The Microscope

Media Reaction to the Darusman Report

Harshula <harshula@themicroscope.net>

Last updated: March 28, 2013

Table of Contents

1 Introduction

Media and advocacy groups make mistakes. It’s true. The reason for the errors can vary from simple human error, time constraints resulting in insufficient research to subtle manipulation of facts and wording to push an agenda.
Once a mistake has been pointed out, most reputable organisations will publish an acknowledgement along with the correction. Less reputable organisations may ignore the error or correct the error without any acknowledgement. How organisations deal with errors are a great indicator of the quality of the publication.
The United Nations Secretary-General, Ban Ki-moon, appointed an advisory panel (Darusman, Ratner, Sooka) to report on the final stages of Sri Lanka’s separatist war. The Darusman report was published in April and human rights advocacy groups, including Amnesty International, International Crisis Group and Human Rights Watch, initiated a controversial media campaign accusing Sri Lanka of war crimes.
The Darusman Report, totalling nearly 200 pages, is not going to be read by the general public. The general public will rely on media and advocacy groups to summarise the significant points contained in the report. Unfortunately, errors can be introduced in this process resulting in readers being misinformed. Furthermore, we see governments, NGOs and media ignoring the following caveat in the Darusman Report:
“This account should not be taken as proven facts, and any effort to determine specific liabilities would require a higher threshold.”[1][1]http://www.un.org/News/dh/infocus/Sri_Lanka/POE_Report_Full.pdf

2 Allegations versus Evidence

The most glaring error propagated by media and advocacy groups is the assertion that the Darusman report found “credible evidence” of crimes. It did not. The Darusman report states clearly that it found “credible allegations” of crimes.

2.1 Definition

allegation:
“n. a statement of claimed fact contained in a complaint (a written pleading filed to begin a lawsuit), a criminal charge, or an affirmative defense (part of the written answer to a complaint). Until each statement is proved it is only an allegation. Some allegations are made "on information and belief" if the person making the statement is not sure of a fact.”[2][2]http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=2387
evidence:
“n. every type of proof legally presented at trial (allowed by the judge) which is intended to convince the judge and/or jury of alleged facts material to the case. It can include oral testimony of witnesses, including experts on technical matters, documents, public records, objects, photographs and depositions (testimony under oath taken before trial). It also includes so-called "circumstantial evidence" which is intended to create belief by showing surrounding circumstances which logically lead to a conclusion of fact. Comments and arguments by the attorneys, statements by the judge and answers to questions which the judge has ruled objectionable are not evidence. Charts, maps and models which are used to demonstrate or explain matters are not evidence themselves, but testimony based upon such items and marks on such material may be evidence. Evidence must survive objections of opposing attorneys that it is irrelevant, immaterial or violates rules against "hearsay" (statements by a party not in court), and/or other technicalities.”[3][3]http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=671
Simply, evidence is required to prove an allegation to be true. Without evidence, an allegation can not be considered to be fact.

2.2 “Credible Evidence”

There are only two instances of the phrase “credible evidence” in the report, namely:
“... (With respect to the credible allegations of the LTTE’s refusal to allow civilians to leave the combat zone, the Panel believes that these actions did not, in law, amount to the use of human shields insofar as it did not find credible evidence of the LTTE deliberately moving civilians towards military targets to protect the latter from attacks as is required by the customary definition of that war crime (Rule 97, ICRC Study)).
...
In the case of both war crimes and crimes against humanity, credible evidence points to the responsibility of superiors for their subordinates’ actions.” [4][4]http://www.un.org/News/dh/infocus/Sri_Lanka/POE_Report_Full.pdf
In the first instance the report states “it did not find credible evidence”. In the second instance, the report finds “credible evidence” that superiors are responsible for the actions of subordinates. The report refers to “credible allegations”, not “credible evidence” of crimes.

2.3 Advocacy Groups

Both Amnesty International and the International Crisis Group have misrepresented the content of a United Nations document in pursuing their advocacy campaign. In this case, Human Rights Watch should be commended for not making this factual error. The International Crisis Group should also be commended for acknowledging the error in their documents and correcting the errors. However, not only did Amnesty International not acknowledge the error in their corrected document but quite disgracefully left the erroneous document available on their website.

2.3.1 Amnesty International - 7th May 2011

Amnesty International has substituted “credible allegations” with “credible evidence” when quoting the Darusman Report:
“A report submitted to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon on 12 April 2011 by the Panel of Experts he appointed to advise him on accountability issues in Sri Lanka ’found credible evidence, which if proven, indicate that a wide range of serious violations of international humanitarian law and international human rights law was committed by both the Government of Sri Lanka and the LTTE, some of which would amount to war crimes and crimes against humanity.’”[5][5]http://www.amnesty.org/fr/library/asset/ASA37/005/2011/en/7f414896-e15c-4d24-9d0a-98fe8b418892/asa370052011en.pdf
The actual report states:
“In stark contrast, the Panel found credible allegations, which if proven, indicate that a wide range of serious violations of international humanitarian law and international human rights law was committed both by the Government of Sri Lanka and the LTTE, some of which would amount to war crimes and crimes against humanity.” [6][6]http://www.un.org/News/dh/infocus/Sri_Lanka/POE_Report_Full.pdf
The official response from Amnesty International is:
“Thank you for your message regarding Amnesty International’s public statement on Sri Lanka of 17 May. The mistake you highlight was a typographical error on our part which we have now corrected. Thank you for bringing this to our attention.”
The original factually incorrect press release remains available on the Amnesty International website[7][7]http://www.amnesty.org/fr/library/asset/ASA37/005/2011/en/7f414896-e15c-4d24-9d0a-98fe8b418892/asa370052011en.pdf (25/07/2011). A new corrected press release is now available on their website [8][8]http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/ASA37/005/2011/en/0936a027-5c2f-4d3e-8896-108915beaec0/asa370052011en.pdf, however the error has been silently corrected and is not acknowledged in the corrected press release.
Steve Crawshaw - International Advocacy Director of Amnesty International - 25 May 2011
“A hard-hitting UN report has found compelling evidence of war crimes and crimes against humanity during the final phase of the war in Sri Lanka in spring 2009.”[9][9]http://livewire.amnesty.org/2011/05/25/sri-lanka-confronting-the-killing-fields/
The Darusman report found “credible allegations” not ’compelling evidence’.

2.3.2 International Crisis Group - 1 May 2011

In CrisisWatch N°93, the International Crisis Group has substituted the phrase “credible allegations” with “credible evidence”:
“Sri Lanka UN panel of experts 25 Apr released report on accountability in Sri Lanka; finds “credible evidence” govt, LTTE committed serious violations amounting to war crimes during final stage of 2009 civil war, says govt shelling responsible for most of “tens of thousands” civilian deaths. Report recommends independent international investigation, but UNSG Ban 25 Apr said he first needs consent of Sri Lankan govt or mandate from UN Human Rights Council, GA or UNSC, where China and Russia likely to veto.” [10][10]http://www.crisisgroup.org/~/media/Files/CrisisWatch/2011/cw93.ashx
and
“CrisisWatch also highlights Sri Lanka, following the 26 April release of the report of the UN panel of experts finding "credible evidence" that violations were committed during the civil war by both government forces and the Tamil Tigers (LTTE) likely cost "tens of thousands" of civilian lives and may have amounted to war crimes and crimes against humanity. The panel called for an "international mechanism" to probe the allegations further.” [11][11]http://www.crisisgroup.org/en/publication-type/crisiswatch/2011/crisiswatch-93.aspx
An official response from the International Crisis Group was received on 07/06/2011:
“Thank you for bringing this mistake to our attention. We have now corrected the misquote in our database <http://www.crisisgroup.org/en/publication-type/crisiswatch/crisiswatch-database.aspx?CountryIDs=%7BE3AEAB0F-4DC7-4926-9510-3165AA4F182B%7D#results>, the original media release <http://www.crisisgroup.org/en/publication-type/crisiswatch/2011/crisiswatch-93.aspx> and the PDF <http://www.crisisgroup.org/~/media/Files/CrisisWatch/2011/cw93.ashx>. In each place we have added a note explaining the change.
In the PDF, at the bottom of the page: *”Sri Lanka changed 30 May 2011: “credible evidence” replaced with “credible allegations”.”* In the media release and the database entry: *”**Text changed 30 May 2011: ”credible evidence” replaced with “credible allegations”.”*”

2.3.3 Australian Red Cross - 2011

The IHL newsletter used the term “credible evidence”.

