[For a properly formatted version, use the MS Word link above]
COMMUNICATION SUBMITTED FOR CONSIDERATION UNDER
THE FIRST OPTIONAL PROTOCOL TO THE
INTERNATIONAL COVENANT ON CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS
THE UNITED NATIONS COMMITTEE ON HUMAN RIGHTS
C/O OHCHR – UNOG
1211 GENEVA 10, SWITZERLAND.
I. INFORMATION CONCERNING THE AUTHOR OF THE COMMUNICATION
Name: International Public Interest Defenders
Present address: C/o L. de Silva,
32, Chemin de l’Esplanade,
Address for exchange of confidential correspondence:
Please use the above address.
International Public Interest Defenders (hereafter referred to as the “Author”) is submitting the communication as appointed representative of the victims. The author of the communication is an association established under the Civil Code of Switzerland and has its principal office in Geneva.
II. INFORMATION CONCERNING THE VICTIMS
This Communication is submitted on behalf of the persons listed in the schedule to this communication (hereafter referred to as the “Applicants”) who will be affected by the Southern Expressway project being built by the Road Development Authority of Sri Lanka as described below.
The Applicants are land owners and long term residents of the ancient villages of Ihalagoda, Walahanduwa, Niyagama, Ambagahawila, Pinnaduwa, Godawatte, Narawala and Ankokkawala in the area of Akmeemana in the Southern province of Sri Lanka. They also represent the other affected persons of the above villages. For many generations they and those they represent have lived in this area without disturbance.
A letter of authority from the Applicants permitting the Author to forward this communication to the United Nation’s Committee on Human Rights on their behalf is annexed to this communication marked A. All persons listed in the schedule to this communication are citizens of Sri Lanka residing in Sri Lanka.
The Author is submitting this communication on behalf of the Applicants.
III. STATE CONCERNED/ARTICLES VIOLATED/DOMESTIC REMEDIES
The State party (country) to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the First Optional Protocol against which this communication is directed is the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka (hereafter referred to as “the concerned State Party”).
ARTICLES OF ICCPR VIOLATED
The Applicants submit that their legal rights guaranteed under Articles 6, 19(2) and 26 of the ICCPR have been violated by the concerned State Party.
These violations are described in detail in the sections on background facts, background law and the violation of the ICCPR that follow. The Applicants submit that they have been victims of violations of the aforesaid articles of the ICCPR.
The agencies and officers of the concerned State Party involved in the violations referred to in this communication are:
· The Road Development Authority (RDA) established under section 2 of the Road Development Authority Act No.73 of 1981 as amended by Act No.5 of 1988. The RDA is empowered under the said Act inter alia to undertake the execution of road development projects and schemes as may be approved by the Government.
· The Central Environmental Authority (CEA) established under the National Environmental Act (NEA) No.47 of 1980 as amended by Acts No.56 of 1988 and 53 of 2000. Its primary function is to help establish environmental standards and to enforce the provisions of the NEA including the provisions pertaining to Environmental Impact Assessments (EIA) described in more detail below.
· The Minister in charge of the administration of the subjects and functions relating to land is empowered inter alia to decide on the acquisition of land required for public purposes and to direct acquiring officers to issue notices under the Land Acquisition Act (LAA) No.9 of 1950 as amended by Act No.13 of 1986.
· The Divisional Secretary of Akmeemana is the acquiring officer for the purposes of the LAA. Under the Transfer of Powers (Divisional Secretaries) Act No.58 of 1992 the Divisional Secretaries perform duties and functions assigned to them by the Central Government inter alia.
The international lending agencies listed below have knowingly and actively co-operated with or acted in consort with the concerned State Party in violating the legal rights of the Applicants guaranteed by the ICCPR as stated above.
