Sri Lanka today hit back at the accusations made by UN Human Rights High Commissioner Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein and voiced “deep concern” regarding his use of intemperate language to “attack and vilify” a sovereign member of the United Nations.

The UN human rights chief on Friday had condemned Sri Lanka for attacking his organisation’s investigations into allegations of human rights violations in the island and “creating a wall of fear” to prevent people from providing evidence.

According to a news report, Zeid “spoke out against what he called the continuing attacks by the Sri Lankan Government on the integrity of the UN Human Rights Office’s (UNHRO) investigation into alleged grave human rights violations and abuses in the country.”

The commissioner also condemned the intimidation of human rights defenders and people wishing to cooperate with the investigation mandated by the Human Rights Council (UNHRC) in March. The deadline for submitting evidence to the inquiry was Oct. 30.

In Geneva, Zeid accused Colombo of carrying out a “campaign of distortion and disinformation about the investigation” calling it “an affront to the UNHRC.”

However, in response to the news release the Permanent Representative of Sri Lanka to the UN in Geneva Ravinatha Aryasinha has sent a communication (see below) to the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights.

“It is extremely regrettable that a News Release should have been issued on this matter attributed personally to you questioning the integrity of the Government of a sovereign nation which has been a member of the United Nations since 1955,” the Ambassador said.

“It is unfortunate that your News Release has been issued without making any attempt to understand the context or content apparent from the Media Release of the Ministry of External Affairs dated 5th November 2014.”

“In fact, the OHCHR has been inept in comprehending for reasons best known to it that the thrust of the concerns expressed by the Government of Sri Lanka related to the flawed procedure of the OHCHR Investigation on Sri Lanka (OISL),” he said.

He reiterated that the Government of Sri Lanka, its departments and agencies made no attempt whatsoever to prevent bona fide witnesses from submitting information to the investigation team and neither was any attempt made to deter and intimidate individuals from submitting evidence.

“The submissions that the Investigation would have received by now would stand to prove this fact,” Aryasinha said.

He stated that the Government of Sri Lanka informed a selected group of Ambassadors and Representatives based in Colombo, about the revelations made by an individual who was apprehended on the grounds of being a non-rehabilitated LTTE cadre.

These revelations included him being employed to collect signatures of persons affected by the conflict on blank forms by deceiving them into believing that they would be granted monetary compensation by the UN. The forms were to then be used to submit false and fabricated information to the OISL.

This information was shared by the Government in order to caution the interlocutors on attempts being made at manipulating the investigation process, he said.

“With regard to your position on trained investigators, it is only reasonable for the OHCHR to have explained this fact in a professional manner while assuring the Government that the Investigation will exercise vigilance regarding attempts by parties to manipulate the system.”

“Instead, you have challenged the right of a sovereign State to raise concerns regarding procedural aspects of an Investigation which impacts its people and their future in the context of the ongoing sensitive reconciliation process,” he added.

The Sri Lankan Ambassador further says that the Government’s categorical rejection of the investigation established by the Human Rights Council is “not tantamount to concealing information.”

The Government of Sri Lanka has steadfastly maintained that it owes to the country’s dignity not to subject its people to an investigation that does not conform to even the minimum requisites of justice and fairplay, a position that has been overwhelmingly endorsed by the national Parliament, he said.

“It is a matter of deep concern to note that you, as a high official of the UN system, have resorted to the use of intemperate language to attack and vilify a sovereign member of the United Nations. Further, you have chosen to cast aspersions and denigrate a democratically elected Government.”

He said that some countries have, on extremely cogent grounds, rejected mandates of the Council previously in much stronger ways, and have not been censured in the manner as in this instance.  “This undoubtedly confirms the double standards being applied.”

“This type of action on your part would regrettably constrain constructive engagement which the Government of Sri Lanka has consistently sought to pursue,” Aryasinha said.