தமிழில் படிக்க, இங்கே கிளிக் செய்யவும் (Google Translated)

UNHRC 61st Session: Justice and Human Rights in Sri Lanka

Outcomes of the UN Human Rights Council 61st Session (March 2026): Justice and Rights for Sri Lanka and the Tamil Community

Introduction

The 61st session of the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC), convened from 23 February to 31 March 2026, marked a pivotal moment in the ongoing international engagement with Sri Lanka’s post-conflict justice, accountability, and human rights landscape. Against the backdrop of persistent demands for accountability for wartime atrocities, continued militarisation, and the struggle for Tamil rights, this session brought renewed scrutiny to the Sri Lankan government’s reform pledges and the lived realities of the Tamil community. This report provides an in-depth evaluation of the session’s outcomes, focusing on justice and rights matters concerning Sri Lanka and the Tamil community, with particular attention to key resolutions, debates, and the implications for transitional justice and human rights advocacy.

The analysis draws on a comprehensive review of official UNHRC documentation, oral and written statements, Special Procedures (SPs) submissions, and the perspectives of a wide array of stakeholders, including Tamil civil society, diaspora groups, and international human rights organizations. The report also critically examines the Sri Lankan government’s responses and the evolving international consensus on accountability mechanisms, legal avenues, and the prospects for reconciliation.

Context: Sri Lanka’s Human Rights Landscape and the Tamil Question

Historical and Political Backdrop

Sri Lanka’s post-independence history has been marked by deep-seated ethnic tensions, culminating in a brutal civil war (1983-2009) between the Sinhalese-majority state and Tamil separatist movements, most notably the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE). The war’s final stages were characterized by mass atrocities, including extrajudicial killings, enforced disappearances, and sexual violence, with Tamils in the North and East bearing the brunt of state violence¹². Despite the war’s end in 2009, the Tamil community continues to face militarisation, land dispossession, and systemic discrimination, while successive governments have failed to deliver meaningful accountability or reconciliation.

International Engagement and the UNHRC Mandate

Since 2012, the UNHRC has adopted a series of resolutions urging Sri Lanka to address impunity, ensure accountability for international crimes, and implement transitional justice measures. The establishment of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights’ Sri Lanka Accountability Project (SLAP) in 2021 marked a significant escalation in international oversight, with a mandate to collect, preserve, and analyse evidence of gross human rights violations and to support future accountability processes³. However, the Sri Lankan government has consistently rejected external mechanisms, insisting on the primacy of domestic processes and sovereignty⁴.

Key Outcomes of the UNHRC 61st Session: Resolutions, Debates, and Stakeholder Positions

Overview of HRC61 Proceedings Relevant to Sri Lanka

The 61st session featured a series of high-profile debates, oral and written statements, and the adoption of a new resolution extending the OHCHR’s mandate on Sri Lanka. The session was shaped by the interplay between the Sri Lanka Core Group (UK, Canada, Malawi, Montenegro, North Macedonia), the Sri Lankan government, Tamil civil society, and influential states such as India, China, and Russia.

