Protracted Muslim IDPs from Jaffna in Puttalam and their Right to ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

More than 70 percent of the total respondents have the documentation needed to access services and secure rights in Jaffna and Puttalam. Among those lacking documentation, the marriage certificate is the document identified as being missing by the most, followed by the birth certificate and ration card. The NIC, which is mandatory when crossing army checkpoints and security checks in many parts of the country and in establishing identity, is not reported as lacking by significant numbers of the protracted IDPs that participated in the survey. Slightly more than half of those wanting to return do not have HLP ownership in Jaffna, but a significant number of them do have such ownership in Puttalam. This does not appear to impact their decision to go back, but may have a large influence on the timing of their move to Jaffna, and such a move may only happen when they have the same HLP ownership rights there as they do in Puttalam. Until such a time, they may opt to remain in Puttalam where they have access to their own house and land. Among those wanting to remain in Puttalam only 14 percent own property in Jaffna, this has quite likely played a role in their decision not to go back. Almost one-third of those with HLP ownership in Jaffna are lacking the documentary evidence of this ownership which will further complicate their ability to access or receive compensation for their traditional areas of settlement that have been destroyed or are under secondary occupation. Additionally, with an increase in family size in the years following displacement, these traditional lands will likely not be able to accommodate all returning family members and this problem may give rise to disputes within families. Not surprisingly, those wanting to go back have identified HLP ownership overwhelmingly as the biggest challenge to their return and reintegration in Jaffna. From the IDPs wanting to stay in Puttalam, there is almost one-fourth with HLP ownership in Puttalam who are not in possession of documentary evidence. According to the general understanding among IDPs in Puttalam, this has made them ineligible for the World Bank housing scheme that is viewed by many as a crucial aid to local integration efforts. These persons will have to find alternate means to secure permanent housing in Puttalam. Movement restrictions have not been identified as a pressing problem for returnees or a factor in the decision to remain or go back, with 65 percent believing that restrictions on movement in Jaffna are no different as compared to Puttalam. However, 23 percent had heard of more stringent restrictions and security checks as compared to the environment in Puttalam. In terms of awareness about livelihoods and HLP access in Jaffna, over 40 percent of respondents are under the impression that few of the returnees have been able to find livelihood opportunities or access basic shelter in Jaffna. However, 24 percent are under the opposite impression, and claim to have heard that returnees have been successful in accessing not only livelihood opportunities but also housing. There are also some respondents who do not know this information, nor are interested in having it, which suggests that they believe they are fully locally integrated and will not leave for Jaffna regardless of the livelihood and HLP situation there. 21
The discrepancy in information among IDPs in Puttalam about the livelihood and HLP conditions in Jaffna can be attributed to the different experiences of spontaneous returnees and those undertaking “go and see” visits. Once again the government seems to be playing no role in enabling IDPs to access their right to information on the conditions in Jaffna that would enable them to make an informed choice about return or local integration. This is despite the government statement 16 according to which returns were supposed to start from December 2009 onwards. Less than 3 percent of the respondents view the government as a source of information on conditions in Jaffna. It is telling that in relation to the questions where IDPs were asked to name their source, the people who received or heard information from government or semi-government related sources were in the minority. While the Constitution of Sri Lanka does not specifically contain a „right to information,‟ the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 14(1)(a) has been interpreted by the Supreme Court to include the right to information. 17 The explicit right was further consolidated through the Court holding that this Article includes the right to information that would enable a person effectively to exercise rights of speech and expression in respect of a matter that should be in the public domain. 18 It was also held that publishing an advertisement in a newspaper was bringing the relevant matter into the public domain. By extension, the argument could be made that related news reports and statements made by political parties and politicians in the media, mainly sporadic with increased frequency during election time, serve to bring the issue of benefits, assistance, return and resettlement into the public domain. As such, while the application of the access to information may be curtailed in certain circumstances, including in the interest of public security, public institutions and State authorities have an obligation to share information that impacts on the rights, benefits and well-being of individuals, 19 particularly those who have been living in protracted displacement for two decades. The Norwegian Refugee Council recommends that: The Government of Sri Lanka: - Prioritise assisting the IDP caseload in Puttalam with finding durable solutions to end its protracted displacement. - Arrive at a common criteria and core understanding of various terms related to displacement and durable solutions such as what makes someone “internally displaced,” in Sri Lanka after 16 “Displaced Muslims to be resettled- Minister Baithudeen,” 5 December 2009. 17 Fernando vs. the Sri Lanka Broadcasting Corporation and Others, SLR 1996, Vol. 1, 157. 18 Environmental Foundation Limited vs. Urban Development Authority of Sri Lanka and others, S.C.F.R. Application No. 47/2004, decided on 23 November 2005. 19 The Urban Development Authority and the Sri Lanka Land Reclamation and Development Corporation recently made available to the general public, on request, documents relating to public utilities, urban development and environment assessments; it was noted that “it is important the public had access to such information to ensure that they made informed decisions, they participate in the decision making process of the country and to ensure greater transparency.” Daily Mirror, “Public access to vital govt. documents,” 10 March 2010, http://www.dailymirror.lk/print/index.php/news/front-page-news/5646.html. 22
Page 1: Protracted Muslim IDPs from Jaffna
Page 4 and 5: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Over 60,000 Musli
Page 6 and 7: and to address the needs of these p
Page 8 and 9: I. Background The Information, Coun
Page 10 and 11: and the LTTE, they encountered many
Page 12 and 13: welfare centres, 14 percent 10 or a
Page 14 and 15: II. Survey findings Out of 621 indi
Page 16 and 17: 3. Timeline of return to Jaffna IDP
Page 18 and 19: Expectations about type of assistan
Page 20 and 21: Status of civil documentation Appro
Page 22 and 23: Only around 20 percent of the 621 p
Page 24 and 25: Facilitation of “go and see” vi
Page 26 and 27: Economic and livelihood opportuniti
Page 30 and 31: 20 years, and what is meant by prot
Page 33: The Norwegian Refugee Council’s I

Protracted Muslim IDPs from Jaffna in Puttalam and their Right to ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?