· Asian Development Bank (ADB), a Multi-national Development Bank based in Manila, Philippines with an office in Colombo Sri Lanka
· Japan Bank for International Cooperation (JBIC) a part of the Government of Japan based in Tokyo Japan with an Office in Colombo Sri Lanka
DOMESTIC REMEDIES EXHAUSTED
SUPREME COURT JUDGEMENT
The Applicants have exhausted all available judicial and quasi-judicial domestic remedies. After litigating cases before the Court of Appeal of Sri Lanka, the Applicants appealed to the Supreme Court of Sri Lanka (the highest Court in Sri Lanka) regarding the alterations to the Expressway route (hereafter referred to as “the deviations”) which will lead to the loss of their homes. A copy of the Supreme Court judgement is annexed to this communication marked B. The Supreme Court judgement held:-
“…that the deviations proposed by the RDA were alterations requiring CEA approval after compliance with the prescribed procedures and the principles of natural justice; that despite the lack of such approval, the refusal of relief by way of writ, in the exercise of the Court`s discretion was justified; but that the Appellants ought to have been compensated for the infringement of their rights under Article 12(1) and the principles of natural justice. To that extent, the appeals are allowed, and the order of the Court of Appeal is varied.”
Article 12(1) of the Constitution of Sri Lanka guarantees equality before the law and equal protection of the law to the Applicants. The fundamental right guaranteed by Article 12(1) is in substance identical to the right guaranteed to the Applicants by Article 26 of the ICCPR. In arriving at its decision, the Supreme Court also observed that:-
· The deviations from the approved Expressway route proposed by the RDA were substantial and amounted to “alterations” in terms of the NEA and its regulations.
· The purposes of an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) would be defeated if the project proponent itself (RDA) - the potential infringer - was allowed to decide whether such alternations were environmentally objectionable or not, without reference to the CEA. The 1999 approval by the CEA did not constitute and cannot be considered as constituting, an absolute, uncontrolled and irrevocable delegation to the RDA to determine the Final Trace.
· The Applicants were entitled to notice and to be heard before the RDA made the alterations to the approved route of the expressway. The Applicants’ fundamental right to equal treatment and to the equal protection of the law entitled them to notice and hearing.
· The changes done to the proposed expressway should have been approved afresh in terms of the NEA and the law. The EIA procedure did not involve the Applicants who are adversely affected by the final trace (hereafter called the “FT”). Having regard to the purposes of that procedure the CEA was obliged to consider the FT in substantially the same way as the two traces in the EIA. That was a power and duty which the CEA held subject to a public trust, to be exercised for the benefit of the public, including affected individuals such as the Applicants.
· Even if the deviations/changes were not “alterations” the Applicants were adversely affected by them and were therefore entitled to a hearing under the audi alteram partem rule as well as Article 12(1) of the Constitution of the concerned State Party.
· Although the Court of Appeal seemed to agree that the rights of the Applicants were infringed, their sacrifice had not been duly recognized. The Court should minimize as much as possible the effect on their rights. On a balance the FT should be left undisturbed as one of the major considerations was cost, as well as delay, which also involved cost.
· If a judicial discretion was exercised in favour of the State, inter alia to save costs, it was only equitable that the Applicants should have been compensated for the injury to their rights. Had the Court of appeal referred the matter to the Supreme Court under Article 126(3) of the Constitution of Sri Lanka, the Applicants would have been held entitled to compensation in lieu of further EIA procedures. That jurisdiction was an equitable one and since equity regards as done which ought to have been done the matter must now be dealt with as if it had been duly referred to the Supreme Court. The Court of Appeal did not take note of the impact of the fundamental rights on its writ jurisdiction.
The Supreme Court recognized that the Applicants’ fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 12(1) [fundamental right to equality before the law] of the Constitution and the principles of natural justice were infringed. However it only granted compensation and costs instead of enjoining the illegal deviations and stopping their implementation.
The Applicants have not collected the compensation deposited by the concerned State Party as they do not consider compensation as an appropriate relief for the imminent and impending loss of their human rights. The Applicants submit that the only appropriate remedy for an imminent violation of guaranteed fundamental rights under the Sri Lanka Constitution and the ICCPR is an order restraining such conduct.