Table 1: Summary of Key Resolutions, Stakeholder Positions, and Actions at HRC61

Resolution/Action	Main Provisions	Core Group Position	Sri Lankan Government Position	Tamil Civil Society & Diaspora	Other Stakeholders
HRC61 Resolution on Sri Lanka (A/HRC/61/L.1/Rev.1)	Extends OHCHR mandate (SLAP) for 2 years; urges repeal of PTA; calls for independent prosecutor; supports domestic judicial mechanism; stresses victim participation; calls for land release, memorialisation, and protection of civil society	Strong support; urges concrete reforms, accountability, and victim-centred justice; critical of slow progress	Rejects external mechanisms; insists on domestic processes; claims progress on reforms; objects to SLAP and international oversight	Criticises resolution as diluted; demands internationalised justice, ICC referral, and robust accountability; sceptical of domestic mechanisms	India, China, Russia oppose external pressure; EU, US support continued oversight; NAM divided
Core Group Oral Statement	Repeal PTA; concerns over new anti-terror bill; slow land release; threats to witnesses and journalists; need for independent prosecutor	Delivered by UK; reiterates need for action, not just promises	Acknowledges concerns but claims progress; highlights sovereignty	Welcomes international pressure but frustrated by lack of concrete action	Mixed; some states echo Core Group, others stress non-interference
Special Procedures Submissions	Focus on counter-terrorism, enforced disappearances, FoRB, land rights, and militarisation	Support SPs’ scrutiny and recommendations	Rejects country-specific mandates; claims cooperation with UN	Calls for country-specific Special Rapporteur, ICC referral, and GSP+ suspension	SPs and treaty bodies urge stronger international action
Written/Oral NGO Statements	Document ongoing violations, challenge domestic mechanisms, call for international justice	Amplify Tamil voices, highlight gaps in accountability	Dismiss as politically motivated or unrepresentative	Demand internationalised mechanisms, protection for activists, and recognition of Tamil rights	International NGOs (HRW, Amnesty, ICG) support stronger accountability

The table above encapsulates the main lines of contestation and consensus at HRC61. The Core Group and international NGOs pressed for tangible reforms and accountability, while the Sri Lankan government maintained its opposition to external oversight. Tamil civil society and diaspora groups, meanwhile, expressed deep disappointment at what they perceive as the dilution of international pressure and the continued failure to deliver justice.

The HRC61 Resolution: Content, Evolution, and Impact

Text and Main Provisions

The HRC61 resolution, formally titled “Promoting Reconciliation, Accountability and Human Rights in Sri Lanka,” was adopted without a vote, reflecting broad but not universal support⁵⁶. Its key provisions include:

· Extension of the OHCHR Mandate (SLAP): The resolution renews the mandate of the OHCHR’s Sri Lanka Accountability Project for two years, ensuring continued evidence-gathering and support for future prosecutions.

· Accountability and Judicial Mechanisms: It acknowledges the Sri Lankan government’s commitment to establish an independent public prosecutorial body and encourages the creation of a domestic judicial mechanism with an independent special counsel for past violations.

· Victim Participation and Protection: The resolution calls for the full participation of victims and their representatives in investigations and prosecutions, and for robust victim and witness protection measures.

· Repeal of the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA): It urges the government to impose a moratorium on the PTA’s use, expedite its repeal, and ensure any replacement legislation complies with international human rights standards.

· Land Release and Memorialisation: The resolution stresses the importance of releasing military-occupied lands, resolving land disputes transparently, and supporting memorialisation initiatives.

· Civil Society and Media Freedoms: It calls for an end to harassment and reprisals against civil society actors, journalists, and victims, with special attention to women human rights defenders.

· Reporting and Follow-Up: The OHCHR is requested to provide oral and written updates at future sessions (HRC64, HRC66), maintaining international scrutiny.

Evolution and Critiques

While the resolution maintains international oversight, it has been widely criticised-particularly by Tamil civil society and diaspora groups-for its perceived retreat from earlier, more robust calls for internationalised justice. Notably, explicit references to foreign judges, international prosecutors, or an ICC referral are absent, replaced by encouragement for domestic mechanisms and international “assistance” rather than participation⁷. This marks a significant shift from Resolution 30/1 (2015), which affirmed the need for international involvement in accountability processes.

The resolution’s language on sovereignty, territorial integrity, and the government’s “commendable commitments” has also drawn criticism for appearing to reward rhetoric over results, despite the lack of substantive progress on core issues such as enforced disappearances, sexual violence, and the protection of civil society.