2.3.4 Human Rights Law Centre (Australia) - 8 March 2013

“The United Nations estimates that up to 40,000 civilians may have died in the final stages of the civil war that ended in 2009 and cites credible evidence of war crimes committed by both government forces and the opposition Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (the LTTE or Tamil Tigers).”[12][12]http://www.hrlc.org.au/australia-should-defend-judicial-independence-and-human-rights-in-sri-lanka-by-supporting-calls-to-relocate-chogm

2.4 Media

Here are a small sample of prominent news organisations that have propagated the same error.

2.4.1 ABC (Australia)

ABC News - sourced from AFP - May 02, 2011
“Sri Lanka’s president has rejected calls for a war crimes probe after a UN finding of "credible evidence" government forces committed atrocities when crushing Tamil Tiger guerrillas in 2009.
...
The UN panel, which did not have an investigative mandate, accused victorious Sri Lankan government troops of killing tens of thousands of civilians and said there was "credible evidence" war crimes were committed by both sides.”[13][13]http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/05/02/3205234.htm
An official response (removed sections pertaining to another correction):
“While allegations could be said to constitute evidence under some circumstances, we accept that is not always the case and it would have been preferable to use the exact wording of the UN report in both these cases.
...
The story published by News Online was sourced from Agence France Presse (AFP), a normally reliable news wire service. Its use of the phrase "credible evidence" has been corrected.
ABC News apologises for any misunderstanding or confusion caused by the errors.
While regrettable, Audience and Consumer Affairs are not of the view that there has been a breach of ABC Editorial Policy.
...
In relation to the online story, it was reasonable for the editors of News Online to rely on the factual accuracy of the AFP report.”
The correction:
“Editor’s note: (May 30) the original article incorrectly reported that there was "credible evidence" of war crimes.”[14][14]http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/05/02/3205234.htm
ABC Four Corners - 03/07/2011
ABC Four Corners Press Release:
“In June 2010, the UN chief asked a panel of experts to advise him on the evidence available relating to the conduct by both sides in the closing months of the war. In a report published in April this year, the panel of experts concluded that there was credible evidence that up to 40,000 people were killed in the final months of the civil war between the Tamil Tigers and Government forces.” [15][15]http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/content/2011/s3257956.htm
ABC News - Stephen Dziedzic - July 05, 2011
“Last year, a United Nations panel of experts found there was credible evidence that up to 40,000 civilians were killed in the conflict.”[16][16]http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-07-05/footage-sparks-calls-for-sri-lanka-war-crimes-probe/2783582
The error was corrected on 27/07/2011:
“Editor’s note:(July 27) the article originally reported that there was credible evidence. There are credible allegations that 40,000 civilians were killed.”
ABC Radio Australia - Kanaha Sabapathy - August 2, 2011
“In April when the UN Advisory panel released its report saying that it had received credible evidence that both the security forces and the LTTE had committed war crimes the government rejected it claiming it could not be substantiated.”[17][17]http://www.radioaustralia.net.au/asiapac/stories/201108/s3283888.htm
ABC Audience and Consumer Affairs acknowledged the error:
We acknowledge that correspondent Kanaha Sabapathy incorrectly stated that the UN Panel had reported that they had received credible "evidence" regarding war crimes when in fact the UN Panel reported they had received credible "allegations". ABC News has added an editor’s note to the transcript of this story which states:

2.4.2 AFP

AFP - Apr 25, 2011
“A UN panel of experts recommended an international investigation over the army’s 2009 final offensive against the Tamil Tiger rebels, saying there was credible evidence of war crimes on both sides.”[19][19]http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jXkY8bFgh15lVy_3fh2VWRiWP0cQ
AFP - Oct 16, 2011
“Rudd said Australia had urged Sri Lanka to act on United Nations findings of "credible evidence" of war crimes through its Lessons Learned and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC), due to report in November.”[20][20]http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hUDUtxq_4ZRPOxxhsbFX_HgVEBdw

2.4.3 BBC

BBC - Charles Haviland - 18 May 2011
“India’s central government has not commented publicly on a recent UN-commissioned report, in which a panel of experts said there was credible evidence that both sides in the Sri Lankan war may have committed war crimes.”[21][21]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-13436844
BBC - Charles Haviland - 24 May 2011
“The lobby group’s comments came a month after a report commissioned by the UN said there was credible evidence that both sides may have committed war crimes: the Tigers, for instance, by shooting escaping civilians, and the government, for example, by shelling hospitals.”[22][22]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-13518949
BBC - 31 May 2011
“The UN has said there is credible evidence that both sides may have committed war crimes - the Tigers by shooting escaping civilians and the government by shelling hospitals.”[23][23]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-13601907
BBC Hardtalk - Stephen Sackur - 5 July 2011
“The UN panel setup by the Secretary-General reckons that there is credible evidence that 40,000 civilians were killed in that final phase of the war.”[24][24]http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/hardtalk/9530778.stm[25][25]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zdelF1R4nQI

2.4.4 Channel 4 (UK)

Channel 4 - Alex Thomson - 16 April 2011
“A leaked UN report reveals the United Nations believes there is credible evidence that war crimes were committed in Sri Lanka’s civil war. Channel 4 News Chief Correspondent Alex Thomson recalls the “frustration and the tension” of trying to report on a ’secret war’.”[26][26]http://blogs.channel4.com/world-news-blog/sri-lanka-un-leak-reveals-credible-evidence-of-war-crimes/15851
Channel 4 News - 03 June 2011
The media release for the documentary “Killing Fields” contains the same factual error:
“The UN report found credible evidence that both sides of the conflict committed serious war crimes. The report called for an international inquiry - that call has so far has gone unheard.”[27][27]http://www.channel4.com/news/un-screens-channel-4-sri-lanka-war-crimes-film
Channel 4 documentary “Killing Fields” - Jon Snow
During the melodramatic introduction by Jon Snow to the “Killing Fields” documentary he makes the same factual error:
“The UN recently published a report that found ’credible evidence’ that both government and Tamil Tiger rebels committed serious war crimes.”
Callum Macrae - Producer and Director of “Killing Fields” - 21/06/2011
Callum Macrae, Producer and Director of “Killing Fields”, during an interview with Groundviews[28][28]http://groundviews.org/2011/06/21/exclusive-interview-with-callum-mccrae-director-of-sri-lankas-killing-fields-produced-by-channel-4/, claims the Darusman report states:
“... credible evidence that the senior command knew of what was going on ...”
“But actually if you take the total of the report as well, it is true that it does collectively represent credible evidence”
Clearly, he is not a lawyer.

2.4.5 DBS Jeyaraj - 22 February 2012

“The UN Panel headed by Darusman found “credible evidence” that the Sri Lankan army had killed tens of thousands of civilians in the final stages of the war against the LTTE.”[29][29]http://dbsjeyaraj.com/dbsj/archives/4375

2.4.6 Groundviews - 11 May, 2011

“There is obviously much confusion in official circles on what to do with the report of the panel appointed by the UN Secretary General to look into issues of accountability in Sri Lanka, which has flagged credible evidence of war crimes and crimes against humanity.”[30][30]http://groundviews.org/2011/05/11/opposition-to-the-un-panel-report-any-method-to-this-madness/
Groundviews acknowledged and corrected the error immediately after becoming aware of it:
“Based on your critique and acknowledging the error, I have updated the article you refer to on Groundviews, and pointed to your blog post as the source that noted, and inspired the correction.”