WRIT APPLICATION TO THE COURT OF APPEAL
On 29 July 2002 and 19 August 2002 the Applicants filed two separate writ applications in the Court of Appeal seeking, amongst other relief, a writ of certiorari to quash the RDA’s decision to alter the route of the proposed expressway and traverse over the Applicants’ lands. The Divisional Secretary of Akmeemana, RDA, CEA and the Minister of Lands were named as the Respondents. The Applicants’ petition and judgement of the Court of Appeal are annexed to this communication marked C and D respectively.
COURT APPOINTED COMMITTEE OF RETIRED SUPREME COURT JUSTICES
On 8 October 2002 the Court of Appeal made a ‘consent order’ appointing a committee comprising of three retired Justices of the Supreme Court, namely, Parinda Ranasinghe (former Chief Justice), Priyantha Perera and M. Jameel to confer with the parties, inquire into several issues connected to the case and to submit its report to court on or before 25 October 2002.
The parties had to bear the costs of this exercise. The Applicants’ share of the costs was fifty thousand Rupees (Rs.50, 000.00), which they paid out of necessity and with immense difficulty.
The Report of this Court appointed Committee concludes, that the deviations complained of both in the north and south of the Expressway route, can only be considered feasible and desirable if the procedure set out in the NEA and Regulation 17 relating to ‘alterations’ are complied with, and the Applicants and other residents of villages including Gelanigama and Niyagama affected by the deviations are afforded an opportunity of making representations in respect of the FT and also the approach roads. The said report is annexed to this communication marked E.
The Court of Appeal delivered its Judgment on 30 May 2003. By the said Judgment the Court of Appeal, dismissed the Applications of the Applicants, inter alia, holding that:
· The Applicants in Court of Appeal Applications 1447/02 and 1330/02 are located in the Akmeemana area within 30 km stretch of the FT. These Applicants are affected by the FT.
· The FT was not an alteration that would come under Regulation No. 17(1)(a) and Section 23EE of the National Environmental Act.
· The court should be cautious when exercising the discretionary remedy of writ jurisdiction where a project of public importance had already commenced and resources have been committed towards its implementation and the possibility of quashing a decision leading to unbudgeted expenditure.
· Therefore according to the circumstances of the present case, the obligation to the society as a whole must predominate over the obligation to a group of individuals, who are so unfortunately affected by the construction of the expressway.
SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL APPLICATION TO THE SUPREME COURT
Being aggrieved by the said Judgment of the Court of Appeal dated 30 May 2003, the Applicants filed a Special Leave to Appeal application in the Supreme Court. The Court, after hearing the parties granted Special Leave to Appeal against the decision of the Court of Appeal.
The petition to the Supreme Court is annexed to this communication marked F.
IV. OTHER INTERNATIONAL PROCEDURES
This matter has not been submitted for examination to any other procedure of international investigation or settlement by the Applicants.
However, the deviations which are the subject of this communication have been referred by other affected victims to the Asian Development Bank’s inspections procedures with a view to investigating possible violations of its own policies on resettlement and environment. The Applicants submit that these procedures are not “other international procedures” within the meaning of the ICCPR and its first optional protocol. These procedures are neither judicial nor quasi judicial and their goal in to ensure that projects funded by the ADB conforms to its own policies. Their goal is not to ensure that human rights guaranteed under the ICCPR or the Constitution of Sri Lanka or other international treaties and instruments are safeguarded. In any event, the Applicants to this communication are not parties to those proceedings.
V. BACKGROUND FACTS
Annexed to this communication marked G is a statement of facts containing greater details about the background facts.
THE PROPOSED EXPRESSWAY
The RDA proposed the construction of an expressway from the outskirts of Colombo to near Matara. Colombo is the capital of Sri Lanka and Matara is a town located about 150 kilometres away on the south coast of Sri Lanka. The proposed expressway project was required by law to be approved under the NEA as explained in the section on background law below. The NEA requires the proposed expressway to undergo the project approval process that includes Scoping of the Project, the publication of an EIA report in respect of the project and a period for public comment. The University of Moratuwa, Sri Lanka, prepared the EIA report on the proposed expressway project. Two traces, i.e the Combined Trace (CT) and Original Trace (OT) were considered in the EIA report for the Expressway. Of the two traces the EIA report recommended the CT as the best financial social, agricultural and environmental alternative.