Sri Lankan Government Response

The Sri Lankan government formally rejected the resolution, denouncing the continued reference to the OHCHR’s external evidence-gathering mechanism (SLAP) as an “unprecedented and ad hoc expansion” of the Council’s mandate⁴. Colombo insists that domestic processes-including the strengthening of the Offices on Missing Persons and Reparations, the operationalisation of a Truth and Reconciliation Commission, and the establishment of an independent Public Prosecutor’s Office-are sufficient to address human rights concerns. The government also questioned the transparency and utility of the SLAP, arguing that it serves only to “create divisions and polarise communities.”

Analysis of Key Justice and Rights Issues Raised at HRC61

Accountability Mechanisms: Domestic vs. International Approaches

Domestic Judicial Mechanism and Independent Prosecutor

The resolution and Core Group statements “acknowledge with appreciation” the Sri Lankan government’s commitment to establish an independent public prosecutorial body and encourage the creation of a domestic judicial mechanism with an independent special counsel for past violations⁷. However, critics note that:

· No Explicit International Participation: Unlike Resolution 30/1, the current resolution omits any reference to foreign judges or international prosecutors, instead urging Colombo to “seek international assistance to strengthen capacities.”

· Track Record of Domestic Mechanisms: Previous domestic commissions and judicial processes have failed to deliver justice, with no senior political or military figures held accountable for wartime atrocities more than 16 years after the war’s end¹².

· Victim and Civil Society Distrust: Tamil victims, families of the disappeared, and civil society organisations have consistently rejected domestic-only mechanisms, citing lack of independence, political interference, and a culture of impunity⁸.

International Legal Avenues

Tamil civil society and diaspora groups, supported by international NGOs, continue to demand:

· Referral to the International Criminal Court (ICC): Given Sri Lanka’s non-ratification of the Rome Statute, an ICC referral would require Security Council action, which remains politically unlikely but is seen as essential by victims’ groups⁹.

· Universal Jurisdiction: The OHCHR SLAP has supported requests for assistance from national jurisdictions pursuing cases under universal jurisdiction, though no public prosecutions have yet resulted¹⁰.

· Targeted Sanctions: Some states have imposed asset freezes and travel bans on individuals credibly alleged to have committed serious violations, but these measures are limited in scope and do not substitute for criminal accountability.

OHCHR Sri Lanka Accountability Project (SLAP)

The SLAP continues to play a central role in preserving evidence, supporting judicial and non-judicial proceedings, and developing strategies for future accountability processes³. As of March 2025, the SLAP repository contained over 101,000 items from more than 530 entities, including 300+ witnesses and 230 organisations. The project’s priorities include:

· Strengthening Cooperation: Engaging with member states, NGOs, and victims’ groups to leverage the repository for accountability.

· Supporting Universal Jurisdiction Cases: Providing information and analysis to competent jurisdictions.

· Victim-Centred Advocacy: Ensuring the voices and needs of victims and survivors are central to all processes.

Despite these efforts, the Sri Lankan government continues to reject the SLAP’s mandate and refuses to cooperate with its investigations.

Transitional Justice, Reconciliation, and Memorialisation

Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC)

The government has pledged to establish a TRC following stakeholder consultations. However, victims and civil society remain sceptical, citing the lack of confidence-building measures and the failure of previous commissions to deliver truth or justice¹¹. The need for transparent, inclusive, and genuinely independent mechanisms is repeatedly emphasised by the OHCHR and civil society.

Memorialisation and Reparations

The resolution and Core Group statements highlight the importance of memorialisation for reconciliation. While the government has allowed some commemorative events, restrictions, surveillance, and intimidation persist, particularly in the North and East¹¹. Reparations remain limited, with the Office for Reparations granting modest payments to a fraction of affected families.

Land Release and Militarisation

The slow pace of military-held land release remains a major grievance. As of early 2026, thousands of acres in Jaffna and other Tamil-majority areas remain under military occupation, used for camps, commercial ventures, or the construction of Buddhist monuments¹². Promises of further releases have not materialised at a scale commensurate with the occupation, and the military’s continued presence is seen as a barrier to normalcy and reconciliation.

Security Sector Reform

Despite calls for comprehensive security sector reform, including the reduction of military presence in the North and East and the removal of alleged perpetrators from positions of power, progress has been minimal. The surveillance apparatus remains largely intact, and civil society actors continue to face harassment and intimidation¹.

Legal and Policy Developments: Counter-Terrorism, Civic Space, and Rights Protections

Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA) and Protection of the State from Terrorism Bill (PTSA)

The Core Group and OHCHR have repeatedly called for the repeal of the PTA, which has been used to detain Tamils and Muslims without charge or trial, often in connection with memorialisation or peaceful protest¹³. The proposed PTSA (2026) is viewed with alarm by human rights advocates:

· Broad Definition of Terrorism: The PTSA expands the definition to include digital activism and “serious interference” with electronic systems, raising concerns about criminalising dissent and legitimate advocacy¹⁴.

· Enhanced Surveillance Powers: The act grants sweeping powers for digital surveillance, detention, and in-camera judicial proceedings, with limited transparency or oversight.

· Impact on Civil Society: The broad language risks criminalising advocacy, particularly on transitional justice and minority rights, and perpetuates patterns of discriminatory enforcement.

Online Safety Act and Civic Space

The Online Safety Act, criticised for its vague definitions and disproportionate penalties, remains in force despite government pledges to amend it. Combined with the PTA/PTSA, these laws create a constricting legal environment for freedom of expression, association, and assembly¹⁵. NGOs face bureaucratic obstacles, security clearance requirements, and surveillance, particularly in the North and East.

Witness Protection and Threats to Journalists

Threats, intimidation, and violence against witnesses, victims, journalists, and human rights defenders remain pervasive. At least 41 Tamil journalists have been killed since the end of the war, and impunity for attacks on the media is the norm¹⁵. The lack of effective witness protection mechanisms further undermines access to justice.

Special Procedures (SPs) Submissions and Communications

Special Procedures mandate holders submitted multiple communications and reports on Sri Lanka during HRC61, focusing on:

· Counter-Terrorism and Human Rights: The Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights while countering terrorism highlighted the adverse impacts of proscription regimes and counter-terror laws on Tamil civic space, diaspora advocacy, and the right to self-determination⁹.

· Freedom of Religion or Belief (FoRB): Written statements documented patterns of interference with religious life in Tamil-majority areas, militarised encroachment on Hindu and Christian sites, and the use of security laws to suppress religious commemoration¹⁶.

· Enforced Disappearances: The Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances and the OHCHR underscored the lack of progress in resolving thousands of cases, the need for credible investigations, and the enduring psychological and economic impact on families².

· Land Rights and Militarisation: Communications addressed ongoing land appropriation, the construction of Buddhist monuments in Tamil areas, and the need for transparent, consultative dispute resolution mechanisms.

The SPs called for the appointment of a country-specific Special Rapporteur on Sri Lanka, the strengthening of evidence-gathering and accountability mechanisms, and the pursuit of international legal avenues where domestic remedies have failed.

Mass Graves, Forensic Investigations, and UN Support

The identification and exhumation of mass graves, such as the Chemmani site in Jaffna, remain emblematic of the struggle for truth and justice. As of March 2026, 239 skeletal remains had been unearthed at Chemmani, with further excavations planned¹⁷. The OHCHR and international forensic experts have provided support, but families of the disappeared continue to demand international monitoring and prosecution of perpetrators. The government’s cooperation with these investigations has been limited, and delays-whether technical or political-have fuelled suspicions of obstruction.

Stakeholder Mapping and Voting Patterns

The Core Group (UK, Canada, Malawi, Montenegro, North Macedonia) led the resolution, with 22 co-sponsors, mainly European states. The Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), India, China, and Russia generally opposed external pressure, stressing sovereignty and non-interference. India’s position remains nuanced, supporting devolution and minority rights but wary of internationalising the accountability process. The resolution’s adoption without a vote reflects a pragmatic consensus but masks deep divisions over the appropriate balance between domestic ownership and international oversight.

Implications for Tamil Justice and Human Rights Advocacy

Strategic, Legal, and Political Consequences

Dilution of International Pressure

The shift from explicit calls for internationalised justice to support for domestic mechanisms, coupled with praise for government “commitments,” has reinforced scepticism among Tamil victims and advocates. Many view the resolution as another “hollow” gesture that fails to address entrenched impunity or deliver meaningful change⁸.

Continued International Oversight

The extension of the OHCHR SLAP mandate and the requirement for regular reporting ensure that Sri Lanka remains under international scrutiny. This provides a platform for civil society advocacy, evidence preservation, and the potential for future prosecutions under universal jurisdiction.

Legal Avenues and Universal Jurisdiction

While an ICC referral remains unlikely, the SLAP’s support for universal jurisdiction cases in national courts offers a potential, if limited, pathway to accountability. The effectiveness of this approach depends on the willingness of states to pursue prosecutions and the availability of robust evidence.

Civil Society and Diaspora Advocacy

Tamil civil society and diaspora groups continue to play a crucial role in documenting violations, supporting victims, and advocating for international action. However, they face increasing legal and practical obstacles, both in Sri Lanka and in diaspora host countries, due to counter-terrorism laws and proscription regimes⁹.

Memorialisation, Land Rights, and Cultural Survival

The struggle for memorialisation, land restitution, and the protection of cultural and religious rights remains central to Tamil advocacy. The slow pace of land release, ongoing militarisation, and the construction of Buddhist monuments in Tamil areas are seen as deliberate attempts to erase Tamil identity and history.

Media, Think-Tank, and Expert Analysis

Leading human rights organisations (Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, International Crisis Group), Tamil media (Tamil Guardian), and think-tanks have provided critical analysis of HRC61 outcomes:

· Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International have condemned the dilution of international pressure and the failure to deliver justice for past and ongoing violations.

· Tamil Guardian and diaspora outlets have amplified victim voices, documented ongoing abuses, and called for internationalised mechanisms and ICC referral.

· International Crisis Group and academic experts have highlighted the structural obstacles to accountability, the limitations of domestic mechanisms, and the need for sustained international engagement.

Follow-Up Mechanisms and Next Steps

The resolution mandates the OHCHR to provide oral updates at HRC64 (2027) and a comprehensive report at HRC66 (2028), ensuring continued monitoring and advocacy opportunities. The SLAP’s evidence repository will remain a critical resource for future accountability processes. Civil society and victims’ groups are urged to continue engaging with international mechanisms, submitting evidence, and advocating for targeted sanctions, universal jurisdiction cases, and the appointment of a country-specific Special Rapporteur.

Conclusion

The 61st session of the UN Human Rights Council reaffirmed the international community’s commitment to oversight and support for justice, reconciliation, and human rights in Sri Lanka. However, the session also exposed the persistent gap between rhetoric and reality, with diluted resolutions, entrenched impunity, and the continued marginalisation of Tamil voices. For the Tamil community and human rights advocates, the outcomes of HRC61 offer both opportunities and challenges: the extension of international oversight and evidence-gathering is a vital safeguard, but the retreat from robust internationalised justice mechanisms underscores the need for renewed advocacy, strategic litigation, and solidarity.

The path to justice, truth, and reconciliation in Sri Lanka remains fraught with obstacles. Only through sustained international engagement, genuine domestic reform, and the empowerment of victims and survivors can the promise of human rights and accountability be realised for all Sri Lankans.

Appendix: Table of Key Resolutions, Stakeholder Positions, and Actions at HRC61

Resolution/Action	Main Provisions	Core Group Position	Sri Lankan Government Position	Tamil Civil Society & Diaspora	Other Stakeholders
HRC61 Resolution on Sri Lanka (A/HRC/61/L.1/Rev.1)	Extends OHCHR mandate (SLAP) for 2 years; urges repeal of PTA; calls for independent prosecutor; supports domestic judicial mechanism; stresses victim participation; calls for land release, memorialisation, and protection of civil society	Strong support; urges concrete reforms, accountability, and victim-centred justice; critical of slow progress	Rejects external mechanisms; insists on domestic processes; claims progress on reforms; objects to SLAP and international oversight	Criticises resolution as diluted; demands internationalised justice, ICC referral, and robust accountability; sceptical of domestic mechanisms	India, China, Russia oppose external pressure; EU, US support continued oversight; NAM divided
Core Group Oral Statement	Repeal PTA; concerns over new anti-terror bill; slow land release; threats to witnesses and journalists; need for independent prosecutor	Delivered by UK; reiterates need for action, not just promises	Acknowledges concerns but claims progress; highlights sovereignty	Welcomes international pressure but frustrated by lack of concrete action	Mixed; some states echo Core Group, others stress non-interference
Special Procedures Submissions	Focus on counter-terrorism, enforced disappearances, FoRB, land rights, and militarisation	Support SPs’ scrutiny and recommendations	Rejects country-specific mandates; claims cooperation with UN	Calls for country-specific Special Rapporteur, ICC referral, and GSP+ suspension	SPs and treaty bodies urge stronger international action
Written/Oral NGO Statements	Document ongoing violations, challenge domestic mechanisms, call for international justice	Amplify Tamil voices, highlight gaps in accountability	Dismiss as politically motivated or unrepresentative	Demand internationalised mechanisms, protection for activists, and recognition of Tamil rights	International NGOs (HRW, Amnesty, ICG) support stronger accountability

Detailed Explanations and Analysis of Table Content

The table above synthesises the core dynamics at HRC61. The Core Group, comprising the UK, Canada, Malawi, Montenegro, and North Macedonia, maintained a consistent focus on accountability, legal reform, and victim-centred justice. Their oral and written statements, as well as the resolution itself, reflect a pragmatic approach-acknowledging government commitments while insisting on measurable progress and international oversight.

The Sri Lankan government, by contrast, has steadfastly rejected external mechanisms, arguing that domestic processes are best suited to address human rights concerns. This position is rooted in assertions of sovereignty and a desire to control the narrative and pace of reform. However, the government’s track record-marked by limited progress, persistent impunity, and ongoing violations-undermines its credibility in the eyes of victims and international observers.

Tamil civil society and diaspora groups, supported by international NGOs, have been vocal in their criticism of the resolution’s dilution and the continued failure to deliver justice. Their advocacy has shifted towards demanding internationalised mechanisms, ICC referral, and the appointment of a country-specific Special Rapporteur, reflecting deep scepticism about the prospects for domestic accountability.

Other stakeholders, including India, China, Russia, and the Non-Aligned Movement, have generally opposed external pressure, stressing the importance of sovereignty and non-interference. The European Union and the United States, meanwhile, have supported continued international oversight, reflecting a pragmatic consensus that balances engagement with respect for domestic ownership.

References to Key Documents and Further Reading

· OHCHR, 61st session documentation and resolutions¹⁸

· Core Group statements and oral interventions¹³¹⁹

· OHCHR Sri Lanka Accountability Project (SLAP) reports and updates³

· Special Procedures communications database¹⁸

· Written statements by NGOs and Tamil civil society⁹⁸

· Media and expert analysis (Tamil Guardian, HRW, Amnesty, ICG)¹⁵

This report provides a comprehensive, evidence-based analysis of the UNHRC 61st session’s outcomes for Sri Lanka and the Tamil community, integrating official documentation, stakeholder perspectives, and expert commentary to inform ongoing advocacy and policy development.

References (26)

1. Accountability for Enforced Disappearances in Sri Lanka - OHCHR report. https://www.ohchr.org/en/documents/thematic-reports/accountability-enforced-disappearances-sri-lanka-ohchr-report

2. Accountability for Enforced Disappearances in Sri Lanka . https://reliefweb.int/report/sri-lanka/accountability-enforced-disappearances-sri-lanka-ensita

8. The Vaddukoddai Resolution at 50: Historical Context, Political Impact .... https://viliththeluthamilaaengilsh.blogspot.com/2026/03/the-vaddukoddai-resolution-at-50.html

3. Frequently Asked Questions OHCHR’s mandate under resolution HRC 46. https://sangam.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/SLAP-FAQ-accountability-project_EN.pdf

4. Sri Lanka rejects new UNHRC resolution . https://www.ft.lk/front-page/Sri-Lanka-rejects-new-UNHRC-resolution/44-782680

5. Promoting reconciliation, accountability and human rights in Sri Lanka .... https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/4090542

6. 22 countries to co-sponsor resolution extending OHCHR’s mandate on Lanka. https://www.sundaytimes.lk/251005/news/22-countries-to-co-sponsor-resolution-extending-ohchrs-mandate-on-lanka-615177.html

7. Sri Lanka at Human Rights Crossroads: Clear Changes From Resolution 51/ .... https://srilankabrief.org/unhrc-60-draft-resolution-on-sri-lanka-omits-international-investigation-element/

9. General Assembly - documents.un.org. https://documents.un.org/doc/undoc/gen/g26/026/64/pdf/g2602664.pdf

10. A/HRC/60/21 - UN Human Rights Office. https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/documents/hrbodies/hrcouncil/sessions-regular/session60/advance-version/a-hrc-60-21-aev.pdf

11. Memorialisation as Related to Transitional Justice Processes in Sri .... https://www.impunitywatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/ResearchReport_Memorialisation_Transitional_Justice_Processes_Sri_Lanka_eng-1.pdf

12. Land Release in Sri Lanka’s North: Balancing Property Rights with .... https://lankanewsweb.net/archives/141018/land-release-in-sri-lankas-north-balancing-property-rights-with-national-security-imperatives/

13. HRC 61: Sri Lanka Core Group Urges Human Rights Reforms, Raises .... https://srilankabrief.org/hrc-61-sri-lanka-core-group-urges-human-rights-reforms-raises-concerns-over-terrorism-legislation/

14. Sri Lanka PTSA 2026: New Anti-Terror Law Explained. https://www.srilankanewsnetwork.com/sri-lanka-ptsa-2026-new-anti-terror-law-explained

15. Sri Lanka Archives - Committee to Protect Journalists. https://cpj.org/asia/sri-lanka/

16. General Assembly - documents.un.org. https://documents.un.org/doc/undoc/gen/g26/024/72/pdf/g2602472.pdf

17. Chemmani Mass Grave Excavation Postponed to 2026 Due to Rainwater .... https://www.jaffnamonitor.com/chemmani-mass-grave-excavation-postponed-to-2026-due-to-rainwater-accumulation/

18. 61st regular session of the Human Rights Council: Reports. https://www.ohchr.org/en/hr-bodies/hrc/regular-sessions/session61/list-reports

19. HRC 61 Core Group: Sri Lanka’s Reform Promises vs. Persistent Impunity. https://www.iunwatch.org/hrc-61-sri-lanka-reform-vs-impunity/

In solidarity,

Wimal Navaratnam

Human Rights Defender |Independent Researcher | ABC Tamil Oli (ECOSOC)

Email: tamilolicanada@gmail.com

Outcomes of the UN Human Rights Council 61st Session (March 2026): Justice and Rights for Sri Lanka and the Tamil Community

UNHRC 61st Session: Justice and Human Rights in Sri Lanka

Comments

Post a Comment