Untitled - International Commission of Jurists

and, if so, the reasons for such killings. Further, it was called upon to
recommend whether criminal proceedings, if any, against any members of the
Armed Forces, should be under military law or the normal civil law.
Dispassionately viewed, the Kokkadicholai massacre is a textbook illustration of the
horror and tragedy of Sri Lanka’s conflict. On 12 June 1991, the explosion of a device
buried under the surface of the road on the Kokkadicholai-Manmunai Ferry Road in
the Batticoloa District resulted in the deaths of two soldiers and the serious injury of a
third soldier. Shortly thereafter, it was alleged that rampaging army soldiers killed
sixty-seven civilian inhabitants of the villages of Makiladitivu, Muthalaikuda and
Munaikaidu located near the Kokkadicholai army camp in the Batticaloa district.
Property was looted and some was destroyed.
The Commission was established by then President R. Premadasa, responding to
public pressure to identify the perpetrators of the massacre. The Commission, in its
Final Report, found the killings of the civilians directly attributable to the soldiers
stationed in the Kokkadicholai army camp. The actions were stated to disclose penal
offences; namely murder, arson, robbery, unlawful assembly and similar offences.
However, in an assessment of the context and circumstances surrounding the
massacre, it was concluded that the civilian killings were the result of unrestrained
behaviour of soldiers after the explosion and death of two of their colleagues and the
injury of yet another.
In its observations, the Commissioners stressed as follows:
[…] that the witnesses from the villages involved were questioned as to
whether before this incident, there was any harassment by or bad conduct of
the soldiers. The villagers were unanimous in stating that since the Camp was
established at Kokkadicholai about 6 months prior to June 1991, there had
been no harassment from the soldiers and that it appears there had been cordial
relations with the soldiers. 249
Accordingly, the killings were not found to be the result of military action but rather,
offences committed by soldiers who ran amok. The Commission opined that the
offences were punishable in terms of the Penal Code but that, due to the finding that
there was no evidence against any particular soldier or soldiers as such, it was
determined that “the offenders cannot be brought before a criminal court of law.” 250
It was recommended therefore that the army undertake its own investigations and
sanctions be imposed under military law 251 against those responsible. 252 The
Commission also ordered that military authorities be required to give clear
instructions to soldiers not to indulge in or execute extra-military or non-military acts.
249 Final report of the Kokkadicholai Commission of Inquiry, Sessional Paper No. 11, 1992, at p. 6.
250 ibid.
251 In case of a summary trial before a military court, the punishment is of a disciplinary nature, such as
reduction in rank, withholding of promotions or delay in promotions-See Section 42 of the Army Act.
In case of a court martial, the punishment can extend to death, imprisonment of both kinds or discharge
from service-See Section 96 to Section 147 of the Army Act in regard to the various categories of
offences and punishments.
252 As would be pointed out later, the inability to prove individual responsibility led to the acquittal of
the implicated soldiers by a Military Court.
74