A/HRC/30/61 77. Second is the inadequacy of the State’s domestic legal framework to deal with international crimes of this magnitude. Sri Lanka has not acceded to several key instruments, notably the Additional Protocols to the Geneva Conventions, in particular Additional Protocol II, the International Convention on the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. It does not have laws criminalizing enforced disappearances, war crimes, crimes against humanity or genocide. Its legal framework does not allow individuals to be charged with different forms of liability, in particular command or superior responsibility. 78. In the past, when Sri Lanka has prosecuted conflict-related cases, it has relied on offences in regular criminal law, such as murder. This approach fails to recognize the gravity of the crimes committed, their international character, or to duly acknowledge the harm caused to the victims. It also constrains and undermines prosecution strategies, as it does not follow the chain of responsibility and prosecute those who planned, organized or gave the orders for what may be system crimes. 79. Effective prosecution strategies for large-scale crimes, such as those described by the investigation team,12 focus on their systemic nature and their planners and organizers. The presumption behind such “system crimes” is that they are generally of such a scale that they require some degree of organization to perpetrate them. Even sophisticated legal systems like those in Sri Lanka – which may be well suited to deal with ordinary crimes – may lack the capacity to address system crimes and to bring effective remedy to their victims. This challenge is even greater in an environment where the criminal justice system remains vulnerable to interference and influence by powerful political, security and military actors. 80. Judicial accountability should also be accompanied by broader transitional justice measures, including truth-seeking and reparations, to ensure that the right of victims to redress is realized. In this regard, it will be important that any accountability process in Sri Lanka examine the entire period of conflict and insurgencies dating back to at least the 1970s, not just the last years of the armed conflict.. This will also pre-empt the temptation for accountability measures to be driven by political considerations. 81. The design of any truth-seeking and accountability mechanisms must be pursued through a process of genuine, informed and participatory consultation, especially with victims and their families. New mechanisms should not be established under the Commissions of Inquiry Act, which has systematically failed to deliver results; new, purpose-specific legislation will therefore be required. 82. The third challenge is the degree to which the State’s security sector and justice system have been distorted and corrupted by decades of emergency, conflict and impunity. For years, political interference by the executive with the judiciary has become routine, as demonstrated in many of the cases investigated in the present report. The independence and integrity of key institutions such as the Attorney General’s Office and the Human Rights Commission remain compromised. 83. The security forces, police and intelligence services have enjoyed near total impunity and have not undergone any significant downsizing or reform since the armed conflict. The Prevention of Terrorism Act and the Public Security Ordinance Act both remain in force. The military retains an oppressive presence in the war-affected areas of the north and east, still occupying extensive private land, expanding into commercial economic activities and maintaining a culture of surveillance and harassment of the local population and civil society. 12 Ibid. 15