Alternative Routes to Justice for War Crimes in Sri Lanka

[Inside the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia (ECCC) as guilty verdicts are handed down in the trial of Nuon Chea and Khieu Samphan. Photo: ECCC]

by Dr. Parasaran Rangarajan-

This article aims to explore the current realities of the investigation of alleged war crimes being conducted by the United Nations (U.N.) with a focus on answering the following questions:

1. When will the U.N. investigative report be released?

2. What would be the effect of this report in terms of international justice?

3. Is justice one-sided in this matter?

4. Are there any alternative solutions to justice for Sri Lankans considering political realities?

U.N. Human Rights Council War Crimes Report

The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) investigation into Sri Lanka (OSIL) is mandated and legally bound to release a “comprehensive report” in March of 2015 which would be the 28^th session of the UNHRC, not September of 2015 contrary to popular belief. This is the mandate given and expressly stated in Operative Paragraph 10 (c) of UNHRC Resolution A/HRC/25/L.1/Rev.1[1] passed last March of 2014 which was the 25^th session of the UNHRC. However, there have been reports that the OHCHR may delay the release of the report to September 2015 upon the request of the government of India and Sri Lanka to allow time for the new administration to settle in.[2]

There have been speculations on how the findings of this comprehensive report can be translated into a legal tribunal in terms of prosecuting the evidence of war crimes committed by the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) and the government of Sri Lanka under the scope of the investigation; 2002-2009.

As per previous reports released by the United Nations Secretary-General (UNSG) Panel of Experts (POE) Report On Accountability In Sri Lanka of 2011[3], the U.N. estimates around 40,000 to 75,000 ethnic Sri Lankan Tamil civilians were killed by government forces in a matter of 90 days. In addition, it is reported that nearly 150,000 in Sri Lanka remain “missing”.

It is almost certain that the UNHRC will call for an international tribunal to be set up or for the findings to be referred to the International Criminal Court (ICC) if an alternative arrangement is not worked out examining precedent of how the UNHRC conducts its work.

A major obstacle to use the UNHRC report for prosecuting the alleged war criminals is the jurisdictional technicalities in Article 12 and 13 of the Rome Statute[4]; the founding document of the ICC. The obstacle for justice in Sri Lanka is largely in part due to the lack of political support at the U.N. Security Council and U.N. General Assembly at present, not the ICC itself.

The ICC can only prosecute when the U.N. Security Council refers findings which is unlikely due to the issue of a Chinese veto unless there are changes in the Sino-Lankan relationship, when another member-State conducts a state referral under Article 14 of the Rome Statute which goes into complex legal algorithms in the case of Sri Lanka due to jurisdictional issues explained in one of my previous articles[5], or the state is a member of the Court itself which Sri Lanka is not.

Furthermore, the government of India would like to allow time for the newly elected government led by Sri Lankan President Sirisena to conduct its own probe on these issues.[6][7] The previous administration, accused of the war crimes, has been now replaced with a new government but President Sirisena has also served in the Ministry of Defence during the final stages of the war under the previous administration alleged of war crimes; former President Rajapaksa and his brothers.

As such, it is only natural that the President has rejected any U.N. intervention as he promises to implement a domestic mechanism to resolve the outstanding issues to protect his colleagues, armed forces, and country.

However, western nations that backed the resolution at the UNHRC are still not satisfied with Sri Lanka’s human rights record or the way it is going about addressing the war crimes issue nor is the U.N. itself.[8][9]

The government of India abstained in the specific operative paragraph calling for an international investigation by OHCHR last March as it backed its decision that it does not vote against “country specific resolutions” in terms of intrusive approaches.[10]

The Hybrid Criminal Court Model

The newly elected President of Sri Lanka Sirisena has offered an alternative solution; cooperation between the U.N. and domestic legal system of Sri Lanka to hold the alleged war criminals responsible which can lead to a Hybrid Criminal Court by mutual consent between the U.N. and the government of Sri Lanka.

