COI Report March 2012 - UK Border Agency - Home Office

7 MARCH 2012 SRI LANKA
―For the IDP camps the government accepted assistance from and provided access to
NGOs and international actors. Management of the camps and control of assistance
was under the military rather than civilian authorities, but civilian government agencies
provided services to IDPs in the camps while working in concert with the military.
―The government released IDPs throughout the year [2010] for return to their areas of
origin, but in some cases the government did not effectively coordinate with local or
international aid agencies that were asked to provide assistance on short notice. The
government sometimes failed to coordinate consistently with military personnel in the
IDPs' home locations.
―The government generally cooperated with the UNHCR and some other humanitarian
organizations in assisting IDPs; however, it restricted access to the north by NGOs and
some international organizations, requiring them to obtain authorization for projects and
access from the Presidential Task Force. While the UN and its organizations were given
fairly effective access, other international NGOs had difficulty in operating projects they
saw as needed, and permission for some humanitarian organizations to operate was
denied or rescinded.‖
24.04 The Minority Rights Group International (MRGI) report No war, no peace: the denial of
minority rights and justice in Sri Lanka 473 , released on 19 January 2011 observed that
―Families that have been returned and resettled have very limited income and livelihood
support. There are few employment opportunities. Most of the people in these areas
were either farmers or fishermen, but they are unable to return to cultivation or to
access the sea front in most areas for security reasons and because of landmines.‖
24.05 A letter from the British High Commission (BHC), Colombo, dated 13 August 2010 474 ,
reported that:
―When asked, the Senior Government Official for Jaffna told us that the local population
were happy to receive IDPs back into the community. In many cases they were
welcoming back relatives. He added that Muslims were also returning in small numbers.
He said that in his view there were many Tamils from Jaffna residing in the south who
were waiting to see how things turned out, to see if it was ‗better than Colombo‘. He
confirmed that there had been the inevitable land disputes between people who had
abandoned their homes decades ago returning to find them occupied by others.
―A Human Rights spokesman based in Jaffna said that locals were suspicious of the
IDPs returning. There were often questions asked as to whether they were working for
military intelligence and if people associated with them would the military become
suspicious. Land rights were now a big issue. At the beginning of the conflict people left
their homes and went to Colombo, allowing other people to move in and look after their
properties. Many of the owners were returning which was causing more displacement
for the occupiers who now found themselves homeless.‖
24.06 As far as the situation in the Kilinochchi district was concerned 475 , the same BHC letter
noted that:
473 Minority Rights Group International (MRGI), No war, no peace: the denial of minority rights and
justice in Sri Lanka, released on 19 January 2011 http://www.minorityrights.org/10458/reports/no-warno-peace-the-denial-of-minority-rights-and-justice-in-sri-lanka.html
date accessed 20 May 2011, p9
474 British High Commission, Colombo, letter dated 13 August 2010
The main text of this COI Report contains the most up to date publicly available information as at 3 February 2012.
Further brief information on recent events and reports has been provided in the Latest News section
to 2 March 2012.
183