The Commissioners of LLRC

present at the session. Their presence functioned
as a deterrence for those who were making
submissions as they were intimidated by their
presence to make statements which would
threaten their safety. However this situation could
have been resolved had the Commissioners
had taken action to hold the sessions as closed
sessions, where the testimonies were facilitated to
be on camera. This incident damaged the LLRC’s
credibility in the eyes of the public.
When CHR and its sister organization Campaign
for Free and Fair Elections (CaFFE) issued a
press statement regarding the incident requesting
the LLRC to assure the safety of those who arrive
to give evidence, LLRC Secretary SB Atugoda
denied the incident. However by that time CHR
had circulated images of the incident leading the
LLRC to change its stance and to introduse incamera
sessions.
Nevertheless it should be noted that the
LLRC commissioners have been receptive to
constructive criticism regarding the practical
implementation and increased security in the
proceeding sessions in areas where paramilitary
groups are active. Their actions have facilitated
many, despite the intimidation present, and the
threat to attend the sessions and make their
statements be heard. The public has equally
been availed the possibility to get informed on the
happenings of the LLRC through the attendance
at sessions as they were open to the public. Thus
while the open sessions facilitated those who want
to create intimidation to be present at the sessions,
it also rendered those who were interested in
gaining information on the development of the
LLRC to be granted their right to information and
access.
Media
Media plays a key role in the forming of public
opinion though effective conveying of information
on the difficulties faced by those who were
affected by the conflict, their immediate needs
and what they perceive as reconciliation. This
contributes further in a crucial manner to the
reconciliation process of the post war era. Media
coverage of the LLRC varied. While Colombo
sessions where political, religious and military
leaders, made their statements, the coverage was
done by almost all main stream media institutions.
They were also covered by several NGOs and
representatives of foreign missions. However
the attention that was allocated to the outstation
sessions can be deemed as being minimum. The
presence of mainstream media was minimum.
And even the press was represented through at
most times only by Weerakesari and Thinakural.,
Lakbima and LAKBIMAnEWS. There were no
journalists from any other Sinhala or English
newspapers. However even the above mentioned
newspapers were not represented at the sessions
that were held in Ampara and Siyambalanduwa.
Overall the coverage given by Sinhala papers
were minimum which was unfortunate since
prominent coverage and commentary would
have helped the Sinhala reader of the South to
better understand the Tamil speakers of the North
which would have entailed them to grasp the
life of the Northerners highlighting of their many
similarities. CHR believes that the mainstream
media institutions did not give LLRC outstation
sessions the coverage it deserved and even
among Tamil newspapers that the presence of
analytical articles was scarce. Some international
Human Righst organizations analyzed the LLRC
with official transcripts of the commission. These
analysis based on mere words cut off from context
has presented the LLRC in black and white without
seeing the grey.
Furthermore, the media coverage of the LRRC
can be considered as having been selective,
limited and at times politically biased, as
mentioned above, apart from CHR no other civil
society organization covered all the outstation
sessions. Therefore we believe that it is not
practical, fair or realistic to write or analyze the
LLRC process/proceedings based on the limited
media reports. However the little reporting and
analysis we have seen from civil society groups
show that their analysis was based on such media
reports and without being firsthand witnesses to
the ground realties of the outstation submissions
and the subtle nuances that could only be
observed through first hand observation.
The conduct of the media institutions can be
deemed as an illustration where they failed the
country with their lack of contribution to inform the
public of the LLRC sessions which would have
been a great factor in shaping the mind set of
people and leading to reconciliation among the
peoples.
THE WAIT FOR JUSTICE 19