In his recent visit to India, Sri Lankan Foreign Minister Mangala Samaraweera has told the government of India:

“Our government will take a new approach to the U.N. Human Rights Council process in Geneva. We will offer a domestic mechanism for this, which could be supported by international agencies.”[11]

He added that the government of Sri Lanka will take action against the war criminals if the U.N. finds evidence.[12] Despite this pledge, for credibility purposes; U.N. support and oversight in the trials may be needed because the Sri Lankan Deputy Minister for Justice stated that former Defence Secretary Gotabhaya Rajapaksa is safe from prosecution while in Sri Lanka which clearly indicates a bias in the domestic judicial system as protocol prohibits comments on investigations from such high ranking judicial authorities.[13]

More recently, Sri Lankan Presidential Senior Advisor on Foreign Relations Dr. Jayantha Dhanpala left to meet the U.N. Human Rights Chief His Royal Highness Prince Zeid Ra’ad Zeid Al-Hussein of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan in Geneva to discuss how to resolve this issue.[14] The UNHRC has agreed for “constructive engagement” and continued dialogue on how to resolve the issue with Sri Lanka.[15]

The Northern Provincial Council (NPC) which represents the Sri Lanka Tamils who were victims to the alleged genocide and war crimes also recently passed a resolution after these visits with the following main points; urging the U.N. to continue its investigation and the U.N. Security Council to refer the matter to the ICC. This is why a Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) cannot be implemented in Sri Lanka as for a South African or Liberian style TRC to succeed, both the victims and criminals must consent to deferring or delaying justice.

The NPC, representing Sri Lankan Tamils and stressing justice, also suggests that if justice at the ICC is not possible; foreign courts that allow exercise universal jurisdiction; which override both immunity ratione personae and immunity ratione materiae for war crimes as well as torture in countries such as the U.S. or E.U., should be utilised concurrently or alternatively.[16]

Alternative paths to justice are being sought due to realities of Sri Lanka’s political and economic proximity to China which holds the veto power at the U.N. Security Council and can cancel any chance of justice for Sri Lankan Tamils at the ICC as reflected by the vote on this issue by China at the UNHRC.

A Hybrid Criminal Court is a legitimate compromise if Sri Lanka is genuine in its opening up to cooperation with the U.N. and is willing to accept its findings despite its reluctance to allow U.N. investigators into the country along with India for the purpose of conducting this investigation. U.N. Human Rights Chief has been invited to Sri Lanka as of last week so there is progress in allowing U.N. officials into Sri Lanka.[17]

An example of where a similar compromise was made is the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia (ECCC) or Khmer Rouge Tribunal. Although the ECCC is a domestic court, it was established as an agreement between the Royal Government of Cambodia and the U.N. to avoid internationalisation of the issue. The Royal Government of Cambodia wrote[18] to the then Secretary-General of the U.N., Kofi Annan, for U.N. assistance to set up the ECCC which was then endorsed by the U.N. General Assembly.[19] The Court was established in 1997 before the introduction of the ICC.

Another example of a compromise to avoid internationalisation of war crimes was the Special Court for Sierra Leone (SCSL) where Sierra Leone President Kabbah also wrote to Kofi Annan to set up such a court[20] for “crimes against the people of Sierra Leone” by rebel groups. Shortly after consultations on logistics, the U.N. Security Council passed a resolution mandating the establishment of the SCSL just as the U.N. General Assembly endorsed the U.N. assistance to the ECCC; both domestic courts.[21]

East Timor is also a precedent where a Hybrid Criminal Tribunal was established termed the Special Panels of the Dili District Court and led to justice for the victims of genocide committed by Indonesian officials as it had jurisdiction over “serious criminal offences”. Similar to the case of Sri Lanka, much evidence was given by Amnesty International and while the U.N. puts the death toll of the genocide at around 150,000[22]; more than 60,000 died within 60 days[23] similar to the death toll in the last stages of Sri Lanka’s Civil War. The Court itself was established after the U.N. Security Council mandate of a U.N. Transitional Administration holding a referendum for a separate state of East Timor which came as a compromise between Indonesia and the people of East Timor to avoid an international tribunal. U.S. National Security Advisor Susan Rice has also catagorised Sri Lanka as a country in “transition”.[24] While East Timor achieved independence through U.N. mechanisms, it should be noted that all parties within Sri Lanka such as the Tamil National Alliance (TNA) which represents the Northern Province have accepted the 13^th Amendment of the Constitution of Sri Lanka as a solution to the ethnic conflict.[25]

The Special Tribunal for Lebanon (STL) was also a Hybrid Criminal Court which was established by U.N. Security Council 1757[26] of 2007 but was only responsible for the investigation and prosecution of the deaths of a few dozen high ranking government officials including Rafic Hariri; the former Lebanese Prime Minister. Most of the prosecution was done in absentia. While there were assassinations committed by the LTTE, the scope of the investigation may not include these and the gravity of the crimes committed in this case were nowhere close to that of East Timor or that of Sri Lanka.