The CEA by its letter dated 23.07.1999 informed the RDA (the Project Proponent), of its decision to approve the expressway, subject to a number of conditions. A copy of the CEA’s letter of approval is annexed to this communication marked H.
In effect, the CEA approved the CT with a series of conditions of which one relates specifically to the location of the Expressway in the South., Condition X. The proposed expressway should be sited in such a manner to avoid traversing the Koggala and Madu Ganga wetlands.
This condition could have been satisfied with a shifting of the CT by some 200 meters, for a length of about 1 kilometre or built it on concrete pillars as the EIA report recommended which also says he cost was included (Sinhala language version of the EIA report). The Expressway would then not have traversed the Koggala wetlands.
ALTERATION OF THE APPROVED PROJECT
The RDA rather than complying with the conditions laid down by the CEA, created an altogether new trace, called the Final Trace (FT) of some 30 km in length affecting almost ten times the number of people the CT does in the same area. The excuse used was that they were complying with the conditions laid down by the CEA. The new FT runs through a large number of properties including the Applicants’ houses and land, which will be compulsorily acquired, and the Applicants subjected to involuntary resettlement. The Applicants neither had notice of the said alteration nor an opportunity to comment upon the alteration of the proposed route. A map depicting the OT, CT and FT is annexed to this communication marked I.
The FT, as an alternative roadway, was never studied in any EIA report. An alteration of this nature requires fresh approval under the NEA, as explained in the section on background law, and under Condition III of the CEA’s letter of approval (marked H).
Neither the FT nor the altered sections of the Expressway route were approved afresh as required by law. Therefore, the Applicants are being deprived of their property without a hearing and without the benefit of the legal provisions for assessment, comment and hearing contained in the NEA and its regulations as explained below in the section on background law.
On or about 14.02.2002, several surveyors together with officials from the RDA and armed police officers invaded the lands and premises of the Applicants and proceeded despite protests to illegally and forcibly survey their lands and further threatened, intimidated and harassed the Applicants and caused damage to some of their property.
COMPLAINT TO THE LENDING INSTITUTION
The Applicants raised the alteration of the route with the Asian Development Bank (ADB) as it was one of the lending institutions advancing money to the Government of Sri Lanka for the construction of the expressway and the project should be carried out within the guidelines and lending covenants of the ADB as a means of achieving sustainable development. Representatives of the ADB both from the Colombo Office and from the Manila Headquarters have visited the area and discussed the matter with some of the Applicants. The ADB has not insisted that the matter be brought within their policies and guidelines. Prior to the Supreme Court decision, a Society of which the Applicants are members made a request to the Inspection Panel of the ADB to examine the several ADB policy violations involved in the alteration of the route. However, the Inspection Panel of the ADB rejected the inspection request based on incorrect information supplied by ADB Management to the Board Inspection Committee.
These proceedings were prior to the decision of the Supreme Court of Sri Lanka. They are now no longer relevant to the human rights violation which is the subject of this communication.
VI. BACKGROUND LAW
Annexed to this communication marked J is a statement of law containing greater detail.
NEA - EIA PROCESS
The proposed southern expressway is a project that requires approval under Part IVC of the National Environmental Act No.47 of 1980 as amended by Acts No.56 of 1988 and 53 of 2000 (NEA) read with National Environmental (Procedure for Approval of Projects) regulations.
The NEA and its regulations require that alterations made to an approved project must be approved afresh. The Supreme Court, in its decision referred to above, has held that such approval is required for alterations made either by the project proponent at his own will or as a result of a conditional approval granted by the Project Approving Agency.
The NEA and the government gazettes that contain the National Environmental (Procedure for Approval of Projects) regulations are annexed to this communication marked K1, K2, K3, K4 and K5. The guidelines on EIA published by the CEA which are of direct relevance to the proposed project are annexed to this communication marked L1,L2,L3 and L4.
LAA - Land acquisition
Acquisition of the Applicants’ lands for the proposed southern expressway has to be done in terms of the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act No.9 of 1950 as amended by Act No.13 of 1986 (LAA). The LAA as amended is annexed to this communication marked M.