2.4.7 Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty - April 26, 2011

The US Congress funded Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty:
“April 26, 2011
The United Nations says an investigation has found "credible evidence" that the Sri Lanka government — as well as the Tamil Tigers — committed war crimes in the last days of the war against the separatist rebels.”[31][31]http://www.rferl.org/content/sri_lanka_war_crimes_un/9505365.html

2.4.8 Reuters

Ranga Sirilal (Writing by Bryson Hull; Editing by Sugita Katyal) - May 26, 2011
“Western governments led by the United States have pushed Sri Lanka to establish a believable probe into the panel’s finding of "credible evidence" government troops killed thousands of civilians at the end of the country’s civil war in 2009.“ [32][32]http://in.reuters.com/article/2011/05/26/idINIndia-57306420110526
Ranga Sirilal (Writing by Bryson Hull, editing by Rosalind Russell) - Aug 18, 2011
“A panel commissioned by the U.N. secretary-general in April said it had "credible evidence" both sides had committed possible war crimes, and in particular alleged the government had killed thousands of civilians.”[33][33]http://af.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idAFTRE77H63920110818
Stephanie Nebehay - Sep 12, 2011
“Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon was poised on Monday to send a report by his advisory panel, which last April found "credible evidence" that government forces committed war crimes when crushing the Tigers, to the rights Council, U.N. officials said.”[34][34]http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/09/12/us-srilanka-un-rights-idUSTRE78B4RX20110912
Rob Taylor - Oct 17, 2011
“A United Nations advisory panel’s report says there is "credible evidence" that both sides committed war crimes, which the government hotly contests. Many of the allegations originated with pro-Tamil Tiger sources or propaganda outlets.”[35][35]http://in.reuters.com/article/2011/10/17/idINIndia-59926820111017
Michael Perry (Reporting by Michael Perry, Editing by Jonathan Thatcher) - Oct 24, 2011
“A U.N. advisory panel report says there is "credible evidence" both sides committed war crimes, which the government rejects.”[36][36]http://in.reuters.com/article/2011/10/24/idINIndia-60086220111024
One would not have anticipated Reuters to be consistently factually incorrect.

2.4.9 Sydney Morning Herald

Ben Doherty - December 19, 2011
“The findings were in stark contrast to a UN expert’s report earlier this year, which found ’’credible’’ evidence of war crimes on both sides of the conflict and said civilians were deliberately targeted by government troops, particularly in the final months of the war.”[37][37]http://www.smh.com.au/world/both-sides-to-blame-in-tamil-war-20111218-1p0s5.html

2.4.10 The Australian

Paul Maley and Amanda Hodge - October 17, 2011
“Several inquiries, including one by the UN Panel of Experts, have found there is credible evidence that both the Sri Lankan government and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Elam were guilty of war crimes.”[38][38]http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/sri-lankas-australian-envoy-not-named-for-war-crimes/story-e6frg6so-1226169178520
The Australian made the following public correction:
“A REPORT published on The Australian’s website on October 17 (“Australia’s envoy ‘not named’ for war crimes”) reported that the UN panel of experts had found there “was credible evidence that both the Sri Lankan government and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Elam were guilty of war crimes”. The Australian accepts that the UN report refers to “credible allegations” of war crimes rather than “credible evidence”. This correction arises from a settlement arranged by the Australian Press Council.”
Paul Maley - October 26, 2011
“Numerous independent reports, including the UN Panel of Experts commissioned by UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, have found there is credible evidence the Sri Lankan government and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Elam committed war crimes.”[39][39]http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/war-crimes-charges-against-sri-lankan-leader-quashed/story-fnapmixa-1226176664652

2.4.11 The Independent - Andrew Buncombe - Tuesday, 18 October 2011

“An independent panel established by UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon reported earlier this year that there was "credible evidence" that both the Sri Lankan forces and those of the rebel Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) had committed war crimes during the final stages of the fighting.”[40][40]http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/australian-police-study-sri-lanka-war-crimes-dossier-2372046.html

2.4.12 The Sunday Leader - Jun 5 2011

“The UN arm did place on record that war crimes did occur during the last stages of the war in Sri Lanka and credible evidence was available to back this claim.”[41][41]http://www.thesundayleader.lk/2011/06/05/katunayka-fires-first-salvo-against-president/

2.4.13 Voice of America - Kurt Achin - August 03, 2011

“Earlier this year, a panel of United Nations-appointed researchers recommended an international probe into the final months of Sri Lanka’s decades-long civil war. Their report concluded there was credible evidence the military may have killed tens of thousands of civilians in deliberate attacks on non-combatant targets such as hospitals.”[42][42]http://www.voanews.com/english/news/asia/south/Report-Sri-Lanka-Documentary-Counters-War-Crimes-Claims-126660588.html

2.5 Individuals

2.5.1 Gordon Weiss - former UN spokesperson in Sri Lanka - July 10, 2011

“But a UN report in April this year went further. The UN’s panel of experts detailed credible evidence that the same army systematically bombarded so-called no-fire zones sheltering civilians; deliberately bombed hospitals overflowing with wounded women and children; withheld food from starving people; and murdered prisoners.”[43][43]http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/dont-turn-a-blind-eye-to-the-killing-fields-of-sri-lanka-20110709-1h7qn.html

2.5.2 Melissa Parke - Australian Labor Party, Federal Member of Parliament and former United Nations Lawyer - July 5, 2011

The former United Nations lawyer has misinterpreted the Darusman report:
“PARKE: Well I’m not an expert, I can’t judge that, but I think what is important is that the UN panel that was appointed by the Secretary General last year has found credible evidence that in the closing stages of the armed conflict in Sri Lanka both government forces and the Tamil Tigers committed war crimes. So the UN panel found that there was credible evidence that civilians had been used as human shields by the Tigers, and that they were killed when trying to leave. They found there was credible evidence that civilians in no fire zones, including in hospitals, had been shelled by government forces, and that executions of LTTE members who had surrendered had taken place. So I think as a matter of justice and in the interests of a full and lasting reconciliation, the UN panel has quite clearly said and I agree with it, that there should be an independent process for assessing and judging this evidence.” [44][44]http://www.radioaustralia.net.au/connectasia/stories/201107/s3261594.htm
ABC Radio Australia corrected the error:
“Editor’s note: (August 3) The UN report states that there were "credible allegations" of war crimes, rather than "credible evidence" as stated by Mr Parke.”[45][45]http://www.radioaustralia.net.au/connectasia/stories/201107/s3261594.htm
The official response from Melissa Parke on 13 July 2011:
“Thank you for your email - and I am not for a moment claiming to know that particular incidents did or did not happen: and while I appreciate your distinction between credible allegations and credible evidence, that is a semantic difference that I hadn’t particularly turned my attention to in the context of the interview.”
Unfortunately, it appears the Member of Parliament had no intention of correcting her mistake. The MP’s website still retains the factual error (10/07/2011):
“Human Rights in Sri Lanka Monday, 04 July 2011 13:52
Ms Parke (1:52pm) — Last year, the UN Secretary-General appointed a panel of experts to advise him on the issue of accountability with regard to alleged violations of international humanitarian and human rights law during the final stages of the armed conflict in Sri Lanka. In April this year the panel delivered its report, in which it found there is credible evidence that both government forces and the LTTE had committed war crimes.”[46][46]http://www.melissaparke.com.au/Speeches/human-rights-in-sri-lanka.html

2.5.3 Antony Loewenstein (Sri Lanka Campaign for Peace and Justice) - 12 October 2011

“A thorough UN-led investigation found overwhelming evidence of war crimes committed by both sides during the conflict and Ban Ki-Moon recently submitted this report to the UN Human Rights Council for investigation. The move was condemned by Colombo.”[47][47]http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/3553286.html
The Advisory Panel refers to “credible allegations” but it has now been transformed into “overwhelming evidence” according to the ’Sri Lanka Campaign for Peace and Justice’. The UN non-intergovernmental Advisory Panel report was rejected by other members of the UN Human Rights Council:
“Minister Samarasinghe said the delegation had been successful in securing the support of eight countries, to ensure that the controversial Darusman report would not be presented at the UNHRC sessions even in the capacity of an informative document.
“Pakistan as a representative of the Organization of Islamic Countries, Cuba as a representative of the Non Aligned Movement, Algeria, Malaysia, Bangladesh, Philippines, Russia and China all signed a letter which stated that the Darusman report could not be admitted to the UNHRC for discussions even as an informative document,” he said.”[48][48]http://print.dailymirror.lk/news/front-page-news/57792.html