While subject to change, it is currently not expected that those calling for the ICC to take up this matter will be able to clear the U.N. Security Council or U.N. General Assembly due to the issue of a Chinese veto so pressuring the new administration in Sri Lanka to implement a ECCC or SCSL type administration of justice to avoid prosecution by foreign courts which allow invoking universal jurisdiction may be the best case scenario. This is because the OHCHR report will surely produce evidence building upon on the UNSG POE Report for prosecutors as well as those seeking civil cases against the Rajapaksa Administration as well as against the LTTE.

It is very important to point out that the OHCHR report must be taken into account if a Hybrid Criminal Court is set up as the U.N. must remain involved in any domestic process; if accepted by the government of Sri Lanka to avoid charges in other foreign regional and domestic courts as called upon by representatives of the victims.[27][28] This is further explained infra.

With the Sirisena Administration accepting support from international agencies as it has stated, the U.N. General Assembly and/or U.N. Security Council will be sure to establish an assistance mission or the like. This is very basic as when there is agreement between the parties involved to cooperate on a Hybrid Criminal Tribunal or the like, history shows us that the U.N. Security Council has never vetoed.

Even though China may veto the referral of the UNHRC recommendation to prosecute alleged Sri Lankan and LTTE war criminals at the ICC, a Hybrid Criminal Court may be the best option for the government of Sri Lanka.

Sri Lankan War Crimes Issue Not One Sided – LTTE Wanted By Interpol

Sri Lanka’s war crime issue is not one sided by any means as the investigation must consider the defunct LTTE as well who have some of their former members alive and who have committed violations of international law within the scope of the U.N. investigation. One only need to look at the case of Kumaran Pathmanathan (“KP”) who has such an Interpol Red Corner Warrant issued for his links to the assassination of former Indian Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi, for being the Chief Arms Procurer for the LTTE during its existence, and for being the temporary Chief of the LTTE[29] after the death of its original leader; Velupillai Prabhakaran.

The Rajapaksa Administration shielded KP from extradition to India and even allowed KP to set up non-profit units in Sri Lanka for children titled North-East Rehabilitation and Development Organisation (NERDO). This was approved by former Eelam People’s Democratic Party (EPDP) militant turned government of Sri Lanka Cabinet Minister Douglas Devananda in the Rajapaksa Administration who is alleged of intimidation, extortion, corruption, and violence against Sri Lankan Tamils in Jaffna according to the U.S. Department of State Human Rights Report on Sri Lanka of 2013[30]. Needless to say, these are violations of international law by the Rajapaksa Administration as well as by the LTTE.

Another former LTTE leader; “Intelligence Chief” Potu Amman has been reportedly arrested in Hong Kong[31] while Sri Lanka claims he is dead[32]. Relative to the issue of prosecuting war criminals overseas, a credible domestic process in Sri Lanka or by the U.N. would request Hong Kong authorities for verifying these reports as Potu Amman was given an Interpol Red Corner Warrant for terrorism.

Meanwhile, it has been reported that KP, who was arrested in Bangkok sometime ago is in Sri Lanka[33] after an arrest warrant for him in Sri Lankan Courts was to be served since the current administration was elected into power and reported “secret deals” were made between the Rajapaksa Administration and Tamil Diaspora Groups to let former LTTE terrorists free in exchange for their security.[34] While this may or may not be speculation or rumors, it is known that KP, wanted by Interpol and the government of India for involvement in the assassination of former Indian Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi as well as for being involved in illegal arms smuggling the LTTE claimed to start the Tamil Diaspora group; the Transnational Government of Tamil Eelam (TGTE)[35] after the defeat of the LTTE where then after, former LTTE Legal Advisor Visvanathan Rudrakumaran decided to lead the TGTE.

When considering prosecuting government of Sri Lanka and former LTTE leaders in the U.S., it should be noted that providing legal advice to a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) as proscribed by the U.S. Department of State was not illegal at the time of Rudrakumaran’s legal advisory services and has then debriefed about his activities with former U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Robert Blake.[36] Since then, providing legal advice to a U.S. designated FTO where the “legal expert” is in service or directed by the FTO has been made illegal in the decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project (2010)[37] although the freedom of expression including publishing articles about FTO’s was upheld. The U.S. Constitution also expressly bans ex post facto laws.

While the issue of KP’s arrest warrant in India and Pottu Amman’s whereabouts are a topic beyond this article and subject to law enforcement agencies such as the government of India’s Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) demanding access to KP for years[38], any credible tribunal on the war crimes committed in Sri Lanka will have to include LTTE members involved in war crimes such as KP and Pottu Amman.

