HRC63 Watch · Country-Specific Special Rapporteur — neutral inquiry

ஐ.நா. மனித உரிமைகள் சபை 63 — நடுநிலை விசாரணை

Diaspora networks coordinated through WTM-Geneva and AFTE are advancing a Country-Specific Special Rapporteur for Sri Lanka at HRC63. TLTE records the existence of the call and does NOT co-sign it. This pack asks UK MPs to ask HM Government to state its position on the proposal — neutral inquiry only. The pack is designed to be tabled WITHOUT endorsing the SR mandate; the policy artefact is parliamentary visibility, not a UK whip line.

Audience & use

Audience: UK MPs · Lords · FCDO South Asia · APPG for Tamils · Journalists

Best used for: Written questions to FCDO on HMG's position on the Country-Specific Special Rapporteur proposal at HRC63 · Written questions clarifying the distinction between OHCHR Resolution 51/1 OP6 (Sri Lanka Accountability Project, renewed under HRC Res. 60/1) and a Country-Specific Special Rapporteur mandate · APPG-Tamils evidence sessions on the Core Group's HRC strategy · Journalists covering the HRC63 cycle who need a parliamentary record entry without a UK-side advocacy commitment

Remembrance frame

This pack is a neutral-inquiry instrument. TLTE records the existence of the Country-Specific Special Rapporteur call advanced by diaspora networks at HRC63; TLTE does NOT co-sign it. The pack asks the UK Government to STATE its position; it does NOT ask the UK Government to support the proposal. MPs tabling these questions are not, by tabling them, endorsing the SR call. UK Lobbying Act 2014 transparency note applies on every printed brief.

Two-layer reading

Evidence anchors (Tier-A)

Policy asks

Sample Parliamentary Questions

1. written → FCDO
   To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, what HM Government's position is on the proposal advanced by diaspora-led civil-society networks at the 63rd session of the United Nations Human Rights Council for the establishment of a Country-Specific Special Rapporteur for Sri Lanka.
2. written → FCDO
   To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, what criteria HM Government applies when considering whether to support, oppose, or remain neutral on a proposal at the United Nations Human Rights Council for the establishment of a Country-Specific Special Rapporteur, with particular reference to the Sri Lanka Core Group's responsibilities as penholder.
3. written → FCDO
   To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, what assessment her Department has made of the distinction between the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights Sri Lanka Accountability Project established under Human Rights Council Resolution 51/1 Operative Paragraph 6 and renewed under Human Rights Council Resolution 60/1, and a Country-Specific Special Rapporteur mandate, including the consequences for evidence preservation.
4. written → FCDO
   To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, whether her Department, as the penholder of the Sri Lanka Core Group at the United Nations Human Rights Council, will publish the United Kingdom's negotiating posture for the 63rd session in advance of the draft resolution being tabled.
5. written → FCDO
   To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, what consultative mechanisms HM Government applies in formulating its position on Special Procedures proposals at the United Nations Human Rights Council, and whether such mechanisms include diaspora civil-society organisations registered in the United Kingdom.

Pack-specific safety rules

• Never asks an MP to endorse the Country-Specific Special Rapporteur proposal. The ask is HMG's stated position, not HMG's support.
• Never co-signs, drafts on behalf of, or joins letterhead with any organisation in the WTM-Geneva / AFTE archive.
• Always names the distinction between OHCHR Res. 51/1 OP6 (Sri Lanka Accountability Project, renewed under HRC Res. 60/1) and a Country-Specific Special Rapporteur mandate.
• Always identifies the Sri Lanka Core Group penholder role when asking the UK Government about its HRC posture.
• Never names individual advocates, survivors, or families of the disappeared from any document in the archive.
• Always frames the SR proposal as a third-party advocacy item recorded by TLTE, not as a TLTE demand.
• Lobbying Act 2014 transparency note on every printed brief.