ADMISSIBILITY RATIONE TEMPORIS
This communication is clearly admissible ratione temporis as the alleged violation occurred after the first optional protocol came into force for the concerned State Party.
VIII. VIOLATIONS OF THE COVENANT
The Applicants submit that their rights under, Article 26, Article 6 and Article 19(2) of the Covenant have been violated.
Article 26: All persons are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to the equal protection of the law. In this respect, the law shall prohibit any discrimination and guarantee to all persons equal and effective protection against discrimination on any ground such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.
The Applicants, who are affected by the FT, were not afforded an opportunity to participate in the decision-making, scoping or EIA process while those on the CT and OT were.
All those living along the CT were part of a Social Impact Assessment. No such opportunity was given to those on the FT and more specifically to the Applicants.
The Supreme Court has held that the Applicants’ fundamental right to equal treatment and to the equal protection of the law entitled them to notice and hearing. The Supreme Court also concluded that the Applicants right to equality before the law and equal protection of the law would be violated. However, instead of enjoining the violation, which had not yet fully occurred, the Court awarded compensation allowing the violation to be completed. The Applicants are yet on their lands and their homes are still intact. As such, the violation is imminent and the RDA is taking urgent steps to evict the Applicants from their homes and lands.
Within the right to life there is also a right to a healthy environment. To ascertain what the environmental effects of this project are, studies are required. Once studies are done, affected parties have a legal right to be heard before their life, homes and livelihood are radically altered. The inevitable result of implementing the altered trace (FT) is to involuntarily displace the Applicants. No such studies, EIAs and hearing required by law have been done. The decision of the concerned State Party to build the expressway on the Applicants’ lands adversely impacts the right to life guaranteed to the Applicants under the ICCPR.
The right to life guaranteed by Article 6 of the ICCPR has been interpreted by other treaty bodies and the Committee on Human Right in an expanded manner. The right to life guaranteed under the constitutions of State Parties in the South Asian region have all been interpreted by the Apex Courts of those countries to include a right to a healthy environment. Numerous constitutions of State parties to the ICCPR either expressly or impliedly recognise that the right to life includes a right to a healthy environment. Customary international law and opinion juris have evolved to recognise a third generation right to a healthy environment as part of the right to life.
The Applicants will be removed from their homes, but will try to stay within their family groups. As these are ancestral villages they will undoubtedly try to stay within the same area. Their right to a healthy environment and that of their families is being denied to them.
This is even more important considering that the trace recommended by the Experts, the one that was approved in the Loan Document for the ADB, the one the environmental authorities research was done on, was through abandoned rice paddy fields where there was little habitation only high tension power cables. The trace the authorities are enforcing is through villages. The Right to a Healthy Environment is being removed for no explained reason. None of those affected have been informed or allowed the right to have their views heard regarding their right to a healthy environment and how the alternatives are considerably better.
Article 19(2): Everyone shall have the freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any media of his choice. No information was given to the Applicants that they might be displaced.
The submissions made on behalf of the Respondents in the actions filed in the Court of Appeal and then in the Supreme Court and the decision of the Supreme Court dated 20th January 2004 have resulted in the concerned State Party violating the rights of the Applicants under Articles 19(2) of the ICCPR.
The RDA’s decision to put the FT over the Applicants’ lands has placed the Applicants in a situation where they will lose their properties without the benefit of an EIA or a hearing as explained in the sections on background facts and law. This is not true of those who took part in scoping, had their lands and areas surveyed and studied for environmental and social impacts and were heard in the EIA process.
The NEA provides that information about potential environmental impacts should be made available to the affected public in the form of an EIA. Since no EIA was done for the FT or the altered parts of the FT, the Applicants have been denied a statutory right they have to information concerning environmental impacts. These facts therefore constitute a violation of Article 19(2) of the ICCPR
GENERAL OBSERVATIONS ON THE VIOLATION OF ICCPR RIGHTS
The Applicants reached the Court of Appeal seeking inter alia a writ to quash the RDA’s decision to alter the route of the proposed expressway to traverse over the Applicants’ lands. The Applicants established the fact that the RDA’s said decision violated the provisions of the NEA. The Supreme Court having held in favour of the Applicants on the said issue failed to grant the Applicants relief as prayed for by them.