So, the U.N. investigation into the civil war of Sri Lanka from 2002-2009 is far from one sided. However, the government of Sri Lanka officials accused of genocide are the ones most spoken about.

Utilising Western Courts

Lawsuits, both civil and criminal, may be brought up in the U.S. against members of the Rajapaksa family such as Gotabhaya Rajapaksa where credible evidence is produced as they are dual U.S. citizens who have homes in California, U.S. which then allows for the domestic U.S. Courts to exercise jurisdiction under the “1996 War Crimes Act” of the U.S.

Citizens of the U.S.  who are diplomats of other nations do not have immunity in the U.S. according to the U.S. Department of State Guidelines For Diplomatic And Consular Immunity[39] unless they are in service of an international organisation[40] as designated by an U.S. Executive Order pursuant to the International Organizations Immunities Act (1945)[41]. This issue was brought up by the U.S. Congressional Caucus On Ethnic and Religious Freedom in Sri Lanka in 2014 upon previous recommendations.[42]

Service of process issues if a lawsuit against the Rajapaksa family who are dual U.S. citizens can be addressed within the scope of U.S. Federal Law by invoking the following:

1. 18 U.S. Code § 2441 (a)[43] which allows extraterritorial/universal jurisdiction.

2. Rule 4 (5)(f)(1) of the “Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP)”[44] if it is a civil case.

3.  “1965 Convention On The Service Abroad Of Judicial And Extrajudicial Documents In Civil Or Commercial Matters”[45] or simply known as the “The Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents” to serve civil litigation internationally as Sri Lanka is party to this Convention.

Without cooperating with the U.N., both Sri Lanka and the defunct LTTE might find its alleged war criminals wanted by various domestic and regional courts in the world such as the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) which would further damage diplomatic relations with the western nations. All this would require is a plaintiff with European Union nationality to produce evidence and produce an application under Rule 47 of the Rules of the Court[46] as well as follow Article 34[47] of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)[48]. Admissible evidence to supplement victim and amicus curiae testimony for a violation of the ECHR may very well surface in the UNHRC investigation findings.

Conclusion

Therefore, international pressure to accept such a solution where the U.N. plays an assistance role in the domestic courts such as in the case of the ECCC or SCSL in absence of ICC prosecution should be put forth on the government of Sri Lanka as a credible domestic mechanism has not been present as stated in the UNHRC Resolution against the island nation in March 2014.

The OHCHR comprehensive report to be presented will not disappear. Once again, a Hybrid Criminal Court domestically with assistance from the U.N. may be the best realistic option for all parties involved, especially the government of Sri Lanka.

References

1.   “UNHRC Resolution A/HRC/25/L.1/Rev.1.” UN News Center. United Nations, 26 Mar. 2014. Web. <http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/LTD/G14/125/71/PDF/G1412571.pdf?O….

2.   “Report Of The United Nations Secretary-General ‘s Panel Of Experts On Accountability In Sri Lanka.” (n.d.): n. pag. Print. <http://www.un.org/News/dh/infocus/Sri_Lanka/POE_Report_Full.pdf>.

3.   “Will UNHRC Postpone Presenting Investigative Report on Sri Lanka?” Colombo Page, 8 Feb. 2015. Web. <http://www.colombopage.com/archive_15A/Feb08_1423413542CH.php>.

4.  “Rome Staute.” International Criminal Court, n.d. Web. <http://www.icc-cpi.int/nr/rdonlyres/ea9aeff7-5752-4f84-be94-0a655eb30e16….

5.  Rangarajan, Parasaran. “SRI LANKA: Avoiding The UNSC For An International Investigation.” Salem-News.Com, 11 Dec. 2013. Web. <http://www.salem-news.com/articles/december112013/unsc-investigation-pr.php >.

6.   Haider, Sushani. “Sri Lanka’s Northern Province Resolution: Indian Officials Wary.” The Hindu, 11 Feb. 2015. Web. <http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/sri-lankas-northern-province-resol….

7.    “Sri Lanka : Will UNHRC Postpone Presenting Investigative Report on Sri Lanka?” Colombo Page, 8 Feb. 2015. Web. <http://www.colombopage.com/archive_15A/Feb08_1423413542CH.php>.

8.   “UK Report Says Lanka Still Short.” The Sunday Leader, n.d. Web. <http://www.thesundayleader.lk/2015/01/25/uk-report-says-lanka-still-short/>.

