The Commissioners of LLRC

LLRC: The Mandate and
Its Interpretation
The mandate of the LLRC does not allow explicitly
the investigation of violations of human rights and
humanitarian law, nor does it has as its aim the
bring to justice of those who have committed acts
of human rights violations. .
President Rajapaksa charged the LLRC with
seeking “methodology whereby restitution to any
person affected by those events [between the
February 2002 ceasefire and the end of armed
conflict on 19 May 2009] or their dependents or
their heirs, can be affected”. Unfortunately the
definition of what constitutes restitution has been
left unelaborated.
Thus the lack of a definition as to what constitutes
restitution in the terms of LLRC has left the
commission one with an undefined objective
which has been handed to the Commissioners to
be moulded for the better or the worse. Thus one
can see the flexibility of the Commission as one
which could be a negative feature which could
be blocking the deliverance of a substantial result
or on a positive note as leaving it open for the
Commission to use in a flexible manner to befit
the situations or the circumstances that need be
addressed.
An analysis of the LLRC’s proceedings renders it
clear as to what the Commissioners deemed be
the interpretation of the mandate. It is illustrated
through the conduct of the Commission that they
did not interpret the mandate to mean that they
were to “seek justice for violations of international
THE WAIT FOR JUSTICE 11