The Court without directing the RDA and the CEA to comply with and implement the provisions of the NEA in respect of the changes in question for the reasons indicated decided to compensate the Applicants for the said infringement of their rights. Under normal circumstances the Court would have quashed RDA’s decision and directed it to comply with the provisions of the NEA before implementing the altered project. The Supreme Court held that the RDA’s decision to alter the route of the proposed expressway was illegal and violative of the guarantee of equality under Article 12(1) of the Constitution of the concerned State Party. It was also therefore a violation of the equality guarantee under Article 26 of the ICCPR. However, because the Supreme Court failed to enjoin and restrain the violation of the Applicants right to equality, the Government and its agencies are continuing to violate their rights to equality which is also a ICCPR guaranteed human right.
As explained in the section on background facts, the Applicants had no notice or access to information in respect of the FT. The Supreme Court observed that the Applicants were entitled to notice and to be heard before the RDA made the aforesaid changes to the proposed expressway and adopted the FT as described earlier. The Applicants’ fundamental right to equal treatment and to the equal protection of the law entitled them to notice and hearing. The Supreme Court also observed that having regard to the purposes of the EIA procedure the CEA was obliged to consider the FT in substantially the same way as the two traces which were analysed and researched in the EIA. That was a power and duty which the CEA held subject to a public trust, to be exercised for the benefit of the public, including affected individuals. Studying the FT the same way as the CT and OT and publicizing the findings is the method provided by law that would enable the Applicants to receive information in respect of the proposed project that will affect them. The CEA did not even make its letter of approval available to the Applicants when they requested for the same.
There have been instances where the Supreme Court has held that access to information on environmental matters is of paramount importance . There are also instances where Supreme Court has held that publicity, transparency and fairness are essential if the goal of sustainable development is to be achieved. Copies of the relevant Supreme Court judgements are annexed hereto marked N1 and N2. However, in this instance, having held that the Applicants were entitled to notice and to be heard before the RDA made the alterations to the route, the Supreme Court failed to grant the Applicants relief so that they will be heard before the altered project is implemented. This is a violation of the Applicants’ right to receive information under the ICCPR.
Sustainable development can only be achieved if the benefits from the development exceed the costs of the development. A healthy environment can only be achieved if a development is sustainable environmentally and financially. International Designers changed the Southern Expressway from the OT to the CT to achieve financial viability. It was however only marginal. The CT had a 12.2% Economic Internal Rate of Return (EIRR), the minimum of 12% being ‘sustainable’ as determined by the ADB. The FT has a 145% increase in costs and 112% increase in human displacement, this will significantly affect the project making the loan unsustainable. Consequently the Applicants and their future generations will not enjoy a healthy environment.
The Supreme Court granted compensation for an imminent infringement of the right to equality of the Applicants. The Applicants submit that when faced with an imminent infringement of a fundamental right under the Constitution (which in this case is also an ICCPR right), the Supreme Court has no choice but to enjoin and restrain that violation. In such a case, the Applicants submit that the Court has no power to assess and award compensation. To do so, would harness the court in an exercise where it fixes a price and authorises the State to perpetrate the human rights violation for that price.
IX. INTERIM RELIEF CLAIMED
The RDA is urgently taking steps to evict the Applicants and their families from their lands and homes. This application will be rendered nugatory and irreparable loss will be caused to the Applicants if they are evicted from their homes and lands pending the determination of this communication. The Applicants therefore request the United Nations Human Rights Committee to make an interim recommendation to the concerned State Party to refrain from evicting or involuntarily resettling the Applicants until this communication is dealt with.
