Recent developments in Sri Lanka have reignited global attention toward allegations of mass graves connected to the country’s nearly three-decade civil war. Among the most high-profile cases is the Chemmani mass grave in the Jaffna district, which resurfaced in public discourse following renewed excavation efforts in 2025. Allegations of similar graves in other parts of the island—Mannar, Matale, and Mandaitivu—have further fueled concern over the fate of thousands of missing persons.
In response, the Sri Lankan government and its institutions have made efforts to counter these allegations, emphasizing legal due process, the absence of forensic confirmation in many cases, and concerns over national sovereignty. However, such counter-narratives are not without criticism, especially from international observers, victim families, and human rights groups who view past failures and lack of accountability as part of a broader culture of impunity.
This article examines the key arguments made by the Sri Lankan state in countering these allegations, while critically assessing their validity and implications within both domestic and international legal frameworks.
Emphasis on Legal Procedure and Judicial Oversight
The Sri Lankan government has consistently argued that any investigation into alleged mass graves must follow legal protocols, overseen by judicial authorities. In the case of Chemmani, for instance, the Ministry of Justice confirmed that the excavation is being carried out with the permission and supervision of the Jaffna Magistrate’s Court. The site is protected by security forces, and the exhumation is reportedly conducted under the guidance of forensic experts.
Justice Minister Harshana Nanayakkara, addressing recent public concerns, dismissed reports of other alleged mass graves—such as in Mandaitivu—as unverified and based solely on “hearsay.” According to him, unless credible evidence is submitted through formal complaints or judicial proceedings, there is no basis for launching new investigations. This framing underscores the state’s position that legal due process—not public speculation or international pressure—must guide any inquiry.
Absence of Forensic Confirmation
Another central argument made by the authorities is the lack of forensic or DNA evidence to establish the identities and causes of death of skeletal remains discovered in previously excavated sites. For example, in the Mannar mass grave excavated in 2018, more than 300 skeletons were found. However, carbon dating later revealed that many of the remains dated back to pre-modern times—casting doubt on allegations that they were victims of the civil conflict.
Similarly, in Matale, where over 150 skeletons were unearthed in 2013, official investigations linked the site to an older cemetery rather than wartime killings. Government officials argue that without scientifically verifiable proof linking remains to the war period, allegations of deliberate mass executions remain speculative and potentially misleading.
National Sovereignty and the Role of Domestic Institutions
Sri Lankan leaders frequently assert that investigations into such sensitive issues must remain within the purview of domestic institutions. The establishment of the Office on Missing Persons (OMP) in 2017 was seen as a step toward addressing wartime disappearances through a home-grown mechanism.
Despite criticisms of the OMP’s limited effectiveness, the government maintains that such bodies provide a legal framework for accountability, without compromising Sri Lanka’s sovereignty. Officials also contend that foreign interference or externally imposed accountability mechanisms could disrupt national reconciliation and risk politicizing the transitional justice process.
In line with this perspective, the government has criticized recent international sanctions targeting former military officials—such as those imposed by Canada and the United Kingdom—as unjustified and lacking due process. These actions, according to the state, undermine national efforts at healing and instead perpetuate division and mistrust.
Critiques from Civil Society and Human Rights Groups
While the government underscores procedural compliance, independent observers and civil society actors raise important concerns. Human rights organizations argue that many past exhumations were mishandled, often lacking transparency, proper forensic oversight, and meaningful participation of victim families.
The case of the Chemmani mass grave itself reflects this tension. Initially identified based on testimony from a Sri Lankan soldier in 1998, the site was partially excavated in 1999, uncovering 15 skeletons. However, progress stalled for years due to political interference and institutional inertia. Only in 2025 did fresh excavations resume—unearthing dozens more remains, including those of children and infants—raising renewed calls for international oversight.
Groups such as the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) and Human Rights Watch contend that without external involvement, the credibility of investigations remains in question. They note that many previous investigations failed to produce meaningful prosecutions, despite evidence of large-scale killings or enforced disappearances. Furthermore, the lack of DNA testing and ante-mortem data collection from families has often rendered exhumation exercises incomplete or inconclusive.
The Call for International Oversight
Tamil political parties and legal advocates have echoed these concerns by demanding the inclusion of international forensic experts, transparent reporting, and victim-centered approaches. They argue that such measures are not an affront to sovereignty but essential safeguards in ensuring impartial justice.
The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Volker TĂĽrk, has also called on Sri Lanka to allow credible international involvement in mass grave investigations. This is particularly crucial, he notes, in fulfilling obligations under international conventions like the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance (ICPPED).
Conclusion
Allegations of mass graves in Sri Lanka strike at the heart of the country’s struggle with truth, accountability, and reconciliation. The government’s efforts to counter these allegations rest on legal formalism, procedural arguments, and appeals to national sovereignty. However, decades of mistrust, weak institutional performance, and unaddressed trauma among affected communities call for a more inclusive and transparent process.
While domestic investigations are necessary, they must be complemented by credible oversight, forensic rigor, and meaningful participation of victims and civil society. Only then can Sri Lanka hope to move beyond denial and defensiveness toward a future built on justice, empathy, and reconciliation.
