TLTE — Transformative League of Tamil Eelam logo
VinMin · வின்மின்·A digital homeland
Legal & Political Frameworks
UN investigation· Aarambam era· Narrowing step 17

OISL அறிக்கை 2015OHCHR Investigation on Sri Lanka (OISL) Report (2015)

The OHCHR OISL report, published September 2015 under HRC mandate 25/1, set out detailed findings of violations and crimes by all parties to the final stages of the armed conflict, and recommended a hybrid special court.

OISL is the most authoritative single document in the post-war record. The case file treats OISL findings as Tier-A and defers to its language wherever possible. The recommended hybrid court has not been established. That gap — between authoritative finding and absent institution — is the gap the rest of the case file tracks.

§1Findings of the report

OISL found patterns of unlawful killings, enforced disappearances, torture, sexual and gender-based violence, recruitment of children, denial of humanitarian assistance, and indiscriminate shelling — by Sri Lankan security forces, the LTTE, and affiliated paramilitary groups. The report named structural impunity as the central problem and recommended a hybrid court with international judges, prosecutors, lawyers and investigators.

§2Status of the recommendations

Sri Lanka co-sponsored HRC resolution 30/1 (2015) which endorsed the recommendations. The hybrid court was not established. Successive governments (across both major Sinhala-majority parties) have rejected the hybrid mechanism. The case file records this as the single largest unfulfilled commitment in the post-war record.

Sources

  • A/HRC/30/CRP.2 — OHCHR Investigation on Sri Lanka. Resolve
  • HRC Resolution 30/1 — adopted on the basis of OISL. Resolve

What this article is not

This article does not name perpetrators identified in confidential OISL material.
This article does not aggregate counts beyond those already published by OHCHR.
Cited within TLTE by
Cite this article: tlte-cite:case-frameworks-oisl-2015 · retrieved era Aarambam
Continue in The Self-Determination Case