9.    “Sri Lanka : UN Chief Stands by UNHRC Chief’s Call on Sri Lanka to Cooperate with UN Inquiry.” Colombo Page, 7 Feb. 2015. Web. <http://www.colombopage.com/archive_15A/Feb07_1423293119CH.php>.

10.   Roche, Elizabeth. “UNHRC to Probe Sri Lanka Civil War; India Abstains from Vote.” Livemint, 27 Mar. 2014. Web. <http://www.livemint.com/Politics/ZN7DAaXHhimV8ANJ7PO6AM/India-to-abstain….

11.  Haider, Sushani. “Open to New Approach in Geneva: Sri Lanka.” The Hindu, 19 Jan. 2015. Web. <http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/modi-hopes-sirisena-win-will-promo….

12.   “UN Inquiry Could Have Been Avoided If Handled ‘pragmatically’ Says Sri Lanka’s New FM.” Tamil Guardian, 25 Jan. 2015. Web. <http://www.tamilguardian.com/article.asp?articleid=13559>.

13.     “Gota Safe from War Crimes Probe in Sri Lanka Says Dep Justice Minister.”Gota Safe from War Crimes Probe in Sri Lanka Says Dep Justice Minister. Tamil Guardian, 24 Jan. 2015. Web. <http://www.tamilguardian.com/article.asp?articleid=13551>.

14.   “Sri Lanka : Sri Lanka President’s Adviser Leaves for Geneva to Meet UN Human Rights Commissioner.” Colombo Page, 25 Jan. 2015. Web. <http://www.colombopage.com/archive_15A/Jan25_1422205800CH.php>.

15.    Warnakulasuriya, Deepal. “UNHRC Ready for a ‘Constructive Engagement'” The Nation, 30 Jan. 2015. Web. <http://www.nation.lk/edition/breaking-news/item/37809-unhrc-ready-for-a-….

16.    NPC Passes Resolution Asking UN to Investigate Genocide of Tamils by Sri Lanka State. Tamil Guardian, 10 Feb. 2015. Web. <http://www.tamilguardian.com/article.asp?articleid=13726>.

17.  “UN Rights Chief Invited to Lanka.” Colombo Gazette, 7 Feb. 2015. Web. <http://colombogazette.com/2015/02/07/un-rights-chief-invited-to-lanka/>.

18.     “UNSG Letter To Royal Government of Cambodia.” (n.d.): n. pag. United Nations, 24 June 1997. Web. <http://unakrt-online.org/sites/default/files/documents/June_21_1997_lett….

19.    “United Nations Assistance to the Khmer Rouge Trials.” United Nations, 04 July 2013. Web. <http://unakrt-online.org/about-us>.

20.   “Agreement between the United Nations and the Government of Sierra Leone and Statute of the Special Court for Sierra Leone.” International Committee Of The Red Cross, 16 Jan. 2002. Web. <https://www.icrc.org/ihl/INTRO/605?OpenDocument>.

21.   “UNSC Resolution S/RES/1315 (2000).” United Nations, 14 Aug. 2000. Web. <http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S%2FRES%2F1315%282000%29>.

22.   “Centi-Kilo Murdering States: Estimates, Sources, and Calculations.” University of Hawaii, n.d. Web. <http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/SOD.TAB14.1C.GIF>.

23.   Chomsky, Noam. “East Timor Retrospective.” Le Monde Diplomatique, Oct. 1999. Web. <http://www.chomsky.info/articles/199910–.htm>.

24.    Brunnstrom, David. “U.S. Security Adviser Rice Pledges Help for Sri Lanka ‘transition'” Thomson Reuters, 06 Feb. 2015. Web. <http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/02/06/us-usa-srilanka-idUSKBN0LA2M32….

25.   “Consensus on Implementing 13th Amendment: Ranil.” The Hindu, 24 Jan. 2015. Web. <http://www.thehindu.com/news/international/south-asia/consensus-on-imple….

26.  “SECURITY COUNCIL AUTHORIZES ESTABLISHMENT OF SPECIAL TRIBUNAL TO TRY SUSPECTS IN ASSASSINATION OF RAFIQ HARIRI | Meetings Coverage and Press Releases.” United Nations, 30 May 2007. Web. <http://www.un.org/press/en/2007/sc9029.doc.htm>.

27.   “Sri Lanka’s Duty on War Crimes.” The New York Times, 10 Feb. 2015. Web. <http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/11/opinion/sri-lankas-duty-on-war-crimes…..

