IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF COLOMBO

Dr. Gunadasa Amarasekera

31/14A Second Cross Street
Koswatta, Nawala
Case No:
Nature:
Procedure:
Value:

Special
Regular
Rs. 10,000,000.00

Plaintiff
Vs.
Subinay Nandy
United Nations Resident Coordinator
United Nations Compound
Baudhaloka Mawatha
Colombo 7
Defendant

On this 23rd day of September 2015.

The Plaintiff appearing through his Attorney, Kapila Gamage states as follows:
1. The Defendant named above is the official representative in Sri Lanka of the United Nations
Organization, which said Organization has its headquarters in the city of New York, in the
United States, but has a permanent office and place of business within the jurisdiction of this
court.
2. The Plaintiff named above is a citizen of Sri Lanka, and a well-known novelist, cultural critic
and public intellectual. For reasons more fully set out hereinafter, the Plaintiff has suffered
dishonor and disgrace as a result of the actions of the United Nations Human Rights Council,
a subsidiary organ of the United Nations Organization, of which the Defendant named above
is the official representative in Sri Lanka.
3. The United Nations Organization, of which the Defendant named above is the official
representative in Sri Lanka, is the worlds leading international organization, established
under the United Nations Charter in 1945, for the purpose, inter alia, of facilitating peace,
amity, and good relations among the nations of the world. Sri Lanka is a signatory to the said
Charter.
4. By virtue of provisions in the aforesaid Charter, along with a subsequent treaty (Convention
on Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations) the United Nations Organization, of
which the Defendant named above is the official representative in Sri Lanka, enjoys, in
general, immunity from prosecution in the domestic courts of its member nations.
5. The Plaintiff states that, the aforesaid immunity extends only to legal acts of the United
Nations Organization, of which the Defendant named above is the official representative in
Sri Lanka, and, since it is the Plaintiffs contention that the acts of United Nations
Organization that have caused him dishonor and disgrace are illegal acts, they are not
covered by the aforesaid immunity.
1

6. In 2012, 2013 and 2014 respectively, the United Nations Human Rights Council adopted
three resolutions against Sri Lanka on the subject of accountability for violations of human
rights law and humanitarian law allegedly committed during the last phase the war against
the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) that ended in May 2009.
The Plaintiff hereby annexes the said 3 resolutions, marked as P1, P2 and P3, and files as
part and parcel hereof.
7. The resolution in March-2014, A/HRC/25/L.1/Rev.1, authorized an investigation into the
aforesaid alleged violations, to be carried out by the Office of the United Nations High
Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR).
8. It is the Plaintiffs contention that the aforesaid authorization is illegal, because of the
following reasons:
8.1)

The recommendation for an international investigation in resolution

A/HRC/25/L.1/Rev.1 is based solely on the recommendation for such an investigation
made by the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, in three reports
of the High Commissioner, namely, A/HRC/22/38 (February-2013),
A/HRC/24/CRP.3/Rev.1 (September-2013) and A/HRC/25/23 (February-2014).
The Plaintiff hereby annexes the aforesaid three reports of the High Commissioner
marked as P4, P5 and P6

8.2)

The primary and principal basis for the High Commissioners recommendation for an
international investigation made in each of the aforesaid three reports is evidence
contained in the Report of the Secretary Generals Panel of Experts on Accountability
in Sri Lanka (hereinafter referred to as Panel of Experts Report) released in 2011,
and, the use of the said Report to recommend an investigation against Sri Lanka at the
Human Rights Council, or in fact to pursue any other official measure against Sri
Lanka at any official U.N body, is ex facie illegal, because:
a) The said Panel of Experts Report was commissioned by the Secretary General for
his personal use: as such, the decision to commission the report was not the result
of a consultative process involving the Members of the United Nations
Organization, including Sri Lanka, which was a violation of the inherent right of
those Members (stemming inter alia from Articles 1(3), 2(1) and 2(7) of the U.N.
Charter) to participate in and provide input into any decisions of the Organization
that affected their interests.
b) The said Panel of Experts Report was never placed on the official record of the
General Assembly, the Human Rights Council, or any other U.N. body, and
therefore Sri Lanka never had an opportunity to respond officially and directly to
said report before any official U.N body: as such, Sri Lankas right of response, a
basic right under Natural Justice, was violated.

The Plaintiff hereby annexes the aforesaid Panel of Experts Report marked as P7
and files as part and parcel hereof.
8.3)

The Plaintiff contends that, since the basis for the Human Rights Councils
authorization of the investigation in resolution A/HRC/25/L.1/Rev.1 is the High
Commissioners recommendation, and since the High Commissioners
recommendation for an international investigation is ultimately based on evidence
contained in the Panel of Experts Report, as explained herein-before, the
authorization of the investigation is also illegal.

