A/HRC/34/20 torture and sexual violence, by the Sri Lankan security forces persisted. These allegations must be properly investigated. OHCHR raised this matter with the authorities. 58. Concerns also remain with regard to the use of hate speech and aggressive hate campaigns. Incidents targeting the Muslim community, evangelical Christians and LGBT groups continued to be recorded. From January to December 2016, one non-governmental organization working on freedom of religion documented 88 incidents targeting Christian groups, including threats and disruption of religious services. Hate speech against and the stigmatization of the Muslim community also continued with impunity, and the attacks against Muslims in Aluthgama in June 2014 have yet to be prosecuted. Organizations working on LGBT rights have also reported threats and attacks on social media against groups and individuals on the basis of sexual orientation. Extreme Buddhist nationalists are suspected of being behind all these attacks. A bill aimed at amending the Penal Code to incorporate hate speech crimes was withdrawn in December 2015 as a consequence of concerns held by civil society organizations regarding the curtailment of freedom of speech, given that the bill reproduced verbatim sections of the Prevention of Terrorism Act used in the past to curtail dissent. VI. Conclusions and recommendations 59. The High Commissioner appreciates the constructive engagement of the Government of Sri Lanka with OHCHR and United Nations human rights mechanisms since January 2015. This collaboration marks a visible change of policy direction in addressing past human rights violations. The Government has advanced on constitutional reforms and showcased some positive developments on the broader human rights agenda. The fulfilment of transitional justice commitments has, however, been worryingly slow, and the structures set up and measures taken during the period under review were inadequate to ensure real progress. 60. In his oral update to the Human Rights Council in June 2016, the High Commissioner observed that “the full promise of governance reform, transitional justice and economic revival has yet to be delivered, and risks stalling or dissipating.” A similar analysis holds true nine months hence. Party politics, including the balancing of power between the different constituencies of the coalition in the run-up to constitutional reforms, have contributed to a reluctance to address difficult issues regarding accountability or to clearly articulate a unified position by all parts of government. Unclear and often contradictory messages have been delivered on transitional justice mechanisms by the President, the Prime Minister and various members of the Cabinet. Similar contradictions are visible in policy development. This tension was apparent both in the draft counter-terrorism legislation and on the proposed amendment to the Criminal Procedure Code. Public messaging around transitional justice and reconciliation has been generally confusing and at times contradictory. 61. The commitments of the Government, welcomed by the Human Rights Council in its resolution 30/1, were also applauded by all those interested in justice and reconciliation in Sri Lanka. Eighteen months after the adoption of resolution 30/1, Sri Lanka has made some measure of elementary progress in reconciliation, in addressing the root causes of the conflict and in truth-seeking. Stronger, tangible results need to be forthcoming without further delay to prevent any further dissipation of hardearned trust. The consultations on the reconciliation mechanisms and the representations on constitutional reform were inclusive, participatory processes, largely deserving of praise. The Government should consolidate these gains by embracing the conclusions of these processes and formulating a reform and a 14