior judges, the Attorney General or representatives, the Secretary to the Ministry of Justice, and leadership from the Bar Association. The goal is to design a prosecutorial office structurally independent of the Attorney General's Department, endowed with the power to conduct criminal investigations and prosecutions free from political control or obstruction.

Public and civil consultation is ongoing, with draft legislation expected to be tabled in late 2025 or early 2026. The mandate is expected to include not only conflict-era cases but also emblematic human rights cases such as Chemmani, the Easter Sunday attacks, and cases of alleged abuse by police and the military.

International Reception

The proposal has received cautious but positive comments from the High Commissioner and core group states, who stress that real independence, transparent appointment processes, and public trust are crucial for the new Office to have meaningful impact.

Sri Lankan victim groups and some civil society voices are more skeptical, warning that multiple previous commissions and institutional reforms have failed to produce results, and that only joint international-national mechanisms can secure accountability for the most serious crimes.

The Foreign Policy Approaches of Canada and the United Kingdom Toward Sri Lanka

Canada

Canada has adopted a multifaceted approach, combining direct engagement with Sri Lankan authorities, advocacy for human rights at the UN and in bilateral forums, targeted sanctions against individuals credibly accused of serious abuses, and regular public reporting. Canada imposed targeted sanctions in January 2023 against former presidents Mahinda and Gotabaya Rajapaksa, and two military officers implicated in gross violations, freezing their assets and rendering them inadmissible under immigration law.

Canadian policy promotes the extension of SLAP’s mandate, supports victim-centered justice, and backs the efforts of civil society to gather evidence and advance accountability initiatives in domestic and international forums. Canada is also a major contributor to humanitarian and capacity-building programs and ties its broader engagement with Sri Lanka to progress on democratic reform, anti-corruption, and inclusion.

United Kingdom

The UK, as penholder at the UNHRC, is principally responsible for negotiating and drafting resolutions, leading the core group’s diplomatic coordination, and ensuring follow-up on implementation. British policy links progress on reconciliation in Sri Lanka with broader strategic, trade, and development cooperation, and supports technical assistance, legal education, and human rights capacity-building on the island.

The UK advocates maintaining international scrutiny until durable reforms are in place, while also supporting domestic reform if—and only if—such mechanisms prove credible, independent, and effective. The UK also funds humanitarian and post-conflict stabilization projects, emphasizing the centrality of victim groups and the need for truth, justice, and reparations as cornerstones for peace.

Sri Lanka’s Domestic Accountability Measures and Historical Context

Recent Measures

In response to persistent international pressure, Sri Lanka’s government has pointed to several steps:

Establishment of the Office of Missing Persons (OMP) and the Office for Reparations—though criticized for limited independence and resources.
Commitment to the Independent Prosecutor’s Office and revamping legal frameworks governing police use of force, anti-terror legislation, and surveillance.
Active engagement with exhumations and re-investigations of legacy mass graves, including Chemmani, Mannar, and Matale.
Procedural reforms in the registration, oversight, and transparency of NGOs operating in the security-sensitive North and East.
Initiatives aimed at returning military-held land to civilian ownership, especially in the post-war Northern and Eastern provinces.

Persistent Challenges

Despite these pledges, international observers and domestic human rights advocates highlight that progress is slow, often symbolic, and compromised by political interference or lack of resources. Most legacy criminal cases either remain unresolved, have seen key perpetrators pardoned or acquitted, or are bogged down in procedural delays.

Critics argue that commissions of inquiry, truth commissions, and domestic court processes have been used more to delay or neutralize calls for justice than to genuinely investigate abuses. The role and independence of the Attorney General’s Department has been called into question, prompting the campaign for a genuinely independent prosecutorial authority.

International Accountability Mechanisms: Options and Constraints

With limited domestic progress, international mechanisms have become central to the accountability debate in Sri Lanka. The principal options explored or advocated include:

UNHRC Mandates and the SLAP: Continued evidence gathering and reporting, maintaining international pressure and support for possible future judicial proceedings.
Universal Jurisdiction: Third-country prosecutions of alleged perpetrators under the principle that certain crimes (war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide) can be tried anywhere. A handful of cases have proceeded or been threatened in Canadian, UK, or Swiss courts, often stymied by immunities and procedural barriers.
Sanctions and Visa Bans: Targeted measures by states, such as Canada, the US, and Europe.
International Criminal Court (ICC): Sri Lanka is not a party to the Rome Statute, so ICC prosecution is possible only via referral by the UN Security Council—a pathway blocked by China and Russia.