3 Civilian Death Toll

3.1 Darusman Report - “The number of civilian deaths”

The number of civilian deaths as speculated by the Darusman report is another aspect the media is having difficulty grasping. The report states:
“E. The number of civilian deaths
132. There is no authoritative figure for civilian deaths or injuries in the Vanni in the final phases of the war. Several factors make it very difficult to calculate a reliable casualty figure: (a) the number of persons in the conflict area remains uncertain, although it was likely to have been as many as 330,000; (b) the lack of an accurate count of the number of persons who emerged from the Vanni, due to the lack of transparency in the screening process; (c) lack of certainty on the numbers of LTTE combatants, complicated further by the increase in forced recruitment in the final phase; and (d) the fact that many civilians were buried where they fell, without their deaths being registered, in some cases, unobserved.
133. Some have developed estimates based on the statistics of the injured and dead collected by the doctors, which were collated by the hospitals and the District Disaster Management Unit. One estimate is that there were approximately 40,000 surgical procedures and 5,000 amputations performed during the final phase. Depending on the ratio of injuries to deaths, estimated at various times to be 1:2 or 1:3, this could point to a much higher casualty figure. Others have put the estimate at 75,000, a figure obtained by subtracting the number of people who emerged from the conflict zone (approximately 290,000) from the estimate of the number thought to have been in the conflict zone (approximately 330,000 in the NFZ from January, plus approximately the 35,000, who emerged from the LTTE-held areas before that time).
134. The United Nations Country Team is one source of information; in a document that was never released publicly, it estimated a total figure of 7,721 killed and 18,479 injured from August 2008 up to 13 May 2009, after which it became too difficult to count. In early February 2009, the United Nations started a process of compiling casualty figures, although efforts were hindered by lack of access. An internal “Crisis Operation Group” was formed to collect reliable information regarding civilian casualties and other humanitarian concerns. In order to calculate a total casualty figure, the Group took figures from RDHS as the baseline, using reports from national staff of the United Nations and NGOs, inside the Vanni, the ICRC, religious authorities and other sources to cross-check and verify the baseline. The methodology was quite conservative: if an incident could not be verified by three sources or could have been double-counted, it was dismissed. Figures emanating from sources that could be perceived as biased, such as Tamil Net, were dismissed, as were Government sources outside the Vanni.
135. The number calculated by the United Nations Country Team provides a starting point, but is likely to be too low, for several reasons. First, it only accounts for the casualties that were actually observed by the networks of observers who were operational in LTTE-controlled areas. Many casualties may not have been observed at all. Second, after the United Nations stopped counting on 13 May, the number of civilian casualties likely grew rapidly. Due to the intensity of the shelling, many civilians were left where they died and were never registered, brought to a hospital or even buried. This means that, in reality, the total number could easily be several times that of the United Nations figure.
136. It is worth noting that the United Nations raised casualty figures in private entreaties with the Government, but never publicized its specific estimates. Government officials strongly refuted the figures provided by the United Nations, stating that the numbers were fabricated and that this was not the business of the United Nations. Publicly the United Nations referred to the “heavy toll” of the fighting on civilians, or that the casualty figures were “unacceptably high”, but that the actual figures were not verifiable. The decision not to provide specific figures made the issue of civilian casualties less newsworthy. However, this position was maintained by senior United Nations officials until 13 March 2009, when the High Commissioner for Human Rights publicly stated that 2,800 civilians may have been killed and more than 7,000 injured since 20 January, many of them inside the NFZs. Pressure from the Government of Sri Lanka and fears of losing access may have resulted in a general under-reporting of violations by United Nations agencies. Some have criticized the failure of the United Nations to present figures publicly as events were unfolding, citing it as excessively cautious in comparison with other conflict situations.
137. In the limited surveys that have been carried out in the aftermath of the conflict, the percentage of people reporting dead relatives is high. A number of credible sources have estimated that there could have been as many as 40,000 civilian deaths. Two years after the end of the war, there is still no reliable figure for civilian deaths, but multiple sources of information indicate that a range of up to 40,000 civilian deaths cannot be ruled out at this stage. Only a proper investigation can lead to the identification of all of the victims and to the formulation of an accurate figure for the total number of civilian deaths.
 
Footnotes
78 On 15 February 2010, the United Nations Country Team in Sri Lanka released a statement “for the record”, “UN Statement on former Spokesman views”, www/un.lk/media_centre/for_the_record.php, stating: “The UN repeatedly and publicly said that there were unacceptably high civilian casualties from the fighting in the last months of the war, as a result of the LTTE forcibly preventing people leaving and the Government’s use of heavy weapons in areas close to thousands of civilians. While we maintained internal estimates of casualties, circumstances did not permit us to independently verify them on the ground, and therefore we do not have verifiable figures of how many casualties there were.”
79 The Government responded that it was “very disappointed and dismayed at the unprofessional nature of the press release” and that it “categorically” rejected the allegations which were “unsubstantiated, unverified and vague” and reflected LTTE propaganda. Sri Lanka Government website, http://www.priu.gov.lk, “Archives”, “Government rejects OHCHR statement that supports LTTE propaganda”, 15 March 2009. The United Nations Country Team spokesperson in a public statement on or after 20 April 2009, referred to a “bloodbath” but this was similarly disputed by the Government.
80 After the war the Government expelled the spokesperson for UNICEF who had been vocal about violations against children.
81 The section below on credible allegations relating to events outside the conflict zone and in its aftermath will be dealt with thematically rather than chronologically.
82 Throughout the final phase from January until May 2009, IDPs fled the area, although until 20 April the numbers were still relatively low (at around 50,000).” [49][49]http://www.un.org/News/dh/infocus/Sri_Lanka/POE_Report_Full.pdf
The report concludes:
“VII. Conclusions
1. Nature and scope of the allegations
421. Both parties to the armed conflict in Sri Lanka conducted military operations with flagrant disregard for the protection, rights, welfare and lives of civilians and failed to respect the norms of international law. There is a reasonable basis to believe that large-scale violations of international humanitarian and human rights law were committed by both sides. As a direct consequence, up to tens of thousands of Sri Lankan civilians were killed and hundreds of thousands suffered immensely, including through the loss of loved ones, serious injuries, displacement and loss of homes and livelihoods. In the aftermath of the armed conflict, many were forced to endure further hardships and humiliation. ”[50][50]http://www.un.org/News/dh/infocus/Sri_Lanka/POE_Report_Full.pdf
The report clearly states that the United Nations had an internal estimate of 7,721 civilian deaths during the period of August 2008 to 13 May 2009. It then explains this should be considered a lower-bound:
“This means that, in reality, the total number could easily be several times that of the United Nations figure.”[51][51]http://www.un.org/News/dh/infocus/Sri_Lanka/POE_Report_Full.pdf
The war was declared over on the 19th of May 2009[52][52]http://www.un.org/News/dh/infocus/Sri_Lanka/POE_Report_Full.pdf. The period from January to May 2009 is described as the “final phase” of the war:
“Throughout the final phase from January until May 2009 ...“ [53][53]Footnote 82, p.41. http://www.un.org/News/dh/infocus/Sri_Lanka/POE_Report_Full.pdf
and:
“125. At the outset of the final phase, on 13 January 2009 ...“[54][54]p.37. http://www.un.org/News/dh/infocus/Sri_Lanka/POE_Report_Full.pdf
There are further references to the period from January to May 2009:
“Tens of thousands lost their lives from January to May 2009 ...”[55][55]p.iii. http://www.un.org/News/dh/infocus/Sri_Lanka/POE_Report_Full.pdf
and:
“Some United Nations national staff members and dependents were forcibly recruited, including a 16 year-old girl. UNICEF verified and documented 397 cases of child recruitment, including 147 girls, by the LTTE, between 1 January and 19 May 2009, but the actual number of forced recruitments going on during that period is presumed to be much higher.“[56][56]Footnote 51, p.28. http://www.un.org/News/dh/infocus/Sri_Lanka/POE_Report_Full.pdf
and:
“83 Violations reported under SC Resolution 1612 indicated that 199 children were killed and 146 maimed from 1 January 2009 to 19 May 2009, although the “actual number of casualties is likely to be higher.””[57][57]Footnote 83, p.42. http://www.un.org/News/dh/infocus/Sri_Lanka/POE_Report_Full.pdf
and:
“124. Throughout the final stages of the armed conflict, particularly from January to May 2009 ...“[58][58]p.36. http://www.un.org/News/dh/infocus/Sri_Lanka/POE_Report_Full.pdf
The report states “40,000 surgical procedures and 5,000 amputations” were made, which indicates 45,000 injured. A death to injured ratio of “1:2 or 1:3” leads to a possible 22,500 to 15,000 deaths. The report causes confusion by referring to a “ratio of injuries to deaths” when the report should have stated ’ratio of deaths to injuries’. It is possible that this poor choice of wording led to some claiming some absurdly high death tolls.
Interestingly, the Advisory Panel also refers to:
“Others have put the estimate at 75,000, a figure obtained by subtracting the number of people who emerged from the conflict zone (approximately 290,000) from the estimate of the number thought to have been in the conflict zone (approximately 330,000 in the NFZ from January, plus approximately the 35,000, who emerged from the LTTE-held areas before that time).”
The Advisory Panel is referring to the ’generous’ upper-bound set by the International Crisis Group. Presumably the Advisory Panel does not find the 75,000 figure credible since it draws the upper-bound at 40,000. The 75,000 assumes that the LTTE did not suffer any deaths, that the LTTE did not forcibly conscript children and/or civilians, that the LTTE did not inflate civilians numbers and that all displaced civilians were registered. For a more detailed analysis of the death toll, refer to the article “Transparency and Casualty figures[59][59]http://themicroscope.net/sl-transparency-casualties.html.
The section concludes that “as many as 40,000” and “a range of up to 40,000 civilian deaths cannot be ruled out at this stage” because “multiple sources of information indicate”. The Darusman report makes no attempt to calculate a death toll, instead it refers to a possible civilian death toll range comprising of a lower bound defined by the UN’s estimate, of 7,721, and an upper-bound defined by non-UN estimates, of 40,000, in the final 5 months of the war. It certainly does not estimate a death toll of 40,000.

