A/HRC/22/38 the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, on 30 January 2013, wrote to the Government to offer services and support pursuant to Council resolution 19/2. 9. Human rights treaty bodies have also made concluding observations pertinent to the report of the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission and matters of accountability in Sri Lanka: the Committee against Torture (in December 2011),5 the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (in February 2011),6 and the Committee on the Rights of the Child (in October 2010).7 IV. National plan of action for the implementation of recommendations of the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission 10. Although there are concerns regarding the mandate, composition and methodology of the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission,8 including its interpretation of applicable principles of international humanitarian law, it made many important observations and far-reaching recommendations that, if implemented, could help advance reconciliation and respect for human rights in Sri Lanka. The Commission concluded that “the root cause of the ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka lies in the failure of successive Governments to address the genuine grievances of the Tamil people” and that the “process of reconciliation requires a full acknowledgement of the tragedy of the conflict and a collective act of contrition by the political leaders and civil society of both Sinhala and Tamil communities.” The Commission also paid considerable attention to allegations concerning missing persons and enforced disappearances, and called for further investigations. Significantly, it expressed repeated concern at the lack of Government implementation of its own interim recommendations as well as of previous commissions of inquiry (paras. 8.305, 9.64, 9.74, 9.120, 9.211, 9.240 and 9.250). 11. The national plan of action issued by the Government in July 2012 deals with only selected recommendations of the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission, with no explanation of the process or rationale in making that selection. It is not clear whether the Government has completely rejected the Commission’s recommendations that have not been incorporated into the plan or if they will be considered at a later stage. At its universal periodic review in November 2012, the Government pointed out that there was some duplication of recommendations as well as those falling under the ambit of the National Action Plan for the Protection and Promotion of Human Rights 2011-2016. A number of significant recommendations made by the Commission and not in the Action Plan have, however, been excluded from the national plan of action. 12. In several instances, the implementing activity described by the Government for a particular recommendation does not correspond directly to the recommendation made or does not envisage a substantive change in current practices.9 Institutional responsibilities as well as the performance indicators provided in the national plan of action are not always 5 6 7 8 9 CAT/C/LKA/CO/3-4, para. 21. CEDAW/C/LKA/CO/7, paras. 40-41. CRC/C/LKA/CO/3-4, paras. 32-33. See press statement of the High Commissioner, 26 April 2011 (see www.ohchr.org/en/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=10962&LangID=E); CAT/C/LKA/CO/3-4, para. 21; report of the Panel of Experts, paras. 344-345. See for example activities in the national plan of action in relation to the Commission recommendations in paras. 9.51, 9.57, 9.73, 9.106, 9.270 and 9.285. 5