A/HRC/40/23 Disappearances Act, which criminalizes enforced disappearances and allows for the implementation and enforcement of the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance at the national level. 25. A bill was gazetted in June 2018 providing for the establishment of an office for reparations, to identify “aggrieved persons” eligible for reparations and to provide them with individual and collective reparations. The initial definition of “aggrieved persons” included individuals having “suffered a violation of human rights or international law”. In July 2018, however, the Supreme Court determined that clauses in the bill requiring the Office for Reparations to assess whether a person had suffered a violation of human rights or humanitarian law were contrary to the Constitution, as they vested judicial powers in the Office, which would be part of the executive and not of the judiciary. On the basis of suggestions for amendments by the Supreme Court, the parliament revised the law, essentially removing the link between “aggrieved persons” and human rights violations. Whether the new formulation recognizes a human rights violation as a clear criterion for entitlement to reparations is therefore unclear. The revised bill was adopted by the parliament on 10 October and certified by the Speaker on 22 October. The Constitutional Council called for nominations to select commissioners for the Office on 3 January 2019. In the view of the High Commissioner, recognizing the status of a victim of a violation as such, and not simply as a beneficiary of a welfare programme, is an essential part of a reparations programme. Strong links with the eventual truth-seeking mechanism could help to address this issue, given that a truth commission could identify specific categories of victims for reparations. 26. With regard to the proposed truth and reconciliation commission, OHCHR understands that, while a draft concept has been ready since 2016, it was presented to the Cabinet only on 23 October 2018 before being submitted to the legal draftsman for translation into a bill. The High Commissioner understands that the draft does not contain provisions for amnesties, which, according to international law and United Nations policy, are not permissible if they prevent prosecution of individuals who may be criminally responsible for serious crimes under international law, interfere with a victim’s right to an effective remedy, including reparations, or restrict victims’ or society’s right to know the truth about violations of human rights and humanitarian law. 27. Less progress has been observed in the area of criminal accountability. The Government has not announced any plan to create a special judicial mechanism, despite the commitment it implicitly undertook when it co-sponsored Human Rights Council resolution 30/1 and the recommendations contained therein. It has indeed denied the need for such a mechanism, particularly with respect to the involvement of foreign judges, despite abundant evidence that the ordinary criminal justice system is unable to deal with the nature of allegations and the complexity of crimes. Both the President and the Prime Minister have made statements denying the need of foreign assistance in this matter.7 In 2015, the High Commissioner stated that, for accountability to be achieved in Sri Lanka, more than a domestic mechanism would be required (A/HRC/30/61, para. 88). The lack of substantial progress in establishing criminal accountability for serious crimes in the past three years underscores the relevance of that assessment. 28. Moreover, claims that a domestic specialized process could suffice have not been accompanied by any serious attempt to establish one. No effort has been made to build the capacity required to conduct investigations, including forensic ones, or prosecutorial strategies, despite the repeated recommendations of the Special Rapporteur on truth, justice, reparations and guarantees of non-recurrence.8 29. The gravity of the cases that a specialized accountability mechanism must address cannot be underestimated. On that point, the High Commissioner reiterates the principal 7 8 6 See Munza Mushtaq, “’As long as I am the President, no international participation in judicial process’, Sirisena declares”, Colombo Telegraph, 9 July 2016; “President rejects UN call for foreign judges in war probe”, Daily FT, 6 March 2017; and “Sri Lanka says ‘no’ to foreign judges in war crimes probe”, The Hindu, 5 March 2017. See OHCHR, “Sri Lanka must step up progress on transitional justice, UN expert finds”, press release, 23 October 2017.