3.2 Media

A small sample of media organisations propagating factual errors regarding the section on civilian deaths are listed below. Interestingly, on this issue, the most inaccurate media organisations hail from India. Media organisations have become more inaccurate over time.

3.2.1 ABC (Australia)

ABC Radio PM - Sarah Drury - April 26, 2011
ABC Radio claimed:
“SARAH DRURY: The much-awaited release of the report contains the first UN’s estimate of the death toll. It says that 40,000 civilians were killed as they were trapped between the two sides and it blames government troops for most of those deaths.”[60][60]http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2011/s3200708.htm
ABC Four Corners - Kerry O’Brien - 27/06/2011
On 27/06/2011 as Four Corners concludes, Kerry O’Brien claims:
“... when 40,000 civilians were killed, as the 25 year civil war between the Government and the secessionist Tamil Tigers was coming to an end.”
ABC Audience and Consumer Affairs concluded that Kerry O’Brien breached the ABC Code of Practice:
“Audience and Consumer Affairs concluded that the statement by Kerry O’Brien was in breach of 2.2 of the ABC Code of Practice. A correction has been posted on the ABC online corrections page, which is available at the attached link; http://abc.net.au/news/corrections/”
An explanation was added on the ABC website:
“Four Corners, 27 June 2011
Summary published: Tuesday 02, August 2011
Complaint: A viewer complained that the presenter made an inaccurate statement at the end of the program when announcing the content of the following week’s program.
Finding: Upheld against 2.1 ABC Editorial Policies (11 April 2011)
Audience and Consumer Affairs response: The ABC acknowledged that reasonable efforts were not made to ensure that material facts were accurate. In commenting on the upcoming report ‘Sri Lanka’s Killing Fields’, the presenter stated that 40,000 civilians were killed as the 25 year civil war in Sri Lanka was coming to an end. The statement should have noted that the figure of 40,000 dead was an estimate from a UN panel report, not an established fact.”[61][61]http://www.abc.net.au/contact/upheld/s3283547.htm
ABC Four Corners - Kerry O’Brien - 04/07/2011
While introducing the Channel 4 documentary on 04/07/2011, Kerry O’Brien claims:
“... but this time it relates to the brutal slaughter of humans, an estimated 40,000 of them.”
ABC Asia Pacific Focus - 25/03/2012
“The UN estimates Sri Lanka’s civil war claimed between 80,000 and 100,000 lives*, with casualties soaring in the final months of the conflict.
It’s believed that no fewer than 40,000 people died during the government’s final offensive against the Tamil Tigers. And that is now the focus of United Nations pressure on Sri Lanka to investigate alleged war crimes.
South Asia correspondent, Richard Lindell, reports on Sri Lanka’s post war reconstruction.
...
But there’s deep suspicion that some of these areas must contain the bodies of 40,000 civilians the UN estimates were killed in the last months of the war.”[62][62]http://australianetwork.com/focus/s3463292.htm

3.2.2 BBC

BBC Sinhala - Udani Wimalaratne - 06 July, 2011
“’40,000 civilians killed’
...
However, according to a report by the UN expert panel set up by the Secretary General, around 40,000 civilians were killed during the war in Sri Lanka.”[63][63]http://www.bbc.co.uk/sinhala/news/story/2011/07/110706_rajiva_war_crimes.shtml
BBC Hardtalk - Stephen Sackur - 5 July 2011
“The UN panel setup by the Secretary-General reckons that there is credible evidence that 40,000 civilians were killed in that final phase of the war.”[64][64]http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/hardtalk/9530778.stm[65][65]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zdelF1R4nQI
BBC - Charles Haviland - 24 February 2012
“The death toll figure is consistent with an early United Nations estimate, but it’s much lower than the estimated 40,000 deaths given by a report commissioned by Ban Ki-Moon last year.”[66][66]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-17156686

3.2.3 Channel 4 (UK)

Channel 4 documentary “Killing Fields”
The “Killing Fields” documentary confuses a “few weeks” for the “5 months” referred to in the Darusman report:
“The United Nations panel has now concluded that as many as 40,000 people died in the final few weeks of the war.”
Channel 4 News, Foreign Editor, Ben De Pear - Saturday 10 March 2012
“The UN estimates at least 40,000 people, mostly civilians were killed in a matter of weeks.”[67][67]http://www.channel4.com/news/should-englands-cricket-team-tour-sri-lanka
Comprehension does not appear to be a prerequisite to be an editor at Channel 4.

3.2.4 India Today / Headlines Today - Priyamvatha and Rajesh Sundaram - August 10, 2011

India Today / Headlines Today incorrectly claims:
“The UN says over 40,000 Tamil civilians were killed during the last stages of the 30-year civil war in Sri Lanka. NGOs put the figure at over a lakh and fifty thousand.”[68][68]http://indiatoday.intoday.in/site/story/sri-lanka-in-denial-over-war-crimes/1/147691.html
India Today / Headlines Today misunderstood “as many as” to mean “over”. You would expect a credible media organisation to name the NGOs that are claiming a death toll of 150,000 civilians. Ironically the article concludes with:
“Truth, expectedly, is the biggest casualty in the 30-year conflict in Sri Lanka.”
The opening paragraph of the article must have been intended as confirmation.

3.2.5 NDTV - Mohuya Chaudhuri, Divakar Mani, K Jaganathan - September 10, 2011

India’s NDTV:
“Towards the end of the war, the UN says, around three and a half lakh Tamils were trapped in a narrow sliver of land, designated as safe zone by the Sri Lankan army, and over 40,000 were wiped out as the war reached its climax.”[69][69]http://www.ndtv.com/video/player/documentary-24x7/sri-lanka-white-lies-and-brute-force/210479
It appears NDTV has misunderstood “as many as” to mean “over”.

3.2.6 PBS (USA) - PBS News Hour - June 15, 2011

“The UN has reported that at least 40,000 civilians, more than half the toll for the entire war, died in the final months of the fighting in late 2008 and 2009.” [70][70]http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/world/jan-june11/srilanka1_06-15.html
PBS was first to present a unique take on the Darusman report, it seems to have misunderstood “as many as” to mean “at least”.