X RELIEF CLAIMED
The Applicants requests the United Nations Committee on Human Rights to recommend to and advise the concerned State Party:-
- to direct the State Party (RDA) to obtain fresh approval for the proposed expressway project on the deviation at Akmeemana following the provisions of the NEA under the supervision of an international body acceptable to the Applicants and its regulations; failing which it should construct the proposed expressway on the recommended and approved route, the Combined Trace;
- to direct the State Party (CEA) to enforce the provisions of the NEA in respect of the said deviation; and
- to discontinue the project at the alterations as explained in this communication until the said alterations are approved afresh.
Signed by the Author on this day of October 2004.
International Public Interest Defeders
Monica de Silva,
Duly Authorised Executive Committee member
SCHEDULE OF VICTIMS ON WHOSE
BEHALF THIS COMMUNICATION IS SUBMITTED
Name Profession Date of Birth Address
Susila Malani Dahanayake, Housewife 27/10/1946 Ihalagoda, Akmeemana
A.A Hema Mangalika House wife 10/9/1961 ‘Athu Sevana’, Ihalagoda,
P.M Koralage House wife 23/8/1935 Ihalagoda,
A.K Maginona House wife 28/6/1934 Ihalagoda, Akmeemana
Arambawelage Weerapala Tinker 8/4/1959 211, Wattegewatte,
Jayawathie House wife 16/3/1939 Pinnaduwa,
M.P Gamage Premadasa Farmer 31/8/1919 Medawatte, Ankokkawala.
Tiranagamage Dayaratne Farmer 11/4/1963 ‘Samanpaya’
G. D Dayawanse Devapriya Farmer 18/6/1968 Polgahaowita,
W. Don Leelawathie House wife 2/3/1929 ‘Sagala’, Ihalagoda,
Geeganage Nandawathie Teacher 4/5/1950 Nikinikande, Pinnaduwa, Walahanduwa.
Name Profession Date of Birth Address
Brahamanage Chandrasiri Technical 25/8/1962 Kabarayamulla,
Veditantirige Kusuma House wife 12/12/1928 Kanattewatte,
T.L Sarath Chandrasiri Technical 6/2/1960 Wattegewatte
D Liyanage Dhanapala Businessman 20/10/1944 Mahawatte,
Geeganage Gunadasa Farmer 2/7/1936 Mahaowita,
Geeganage Karunadasa Pensioner 31/7/1929 Udagiri Kahandawatte
A. Vithanage Wickramapala Driver 12/12/1953 ‘Vikumsiri’,
Meepe Gamage Kulasena Clerk 23/6/1948 Ihalagoda,
* T Salamon Appuhamy Pinnaduwa,
Meepe Gamage Paulis Farmer 26/9/1935 Katuwanwila,
M.V Mahindaratne Security 4/7/1953 Ihalagoda
A.A Sunanda Welder 12/10/1966 Pinnaduwa,
Name Profession Date of Birth Address
S.A. Wanigaratne Unemployed 23/7/1959 Pinnaduwa,
C Kumudini Liyanage House wife 7/12/1965 Kottawagewatte,
* M.T Isawathie Ihalagoda
M.G Sarath Wickramaratne Police Officer 6/8/1964 Ihalagoda
S.K.A Ariyawathie House wife 17/4/1936 Kottawagewatte,
H.G Kulawathie House wife 15/5/1939 Pinnaduwa,
M.V Chandradasa Shop 24/12/1949 Ihalagoda
D Dayawathie House wife 29/10/1936 Pinnaduwa,
Karunawathie Samarasekara House wife 20/6/1940 Pinnaduwa,
Podinona Samarasekara House wife 5/10/1925 Pinnaduwa,
G Karunadasa Labourer 27/10/1947 Godawatte,
H.G.D Asika Shyamali House wife 6/10/1969 Ihalagoda
Maliaspakoralage Ariyawathie House wife 13/5/1944 Ihalagoda
N.V Samithra House wife 5/4/1967 Ihalagoda
Name Profession Date of Birth Address
M Vithanage Dharmadasa Farmer 14/7/1938 Kabarayamulla,
Meepe Gamage Piyaratne Clerk 16/2/1952 Ihalagoda
G Sirisena Silva Doctor 21/7/1949 Beheth Shalawa,
Buddhadasa Ihalawaithana Unemployed 25/5/1940 Manawila,