28.  “UN Must Stay Involved to Ensure Independent Investigation into Sri Lanka’s Atrocities – NYT.” UN Must Stay Involved to Ensure Independent Investigation into Sri Lanka’s Atrocities – NYT. Tamil Guardian, 10 Feb. 2015. Web. <http://www.tamilguardian.com/article.asp?articleid=13734>.

29.   “Selvarasa Pathmanathan Named New LTTE Chief – The Times of India.” The Times of India, 22 July 2009. Web. <http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/south-asia/Selvarasa-Pathmanath….

30.   “2013 Human Rights Reports: Sri Lanka.” U.S. Department of State, 27 Feb. 2014. Web. <http://www.state.gov/j/drl/rls/hrrpt/2013/sca/220404.htm>.

31.   Sengupta, Pallavi. “Dead LTTE Intelligence Chief Pottu Amman Arrested in Hong Kong.” One India, 11 Sept. 2014. Web. <http://www.oneindia.com/international/dead-ltte-intelligence-chief-pottu….

32. Srinivastan, Meera. “Pottu Amman Dead.” The Hindu, 12 Sept. 2014. Web. <http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/lttes-onetime-intelligence-chief-p….

33.   “Sri Lanka : Former LTTE Leader KP Has Fled Sri Lanka.” Colombo Page, 10 Jan. 2015. Web. <http://www.colombopage.com/archive_15A/Jan10_1420905801CH.php>.

34.   “Sri Lanka to Prosecute LTTE Leader Wanted for Rajiv Gandhi Killing.” The Economic Times, 10 Jan. 2015. Web. <http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2015-01-10/news/57913106_1_….

35.  “Pathmanathan Slams TGTE.” Colombo Gazette, 18 Sept. 2013. Web. <http://colombogazette.com/2013/09/18/pathmanathan-slams-tgte/>.

36.    “Transcript of Press Conference by Assistant Secretary Robert Blake.”Transcripts. U.S. Embassy – Sri Lanka, 9 Dec. 2009. Web. <http://srilanka.usembassy.gov/tr-9dec09.html>.

37.   Opinion), (Slip. “Holder, Attorney General v. Humanitarian Law Project.” (n.d.): n. pag. Supreme Court of the United States, 23 Feb. 2010. Web. <http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1498.pdf>.

38.    Nanjappa, Vicky. “CBI Sees Hope in Petition Seeking Arrest of LTTE Leader KP.” One India, 20 Jan. 2015. Web. <http://www.oneindia.com/india/cbi-sees-hope-in-petition-seeking-arrest-o….

39.  “Diplomatic And Consular Immunity: Guidance for Law Enforcement and Judicial Authorities.” (n.d.): n. pag. U.S. Department of State – Bureau Of Diplomatic Security, July 2011. Web. <http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/150546.pdf>.

40.  “9 FAM 41.24 Exhibit I – International Organzations.” (n.d.): n. pag. U.S. Department of State, 10 May 2012. Web. <http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/87183.pdf>.

41.  “International Organizations Immunities Act.” Yale Law School, 9 Dec. 1945. Web. <http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/decad034.asp>.

42.   “US Should Push Prosecution of Individuals in Sri Lanka – Congressional Caucus Hears.” US Should Push Prosecution of Individuals in Sri Lanka – Congressional Caucus Hears. Tamil Guardian, 18 July 2014. Web. <http://www.tamilguardian.com/article.asp?articleid=11532>.

43.   “18 U.S. Code § 2441 – War Crimes.” 18 U.S. Code § 2441. N.p., n.d. Web. <http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2441>.

44.   “Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure.” (n.d.): n. pag. The Committee On The Judiciary: House Of Representatives, 1 Dec. 2014. Web. <http://www.uscourts.gov/uscourts/rules/civil-procedure.pdf>.

45.   I, Chapter. “Text of Hague Service Convention and Signatories.” (n.d.): n. pag. The Judicial Branch Of California, 15 Nov. 1965. Web. <http://www.courts.ca.gov/partners/documents/ea_HagueService.pdf>

46.   “RULE 47 OF THE RULES OF COURT.” (n.d.): n. pag. European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), 2014. Web. <http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Rule_47_of_the_Rules_of_Court_2014_1_E….

47.  “Institution of Proceedings.” (n.d.): n. pag. European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), 1 Jan. 2014. Web. <http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/PD_institution_proceedings_ENG.pdf>.

48.   “European Convention on Human Rights.” (n.d.): n. pag. European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), 1950. Web. <http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Convention_ENG.pdf>.

Paper No. 5870                                   Dated 12-Feb-2015