3.2.7 Sydney Morning Herald

Ben Doherty - May 14, 2011
The article claims:
“It has always been sparsely populated, but in the aftermath of a war in which the UN estimates 40,000 civilians were killed and more than 300,000 displaced - out of a population of about 700,000 - a lack of people is now a very real problem.”[71][71]http://www.smh.com.au/world/stark-future-for-the-vanquished-20110513-1em7v.html
The UN did not estimate 40,000 civilian deaths.
Ben Doherty - August 3, 2011
The article claims:
“The government’s Humanitarian Operation statement comes three months after a report by a panel of UN experts found that ’’tens of thousands’’ of civilians were killed in the final days and weeks of the war.”[72][72]http://www.smh.com.au/world/sri-lankan-civilian-deaths-unavoidable-20110802-1i9t9.html
The Darusman Report is quite clear that it is referring to the final five months.
Ben Doherty, Josephine Tovey, Dan Oakes - October 18, 2011
The article claims:
“A UN report this year found up to 40,000 civilians were killed in the final weeks of the war against the separatist Tamil Tigers, and found government troops bombed no-fire zones, hospitals and food supply lines.”[73][73]http://www.smh.com.au/national/sri-lanka-faces-pressure-on-war-crimes-claim-20111017-1ltfa.html
The Darusman Report is quite clear that it is referring to the final five months.

3.2.8 Ten (Australia) - 17th October 2011

The 6:30 program anchored by George Negus claimed:
“The United Nations believes 40,000 civilians were killed ...”[74][74]http://ten.com.au/630pm-with-george-negus.htm?movideo_m=136341
The Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) Investigation Report No. 2762 concluded:
“Given that the statement failed to include the qualifying references to ‘as many as’ or ‘a range up to’, the ACMA considers that the licensee breached clause 4.3.1 of the Code in this instance.”[75][75]http://www.acma.gov.au/webwr/_assets/main/lib410172/ten_sydney-report_2762.doc
Furthermore, the television channel did not respond to the complainant and hence also breached clause 7.11 of the Code:
“TEN apologises to the complainant for not providing a substantive written response as required under clause 7.11. The complaint was passed on to a program staff member to respond directly to the complainant. Unfortunately, the person subsequently left TEN News after the cancellation of the program without a response being sent and other staff being unaware of the outstanding obligation.”[76][76]http://www.acma.gov.au/webwr/_assets/main/lib410172/ten_sydney-report_2762.doc
The program has been canned.

3.2.9 The Age

Ben Doherty and Josephine Tovey - October 18, 2011
“A UN report this year found that up to 40,000 civilians were killed in the final weeks of the war, and found that government troops bombed hospitals and food supply lines.”[77][77]http://www.theage.com.au/national/rudd-quizzed-over-envoy-20111017-1ltoc.html
The Darusman Report is quite clear that it is referring to the final five months.

3.2.10 The Australian

The Australian - Catherine Philp - April 26, 2011
“UN report finds up to 40,000 people were killed by Government forces in final days of Sri Lanka’s civil war
Catherine Philp
From: The Times
April 26, 2011 8:09AM
...
DELIBERATE shelling of civilians by government forces may have killed as many as 40,000 people in the closing stages of Sri Lanka’s civil war, a leaked UN war crimes report has found.” [78][78]http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/un-report-finds-up-to-40000-people-were-killed-by-government-forces-in-final-days-of-sri-lankas-civil-war/story-e6frg6so-1226044820509
The Australian acknowledged the error and chose to remove the offending article:
“The article, sourced from The Times, stated that a UN war crimes report had found that 40,000 Sri Lankan civilians were killed by government forces in the final stages of the Sri Lankan civil war.
The Australian accepts that the UN report’s estimate of 40,000 deaths referred to civilian deaths overall, and not specifically to those people killed by Government forces.
We have accordingly removed the article from our website.
Please note, that The Times story did not appear in print in our newspaper.”
Ironically, the official response itself contains a factual error.

3.2.11 The Guardian - Andy Bull - 4 June 2011

The article claims:
“The UN estimates that 40,000 Tamil civilians were killed.”[79][79]http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2011/jun/04/tamil-protest-lords-sri-lanka

3.2.12 The Hindu - R. K. Radhakrishnan - February 24, 2012

“The United Nations Secretary General’s Expert Panel on Accountability issues in Sri Lanka has said that upwards of 40,000 civilians were killed.”[80][80]http://www.thehindu.com/news/international/article2927697.ece

3.2.13 The Independent - Callum Macrae - 11 March 2012

“Last year, a special panel of experts appointed by the UN Secretary-General, Ban Ki-moon, suggested that as many as 40,000 civilians died in the last few weeks of the war”[81][81]http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/sri-lanka-a-child-is-summarily-executed-7555062.html
Callum Macrae misinterpreted the five months referred to in the Darusman report to mean a “few weeks” in his documentary too, Channel 4’s “Killing Fields”.

3.2.14 The New York Times - MANU JOSEPH - February 27, 2013

“They estimate that more than 40,000 Tamil civilians died in the final months of the war.”[82][82]https://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/28/world/asia/28iht-letter28.html?_r=0

3.2.15 The Vancouver Sun - Jonathan Manthorpe - January 18, 2013

“A United Nations panel appointed in April 2011 by secretary general Ban Kimoon says as many as 40,000 people were killed in the final weeks of the war and has called on the Rajapaksa administration to account for what happened.”[83][83]http://www.vancouversun.com/business/Lankan+presidents+thirst+power+puts+summit+risk/7838009/story.html

3.2.16 The Washington Post - Simon Denyer - July 6, 2012

“The United Nations has called for an investigation into the final stages of the civil war, accusing the Tigers of using civilians as human shields but also accusing the army of indiscriminate shelling and of denying civilians access to humanitarian aid. It estimates that 40,000 innocent people may have died.”[84][84]http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/abuse-by-sri-lankas-army-rubs-salt-in-wounds-of-war-tamil-women-say/2012/07/06/gJQADaSiRW_story.html
The error was corrected immediately and an annotation acknowledging the error was added:
“Correction:
An earlier version of this article described the United Nations as estimating that 40,000 innocent people may have died in the civil war in northern Sri Lanka. That is the high end of the estimate; the world body says at least 7,721 and as many as 40,000 civilians were killed. This version has been revised to reflect that estimate.”
The revised article now states:
“It estimates that at least 7,721 and as many as 40,000 innocent civilians may have died.”

3.2.17 Times of India

Paul Newman - Jul 3, 2011
“BANGALORE: Nearly 1,00,000 Tamil civilians were killed in the war in Sri Lanka during the final stages of civil war against the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, a report by a committee of the United Nations said.
The International Committee of the Red Cross ( ICRC) has estimated that nearly 14,000 wounded Tamil civilians were evacuated by ship from a no-fire zone in Sri Lanka during the end of war. Of which, the Committee said, 5,000 civilians were amputated and nearly 70,000 children died of starvation during the war in 2008.
Political Science professor Paul Newman from Bangalore University on Saturday presented these statistics quoting from a UN panel report headed by Marzuki Darusman, Steven Ratner and Yasmin Sooka.”[85][85]http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/bangalore/UN-report-100000-Tamilians-killed-in-war/articleshow/9081157.cms
The Times of India claims that the UN Advisory Panel report said there was a civilian death toll of 100,000 during the final stages of the war. The Times of India is attributing this to a presentation by Paul Newman.
Mar 13, 2012
“Last year, a special panel appointed by the UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon suggested that as many as 40,000 civilians died in the last few weeks of the war.”[86][86]http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/south-asia/Lankan-forces-killed-LTTE-chiefs-son-in-cold-blood/articleshow/12241757.cms
Kenneth Roth - Executive Director - Human Rights Watch - Mar 24, 2012
“In the last stages of the war, the Sri Lankan army indiscriminately shelled the Tigers trapped on a beach. Along with them, 40000 civilians too were killed.”[87][87]http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/India-is-too-influential-to-be-neutral-HRW/articleshow/12386430.cms

3.2.18 UN Watch - Hillel Neuer - Executive Director of UN Watch - March 22, 2012

“In 2009, after an estimated 40,000 civilians were killed by Sri Lanka ...”[88][88]http://blog.unwatch.org/index.php/2012/03/22/list-of-resolutions-from-the-19th-session-of-the-hrc/

3.3 Individuals

3.3.1 Lee Scott (British Conservative Party) - Member of Parliament (Ilford North) - 15 Sep 2011

“I want to focus today on Sri Lanka. We have seen reports from the United Nations that 40,000 innocent women and children were massacred at the end of the conflict.”[89][89]http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmhansrd/cm110915/debtext/110915-0003.htm#11091558001511
I guess being a native English speaker does not necessarily mean one has the ability to comprehend what one reads.