Many survivors and advocacy groups advocate for a hybrid tribunal or internationalized court with joint national-international jurisdiction, but Sri Lanka’s government continues to oppose any such mechanism as a violation of national sovereignty.

The Current Political Context and Risks

Domestic Politics

Since the economic and political upheavals of the 2022–2024 period, Sri Lanka has experienced significant leadership turnover and renewed commitment—at least rhetorically—to transitional justice. Yet deep social mistrust persists, particularly among Tamil and Muslim minority communities and among victims of enforced disappearances and wartime abuses.

Political analysts warn that unless the government’s pledges are matched by concrete action—robust prosecutions, true independence for the Prosecutor’s Office, and public transparency in emblematic cases such as Chemmani—reform fatigue and cynicism may deepen, fueling further cycles of conflict and political instability.

International Geopolitics

Sri Lanka’s strategic location in the Indian Ocean means it is courted by China, India, and the West, all of whom have at times prioritized security or commercial interests over the full implementation of human rights standards. This complexity sometimes blunts the pressure of UNHRC resolutions, as Colombo can maneuver diplomatically among competing blocs.

Conclusion and Prospects

The 60th session of the UNHRC and the anticipated resolution on Sri Lanka mark an inflection point: the international community, now led by Canada and the UK, seeks to extend the mechanisms of scrutiny and support for accountability amid a more fragmented diplomatic landscape. The softer draft language may reflect both diplomatic calculation and a temporary opening, as Sri Lanka tries to demonstrate greater willingness to address international concerns. Yet real change will depend on the fate of the proposed Independent Prosecutor’s Office, the handling of high-profile cases like Chemmani, and the sincerity of domestic mechanisms.

High Commissioner Volker Türk’s report and personal engagement lend weight to international calls for credible victim-centered justice. The international community now faces the challenge of capitalizing on this moment of “momentum for change” to press for genuinely independent investigation and prosecution, durable legal reform, restoration of trust with victim communities, and, above all, the establishment of lasting structures that can guard against the recurrence of impunity.

The years ahead will test whether domestic reforms can rise to international expectations, or whether the continued extension of international mandates remains the last, frail line of defense for the disappeared, the survivors, and the rule of law in Sri Lanka.

Summary Table: Key Aspects of the 2025 UNHRC Resolution on Sri Lanka

Aspect/Theme	2025 Status / Initiative	Detailed Analysis
Lead Co-sponsors	UK and Canada	US absent; smaller core group; Malawi, Montenegro, North Macedonia out. UK/Canada policy continuity, sanctions, technical aid, heavy focus on SLAP extension.
Tone of Draft Resolution	Moderate / Softer language	Reflection of new core group realities, Colombo’s proactive steps, and wider crisis context. No expected division or acrimony; seeking consensus.
Domestic Accountability Initiatives	Proposal for Independent Prosecutor’s Office	Technical committee established, draft law in process, international support contingent on real independence.
SLAP (Accountability Project)	Mandate extended until Sep 2025; extension sought	101,000+ documents; universal jurisdiction support; risk of political obstruction or under-resourcing remains.
High Commissioner’s 2025 Report	Key focus on Chemmani, enforced disappearances, legal reforms	Field visits, dialogue with families, technical advice; expected call for robust, independent prosecutions.
Chemmani Mass Grave	Fresh excavations; 100+ remains in 2025	Symbol of unresolved crimes, test case for independence, major issue for families and advocacy groups.
International Mechanisms	SLAP enhancement, universal jurisdiction, targeted sanctions	ICC route blocked; hybrid court not accepted. Sanctions used (US, Canada); prosecutions overseas rare and face obstacles.
Domestic Challenges	Limited progress beyond rhetorical pledges; delays in iconic cases	Deep societal mistrust, history of failed commissions, critics skeptical of lasting change.

Each row in this table encapsulates a strand of analysis elaborated above, providing at-a-glance clarity on the diplomatic, legal, and moral questions at play at the 60th HRC session. The future of Sri Lanka’s accountability process rests on whether domestic measures receive genuine empowerment and whether international engagement remains steadfast and principled in the face of evolving global priorities.

In solidarity,

Wimal Navaratnam

Human Rights Advocate | ABC Tamil Oli (ECOSOC)

Email: tamilolicanada@gmail.com

Search This Blog

The 60th UNHRC Session and the 2025 Resolution on Sri Lanka: