Context
Since the gaining of independence in 1948, Sri Lanka has been a country grappling with concepts of governance and democracy. Partisan systems of governance inherited from our colonial rulers continued to polarize the people of this country along lines of power and economic status. The culture of elitist rule continued to breed unrest which rose from within the ranks of a people who were marginalized, enjoying very little opportunity to participate in making decisions which governed their lives.
Tensions erupted into violence and the decade following 1970 was a periodic expression of the rebellion against the stifled opportunities for progress and participation. Repressive political policies were implemented to strengthen the power base of the elite, which laid the groundwork for division on lines of ethnicity. This later took the form of a civil war which has plagued Sri Lanka for the last 20 years.
The key premise of democratic governance is accepted to be participation, it is however not a feature Sri Lanka has been able to integrate successfully into our system of governance. Corruption and lack of respect for the law has become commonly identified with Sri Lankan politics. Continuing deterioration of the rule of law has caused people to lose faith in governance and in the systems that dispense it. These systems can be identified as the executive, legislature and the judiciary. The role of the judiciary is distinct in that it creates the forum at which administrative actions can be questioned and grievances addressed. Moreover it is entrusted with protecting the rights of individuals against community policies which pursue majority interests. It is critical therefore that this institution strive to be independent, impartial and accessible.
In the given environment, access to justice is impeded by exorbitant costs of litigation and lack of commitment by the legal and law enforcement communities towards ensuring such access. Poverty and lack of infrastructural development has also inhibited adequate progress to be achieved in formulating and implementing an accessible system of justice. This is particularly evident with respect to the situation of prisoners and detainees within the correctional institutions of Sri Lanka.
As a result of these restrictions and a lack of awareness of rights and means of redress, the people of this country have adopted a culture where violations of legal and fundamental rights are not redressed. It is here that the Institute of Human Rights sees a role for itself, and the approach it adopts is three fold. Two mainstream activities can be clearly identified. Firstly the provision of legal aid which hopes to permeate the legal and law enforcement sphere towards infusing a greater sense of urgency into the need for a more accessible system and a culture of protecting rights to be created, and secondly for awareness raising at all levels within society. The third essential and complementary branch of work is the providing of basic assistance with a view to empowering socially marginalized communities.
An alarming result of the failures described above was seen during the time of enforcement of the Prevention of Terrorism Act of 1979 and the Emergency Regulations. This was in fact the impetus for the Institute of Human Rights to come into being.
The Institute came into existence in 1994, with the growing incidence of mass human rights violations, experienced mainly by the Tamil community in Sri Lanka. The state of emergency and the laws that supported it curbed the civil rights of a minority community and the need for legal redress was evident. IHR thus began its activities as an institute that provided free legal assistance to those who had experienced infringement of their fundamental rights. The administering of legal services brought to the surface other vital issues of a social nature, that of the rehabilitation of ex-detainees, addressing the needs of their family members, and education and awareness building among the public on human rights.
This outlines the context in which the work of the Institute is based, and will provide the grounds on which its future activities are designed. While the provision of basic needs and services are a part of the fundamental obligations of the state, it is necessary for organizations, such as, IHR to intervene to address these issues until more satisfactory long term solutions are put in place. It is evident that while short term relief is still a much felt need in this area, a clear commitment to advocacy towards achieving changes to the attitudes of the Sri Lankan people as well as the structural mechanisms protecting the rights of all citizens is essential.
States are not moral agents, people are, and can impose moral standards on powerful institutions.
Noam Chompsky