3.3.2 Siobhain McDonagh (British Labour Party) - Member of Parliament (Mitcham and Morden) - 15 Sep 2011

“The civil war in Sri Lanka was one of the region’s most dreadful conflicts of recent times. In its last five months alone, 100,000 people were killed, 40,000 of them civilians.”[90][90]http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmhansrd/cm110915/debtext/110915-0003.htm#11091558001511
British MPs are quite creative! The UN estimates between 80,000 and 100,000 deaths during the entire duration of the four-decade long war.[91][91]http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2011/05/27/sri-lanka-military-united-nations.html

3.3.3 Bruce Haigh - former Australian diplomat - 19 October 2011

“The UN report estimates 40,000 Tamil civilians were killed towards the end of the war, some, as already noted, by the navy. In addition, 4,000 Tamil soldiers (LTTE) are being held incommunicado by the government. The 500-page UN report notes that:”[92][92]http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/3577470.html
The 200-page Darusman report estimates “a range of up to 40,000 civilian deaths cannot be ruled out at this stage”.[93][93]http://www.un.org/News/dh/infocus/Sri_Lanka/POE_Report_Full.pdf

3.3.4 Frances Harrison (BBC Sri Lanka correspondent - 2000 to 2004, Amnesty International - 2011) - Nov. 19 2012

“Another UN report said a death toll of 40,000 in just five months was credible; this inquiry says it could even be 70,000.”[94][94]http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/the-uns-grave-failure-in-sri-lanka-demands-an-answer/article5382064/
The Darusman report actually stated, “a range of up to 40,000 civilian deaths cannot be ruled out at this stage”.[95][95]http://www.un.org/News/dh/infocus/Sri_Lanka/POE_Report_Full.pdf Interestingly, the Darusman report also referred to the approx. 70,000 unaccounted figure:
“Others have put the estimate at 75,000, a figure obtained by subtracting the number of people who emerged from the conflict zone (approximately 290,000) from the estimate of the number thought to have been in the conflict zone (approximately 330,000 in the NFZ from January, plus approximately the 35,000, who emerged from the LTTE-held areas before that time).”[96][96]http://www.un.org/News/dh/infocus/Sri_Lanka/POE_Report_Full.pdf
The Advisory Panel still set the upper-bound of civilian deaths at 40,000.

3.3.5 Gordon Weiss - former UN spokesperson in Sri Lanka - February 22, 2013

“After all, according to the UN, perhaps 40,000 Tamil civilians had been killed in the final few months, mostly by government forces, and overwhelming evidence of war crimes has since emerged.”[97][97]http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/world-commentary/only-upheaval-can-stem-flow-from-sri-lanka/story-e6frg6ux-1226582974890
Interestingly, in 2011, Gordon Weiss had the following to say about the UN:
“We do have pretty good indications that probably somewhere between ten and forty thousand people were killed. This is not my own figure, plucked from nowhere. It’s credible enough for the UN to have used it as part of its assessment in to the available evidence.” [98][98]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7uzRNl8NByo

4 Visas for Advisory Panel visit to Sri Lanka

Annex 2.11 contains the letter sent on the 7th of January 2011 by Sri Lanka’s Acting Permanent Representative, Shavendra Silva, to Chef de Cabinet, Vijay Nambiar. It clearly states the the Advisory Panel is welcome to make representations at the LLRC:
“Your Excellency, you have in your letter of 23rd December 2010 also stated “it is important that the Parameters of the visit are clearly defined before it commences”. I entirely agree with this sentiment and therefore for reasons of clarify wish to sum up our position as follows:
(a) the Panel is free to make representations to the Commission in terms of the Public Notice of the LLRC of 18th June 2010 which was attached to our Note (Reference:UN/HR/1/10B) of 15th October 2010 to the United Nations in New York. The Government of Sri Lanka is ready to facilitate a process within the mandate of the Commission;
(b) the Government of Sri Lanka does not accept any “mandates” or “terms of reference” which have not only been drawn up unilaterally , but also constitute an infringement of the sovereignty of Sri Lanka, which the Government it constitutionally obliged to protect;
(c) prior to any interaction between the Panel and the LLRC taking place, the modalities and parameters must be clearly defined through discussion and agreement involving on the one hand the Office of the Secretary General in New York and on the other, the Permanent Mission of Sri Lanka to the United Nations.”[99][99]http://www.un.org/News/dh/infocus/Sri_Lanka/POE_Report_Full.pdf
Annex 2.12 contains the reply on the 13th of January, 2011 by Chief of Staff of the Advisory Panel, Richard Bennett:
“The Panel looks forward to familiarising itself in the course of its visit with the work of the LLRC and also engaging with other Government officials, in order that it may best frame its advice to the Secretary-General. In that vein, with respect to the LLRC, the Panel would welcome an exchange of views on issues such as the Commission’s mandate and legal framework, its structure and working methods, the issue of reparations and the approach to victims, and the process of formulation and implementation of recommendations. In respect of other Government officials with relevant responsibilities, the Panel would wish to consult on issues such as systems of criminal and military justice, the relevant legal framework and access to the courts, reparation and rehabilitation processes, and the approach to women and vulnerable groups.”
The Advisory Panel was not formed by nor given a mandate by a United Nations intergovernmental body. It is simply an Advisory Panel to the Secretary-General with no authority to demand nor be granted the list of aforementioned requests. How would the United States of America, United Kingdom or Australia have reacted to such demands with respect to their ’War on Terror’?
The Advisory Panel simply declined the offer to make representations to the LLRC because its unreasonable demands were not met. Hence, it decided not to travel to Sri Lanka.

4.1 Sydney Morning Herald

4.1.1 Ben Doherty - May 2, 2011

“The government has opposed the report from the outset. It refused entry for the three UN investigators and denied them permission to speak to senior government officials.”[100][100]http://www.smh.com.au/world/sri-lankans-show-their-fury-at-un-accusations-of-war-crimes-20110501-1e37f.html

4.2 Bruce Haigh - former Australian diplomat - 18 May 2011

“... however the Sri Lankan government has refused the UN panel which prepared the report further access to Sri Lanka and has condemned the report as biased.”[101][101]http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/2717966.html

4.3 The Economist - Sep 15th 2011

“A fact-finding mission will get nowhere if the government refuses visas to its members; indeed, Mr Ban’s expert panel was denied entry despite repeated requests. But diplomats warn that such intransigence will only harden the position of countries who want to see accountability for war crimes” [102][102]https://www.economist.com/blogs/banyan/2011/09/sri-lankas-government-under-pressure

5 More Factual Errors

5.1 The Sydney Morning Herald

Ben Doherty - May 14, 2011
The article claims:
“... the report, prepared by a panel of experts for the UN Secretary-General says.
It is this 500-page report that has brought the fissures in Sri Lanka’s hazy peace back into sharp relief, opening the old wounds of the conflict, and exposed the deep divisions that still blight the country.”[103][103]http://www.smh.com.au/world/stark-future-for-the-vanquished-20110513-1em7v.html
The Darusman report is approximately 200 pages in length.
“The army used cluster bombs and white phosphorous against the Tigers, the report says.”[104][104]http://www.smh.com.au/world/stark-future-for-the-vanquished-20110513-1em7v.html
Actually, the Darusman report clearly states that the Advisory Panel was “unable to reach a conclusion regarding their credibility” when considering the cluster bomb and white phosphorous allegations:
“G. Other allegations
168. In addition to the credible allegations discussed above, the Panel has been presented with a number of other allegations, about which it was unable to reach a conclusion regarding their credibility. Due to their potentially serious nature, these allegations should also be investigated.
1. Allegations of the use of cluster munitions or white phosphorus
169. There are allegations that the SLA used cluster bomb munitions or white phosphorus or other chemical substances against civilians, particularly around PTK and in the second NFZ. Accounts refer to large explosions, followed by numerous smaller explosions consistent with the sound of a cluster bomb. Some wounds in the various hospitals are alleged to have been caused by cluster munitions or white phosphorus. The Government of Sri Lanka denies the use of these weapons and, instead, accuses the LTTE of using white phosphorus.”[105][105]http://www.un.org/News/dh/infocus/Sri_Lanka/POE_Report_Full.pdf

5.2 Bruce Haigh - former Australian diplomat - 19 October 2011

“The UN report estimates 40,000 Tamil civilians were killed towards the end of the war, some, as already noted, by the navy. In addition, 4,000 Tamil soldiers (LTTE) are being held incommunicado by the government. The 500-page UN report notes that:”[106][106]http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/3577470.html
The Darusman report is approximately 200 pages in length.

