A/HRC/45/45/Add.1 Industries Authority, established by Act No. 29 of 1987, from which many lessons can be learned. Through the Payment of Compensation to Most Affected Persons, a government scheme established in 1988, compensation was paid for death or injury resulting from ethnic violence, terrorist activities and security operations carried out after July 1983. 28 The scheme granted surviving spouses and children SL Rs 50,000 ($800), or SL Rs 600,000 ($9,600) if the victim was a minister, governor, member of Parliament or chief minister. 29 There were also other inequalities in the criteria used for accessing compensation. The families of alleged terrorists did not receive compensation and, since it was the police force that determined who were the terrorists, if the State security forces were responsible for the killing, it was assumed that the person had terrorist links. As the Southern Commission has noted, most of those who suffered from terrorism in 1988 and 1989 received no compensation;30 (c) There are lessons to be learned from earlier experiences about the relationship between reparations claims and criminal proceedings. For instance, the provision of reparations was used to shield perpetrators from prosecution: to apply for compensation from the Rehabilitation of Persons, Properties and Industries Authority, relatives of persons disappeared or killed needed to provide copies of complaints filed to the police. If victims made reference to a perpetrator by name, the compensation process would come to a halt and the case would have to move to a court. By signing the Authority’s form, victims would recognize lack of knowledge of the perpetrators. Years later, when cases were filed and victims testified about the identity of the perpetrators, the defence counsel used their earlier statement on the compensation form to impugn their credibility; (d) Previous experiences with reparations were arguably affected by political considerations, including patronage. 56. The Special Rapporteur reiterates that the socially integrative potential of reparations could be undermined, as of all transitional justice measures could, if these measures are used as instruments of “turn-taking”. The only relevant consideration in determining access to reparations should be the violation of a right; all other considerations, including ethnicity and religious or political affiliation, should be irrelevant. 31 57. In granting reparations, attention needs to be paid to the restitution of property. The Government has made substantial progress on the restitution of land confiscated by the military. However, the information it has communicated about the exact amount released has been confusing. For example, in March 2019 the Government objected to figures contained in a report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, figures that had been provided by the Government itself. The Special Rapporteur wishes to avoid discussing specific figures but reiterates that the Government has yet to present a clear mapping of the private and public land occupied by the military and to address the problem of that land’s restitution. There is no mechanism in place to adjudicate land claims. Until now, the armed forces alone seem to have been the ones to determine which areas of land are to be returned and when. Local courts seem unable to function independently and impartially on this crucial issue, and their decisions often appear driven by considerations related to ethnic, political or religious objectives, which has further exacerbated mistrust and tensions among the affected communities. 58. The continued occupation of land and the Government’s inability to settle this issue comprehensively has prompted victims’ groups to stage protests, mostly in the North of the country. The Special Rapporteur had the opportunity to meet such protesters during his visit. He was informed that the occupation of land continued to have a significant impact on the thousands of persons who had been internally displaced at various stages of the conflict, 28 29 30 31 Interim Reports of the Commission of Inquiry into the Involuntary Removal or Disappearance of Persons in the Western, Southern and Sabaragamuwa Provinces (Department of Government Printing, Sri Lanka, 1997), p. 37. Ibid., p. 38. Ibid. The government elected in 1994 instructed officials to process all applications for compensation. The recent Supreme Court decision on the constitutionality of the Office for Reparations Act requested the replacement of references to “human rights violations” in the Act, with ‘aggrieved person’, which is not a promising signal of a shared understanding of reparations. 11