COI Report March 2012 - UK Border Agency - Home Office

7 MARCH 2012 SRI LANKA
undertaken to release the remaining, less than 1000 ex-cadres undergoing rehabilitation
soon.‘
4.23 The above mentioned BHC letter of 9 November 2011 95 also observed:
―The Government appears to accept that post release reintegration has been
problematic. Promised packages for ex-combatants on release had not actually been
provided, nor had cash or other assistance. Economic regeneration in the northern
former LTTE held areas is very slow with a lack of investors. The Government claim that
over 1,000 job opportunities had been identified in the Colombo area but very few
people were prepared to move there. There is freedom of movement for all Sri Lankans
throughout the country but many choose to remain in their homelands, or seek to move
abroad. Many of those released had returned to heavily militarised areas of the north
and were being monitored for ‗the security of themselves and the community‘. There
have been several media stories regarding the re-arrest of some ex-detainees, although
the Government have claimed that these were for criminal offences committed post
release.‖
4.24 A previous BHC letter, dated 17 September 2011 96 reported on the information provided
to them by IOM (International Organisation for Migration) during a visit to Jaffna in
August 2011, with regards to ex-LTTE cadres (or ‗surrenderees‘) who were at that time
receiving counselling and referral services from IOM.
―We asked if they had any issues since their release from detention. We were told that
they had to report to military camps once a month, which was particularly stressful for
females entering into an all male military environment. They also had to report and
register if they left the district at any time, which was an issue for men looking for
employment. There were differing reactions from local communities regarding their
return. In Jaffna, because it was not involved in the latter stages of the war, some were
actually considered as heroes. In Mullaitivu or Kilinochchi districts however they were
often unable to settle due to animosity towards them. This was mainly from family
members who had been forced to hand over husbands, siblings and children to fight
alongside them.‖
4.25 The same BHC letter 97 also reported on the situation of ‗surrenderees‘ in Kilinochchi.
―The GA [Government Agent] touched on the subject of the reintegration of
‗surrenderees‘. We were told that there was a gap between their release and the start of
their reintegration programme, resulting in them not being assisted on time. There were
50 surrenderees in one DS Division and only 5 or 6 of them had received any
assistance, and only a few out of the total number of 292 in the district had been helped.
They said that there was concern at local government level, but there were currently no
ongoing issues with surrenderees, and added that they were being accepted back into
the community.‖
4.26 On 30 July 2011 BBC News 98 reported:
95 British High Commission Colombo, letter to the UKBA COI Service, dated 9 November 2011
96 British High Commission Colombo, letter to the UKBA COI Service, dated 17 September 2011
97 British High Commission Colombo, letter to the UKBA COI Service, dated 17 September 2011
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.
53