6 Conclusion

Media and advocacy groups will continue to make errors. We all have to accept it. Knowing this simple fact, readers need to be more critical when consuming news. The media reaction to the Darusman report is a great example of where a small but pertinent error is introduced in press releases by advocacy groups and then those errors are broadcast far and wide by the media. With the advent of the Internet these factual errors can not be completely corrected and will continue to misinform readers well into the future. It is critical for the media and advocacy groups not to succumb to the 24 hour news cycle and ensure factual correctness, not deadlines, determine the content of the news.

7 Version History

Footnotes

[1]http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=2387
[2]http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=671
[3]http://www.un.org/News/dh/infocus/Sri_Lanka/POE_Report_Full.pdf
[4]http://www.amnesty.org/fr/library/asset/ASA37/005/2011/en/7f414896-e15c-4d24-9d0a-98fe8b418892/asa370052011en.pdf
[5]http://www.un.org/News/dh/infocus/Sri_Lanka/POE_Report_Full.pdf
[6]http://www.amnesty.org/fr/library/asset/ASA37/005/2011/en/7f414896-e15c-4d24-9d0a-98fe8b418892/asa370052011en.pdf
[7]http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/ASA37/005/2011/en/0936a027-5c2f-4d3e-8896-108915beaec0/asa370052011en.pdf
[8]http://livewire.amnesty.org/2011/05/25/sri-lanka-confronting-the-killing-fields/
[9]http://www.crisisgroup.org/~/media/Files/CrisisWatch/2011/cw93.ashx
[10]http://www.crisisgroup.org/en/publication-type/crisiswatch/2011/crisiswatch-93.aspx
[11]http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/05/02/3205234.htm
[12]http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/05/02/3205234.htm
[13]http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/content/2011/s3257956.htm
[14]http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-07-05/footage-sparks-calls-for-sri-lanka-war-crimes-probe/2783582
[15]http://www.radioaustralia.net.au/asiapac/stories/201108/s3283888.htm
[16]http://www.radioaustralia.net.au/asiapac/stories/201108/s3283888.htm
[17]http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jXkY8bFgh15lVy_3fh2VWRiWP0cQ
[18]http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hUDUtxq_4ZRPOxxhsbFX_HgVEBdw
[19]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-13436844
[20]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-13518949
[21]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-13601907
[22]http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/hardtalk/9530778.stm
[23]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zdelF1R4nQI
[24]http://blogs.channel4.com/world-news-blog/sri-lanka-un-leak-reveals-credible-evidence-of-war-crimes/15851
[25]http://www.channel4.com/news/un-screens-channel-4-sri-lanka-war-crimes-film
[26]http://groundviews.org/2011/06/21/exclusive-interview-with-callum-mccrae-director-of-sri-lankas-killing-fields-produced-by-channel-4/
[27]http://groundviews.org/2011/05/11/opposition-to-the-un-panel-report-any-method-to-this-madness/
[28]http://www.rferl.org/content/sri_lanka_war_crimes_un/9505365.html
[29]http://in.reuters.com/article/2011/05/26/idINIndia-57306420110526
[30]http://af.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idAFTRE77H63920110818
[31]http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/09/12/us-srilanka-un-rights-idUSTRE78B4RX20110912
[32]http://in.reuters.com/article/2011/10/17/idINIndia-59926820111017
[33]http://in.reuters.com/article/2011/10/24/idINIndia-60086220111024
[34]http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/sri-lankas-australian-envoy-not-named-for-war-crimes/story-e6frg6so-1226169178520
[35]http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/war-crimes-charges-against-sri-lankan-leader-quashed/story-fnapmixa-1226176664652
[36]http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/australian-police-study-sri-lanka-war-crimes-dossier-2372046.html
[37]http://www.thesundayleader.lk/2011/06/05/katunayka-fires-first-salvo-against-president/
[38]http://www.voanews.com/english/news/asia/south/Report-Sri-Lanka-Documentary-Counters-War-Crimes-Claims-126660588.html
[39]http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/dont-turn-a-blind-eye-to-the-killing-fields-of-sri-lanka-20110709-1h7qn.html
[40]http://www.radioaustralia.net.au/connectasia/stories/201107/s3261594.htm
[41]http://www.radioaustralia.net.au/connectasia/stories/201107/s3261594.htm
[42]http://www.melissaparke.com.au/Speeches/human-rights-in-sri-lanka.html
[43]http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/3553286.html
[44]http://print.dailymirror.lk/news/front-page-news/57792.html
[45]http://www.un.org/News/dh/infocus/Sri_Lanka/POE_Report_Full.pdf
[46]http://www.un.org/News/dh/infocus/Sri_Lanka/POE_Report_Full.pdf
[47]http://www.un.org/News/dh/infocus/Sri_Lanka/POE_Report_Full.pdf
[48]Footnote 82, p.41. http://www.un.org/News/dh/infocus/Sri_Lanka/POE_Report_Full.pdf
[49]http://themicroscope.net/sl-transparency-casualties.html
[50]http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2011/s3200708.htm
[51]http://www.abc.net.au/contact/upheld/s3283547.htm
[52]http://www.bbc.co.uk/sinhala/news/story/2011/07/110706_rajiva_war_crimes.shtml
[53]http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/hardtalk/9530778.stm
[54]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zdelF1R4nQI
[55]http://indiatoday.intoday.in/site/story/sri-lanka-in-denial-over-war-crimes/1/147691.html
[56]http://www.ndtv.com/video/player/documentary-24x7/sri-lanka-white-lies-and-brute-force/210479
[57]http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/world/jan-june11/srilanka1_06-15.html
[58]http://www.smh.com.au/world/stark-future-for-the-vanquished-20110513-1em7v.html
[59]http://www.smh.com.au/world/sri-lankan-civilian-deaths-unavoidable-20110802-1i9t9.html
[60]http://www.smh.com.au/national/sri-lanka-faces-pressure-on-war-crimes-claim-20111017-1ltfa.html
[61]http://ten.com.au/630pm-with-george-negus.htm?movideo_m=136341
[62]http://www.theage.com.au/national/rudd-quizzed-over-envoy-20111017-1ltoc.html
[63]http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/un-report-finds-up-to-40000-people-were-killed-by-government-forces-in-final-days-of-sri-lankas-civil-war/story-e6frg6so-1226044820509
[64]http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2011/jun/04/tamil-protest-lords-sri-lanka
[65]http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/bangalore/UN-report-100000-Tamilians-killed-in-war/articleshow/9081157.cms
[66]http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmhansrd/cm110915/debtext/110915-0003.htm#11091558001511
[67]http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmhansrd/cm110915/debtext/110915-0003.htm#11091558001511
[68]http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/3577470.html
[69]http://www.un.org/News/dh/infocus/Sri_Lanka/POE_Report_Full.pdf
[70]http://www.smh.com.au/world/sri-lankans-show-their-fury-at-un-accusations-of-war-crimes-20110501-1e37f.html
[71]http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/2717966.html
[72]https://www.economist.com/blogs/banyan/2011/09/sri-lankas-government-under-pressure
[73]http://www.smh.com.au/world/stark-future-for-the-vanquished-20110513-1em7v.html
[74]http://www.smh.com.au/world/stark-future-for-the-vanquished-20110513-1em7v.html
[75]http://www.un.org/News/dh/infocus/Sri_Lanka/POE_Report_Full.pdf
[76]http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/3577470.html