9. The Plaintiff states that, the Human Rights Council is a creation of the United Nations
General Assembly, by resolution 60/251 of April 2006.
The Plaintiff annexes a copy of said General Assembly resolution 60/251 marked as P8 and
files as part and parcel hereof.
10. Therefore, it is the Plaintiffs contention that, the United Nations Organization, of which the
Defendant is the official representative in Sri Lanka, is ultimately responsible for the illegal
acts referred to in paragraph 8 herein-before.
11. The Plaintiff states that he has been personally affected by the aforesaid illegal acts of the
United Nations Organization, of which the Defendant is the official representative in Sri
Lanka, in as much as:
11.1) An external investigation into the conduct of the Government of a country in a
situation of civil unrest or insurgency, a matter that necessarily falls under the
domestic jurisdiction of that country, is by definition an imposition into the
sovereignty of that country.
11.2) At the time the investigation against Sri Lanka was authorized, the Government
opposed the investigation: hence, as a general matter, the investigation, at the time it
was authorized, was an imposition on the sovereignty of this country.
11.3) According to the Constitution of Sri Lanka, the sovereignty of the country is in the
people and inalienable, which means each and every citizen shares in the aforesaid
sovereignty equally. Any imposition on the sovereignty of the country is an
imposition on that part of it that accrues individually to each citizen.
11.4) The Plaintiff considers that the sovereignty of a country is the basis of all other rights
and privileges enjoyed by the citizens under the Constitution, since, if sovereignty is
compromised (for instance by external intervention of one sort or another) it disrupts
the environment where the Constitution can function properly.
11.5) Therefore, the sovereignty of the country is ultimately the basis for the sense of
security, peace of mind, and national security, of each citizen. If sovereignty is
compromised, the aforesaid sense of security, peace of mind, and national security of
each citizen is also compromised.
3

11.6) Thus, the investigation has disrupted the Plaintiffs sense of security, peace of mind,
and national honor.
11.7) In order to address the resolutions in 2012, 2013 and 2014, the Government was
compelled to take extra steps, including sending special delegations to each of the
respective Human Rights Council sessions, and also sending special envoys to Europe
and the United States to explain matters related to the resolutions. The Government
was also compelled to take special steps as a consequence of the March-2014
resolution.
11.8) The Plaintiff has calculated, from information available in public sources, that just
one of the special steps the Government took as a consequence of the said
resolutioni.e. the appointing of a team of international advisors comprising of Sir
Desmond De Silva, Sir Geoffrey Nice, Mr. Rodney Dickson and Professor David M.
Crane, to assist the Commission of Inquiry into missing personscost the
Government a sum of Rs. 135 million for just seven months.
11.9) The said sum, among others, which would not have been spent if there had been no
resolution, was paid out of public funds. That means members of the public,
including the Plaintiff, suffered the loss of those funds, which could have been used
for other purposes beneficial to the public.
12. The Plaintiff states that, on account of the matters set out in paragraph 11 above, the Plaintiff
has suffered, and continues to suffer, dishonor and disgrace on account of:
12.1) The disruption to the Plaintiffs sense of security, peace of mind and national security
resulting from the imposition into Sri Lankas sovereignty caused by the
investigation, and the related measures, including further proposed resolutions against
Sri Lanka that will follow in the future, based on the report of the aforesaid
investigation.
12.2) The inconvenience and mental harassment experienced by the Plaintiff for the
financial loss to public funds of the country, to which the Plaintiff as a tax-paying
citizen has contributed, and continues to contribute, for the aforesaid sum of rupees
135 million, among others, spent on either preparing for the impending resolution in
March-2014, or as a consequence of it.
13. On the 2nd of September 2015, the Plaintiff wrote to the Defendant, acquainting him of the
matters set out herein-before, demanding inter alia redress as follows, and giving two weeks
for a response:
a)
An admission, in writing, that the investigation against Sri Lanka authorized under
Paragraph 10 of resolution A/HRC/25/L.1/Rev.1 is illegal.
b)

An apology, in writing, for the inconvenience, mental harassment and financial loss
caused by the aforesaid investigation.
The Plaintiff hereby annexes a copy of the said letter of demand, along with the postal
receipt, marked as P9 & P9a and files as part and parcel hereof.
4

14. As of the date of filing of the Plaint, the Plaintiff has not received any reply to the letter of
demand sent by him to the United nations Organization, of which the Defendant is the
official representative in Sri Lanka, and the Plaintiff states that the said failure to reply to the
letter of demand is tantamount to an admission of the facts contained therein.
15. On account of the matters set out in herein-before, the Plaintiff states that a cause of action
has arisen for him to sue the United Nations Organization, of which the Defendant is the
official representative in Sri Lanka, in order to obtain the following relief:
a)

An admission in writing that the investigation against Sri Lanka

Human Rights Council resolution A/HRC/25/L.1/Rev.1 is illegal.

authorized

by

b)

An apology in writing for the disgrace and dishonour caused as a result of the
authorization of the aforesaid
investigation.

16. The Plaintiff values the plaint at rupees 10,000,000 (ten million) for purposes of stamp duty.

Wherefore, the Plaintiff prays that Your Honours Court be pleased to:
a)

Issue an order requiring the United Nations Organization, of which the Defendant is
the official representative in Sri Lanka, to admit, in writing, that the investigation
against Sri Lanka authorized under Paragraph 10 of resolution A/HRC/25/L.1/Rev.1
is illegal.

b)

Issue an order requiring the United Nations Organization, of which the Defendant is
the official representative in Sri Lanka, to apologize, in writing, for the disgrace and
dishonour caused by the aforesaid investigation.

d)

Grant costs.

e)

Grant such other and further relief as Your Honour shall deem meet.

___________________________
Attorney-at-Law for the Plaintiff

Annexes:
P1

Human Rights Council resolution A/HRC/19/L.2

P2

Human Rights Council resolution A/HRC/22/L.1/Rev.1

P3

Human Rights Council resolution A/HRC/25/L.1/Rev.1

5

P4

High Commissioners report A/HRC/22/38

P5

High Commissioners report A/HRC/24/CRP.3/Rev.1

P6

High Commissioners report A/HRC/25/23

P7

Report of the Secretary Generals Panel of Experts on Accountability in Sri

Lanka (March 2011)

P8

United Nations General Assembly resolution 60/251

P9 & P9a-

Plaintiffs letter of demand and postal receipt

The Proxy

___________________________
Attorney-at-Law for the Plaintiff