A statement posted on Human Rights Watch web site quotes Brad Adams, Asia Director at Human Rights Watch, as having stated: "Sri Lankan government needs to hear loudly and clearly from a concerted international community that they, just as the Tamil Tigers, will be held accountable for what happens to the civilians in the no-fire zone".

This statement reflects a total misunderstanding of accepted international conventions pertaining to conduct in a no-fire or safe zone for the following reasons:

1. The Sri Lankan Government demonstrated its commitment to the protection of the civilians by designating an area as a safe zone. International convention and practice requires that such zones are NOT used for military purposes.

2. The LTTE violated convention by retreating to the safe zone and using the protection of the civilians to conduct military offensives against the security forces. Thus, the civilians have become a human shield under which the LTTE has sought cover.

3. Convention recognizes that when safe zones are exploited for military purposes it entitles the opposing forces to respond in like manner, meaning even to meet artillery fire with artillery fire. Furthermore convention also states that the party in the safe zone becomes obligated for the safety of the civilians.

Therefore, according to accepted convention it is ONLY the LTTE that is accountable for jeopardizing the safety of the civilians and no one else. The failure to recognize the sole culpability of the LTTE by agencies such as yours is what has permitted non-state actors such as the LTTE to violate accepted practices with impunity.

The relevant Convention applicable to the conflict in Sri Lanka is "Protocol Additional to the Geneva Convention of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflict (Protocol II), 8 June 1977.

Article 3 clause I states: "Nothing in this Protocol shall be invoked for the purpose of affecting the sovereignty of a State or the responsibility of the government, by legitimate means, to maintain or re-establish law and order in the State or to defend the national unit and territorial integrity of the State".

In view of the fact that an earlier HRW report described these civilians as "trapped and ill-treated" and considering that the Sri Lankan Government has to deal with what is globally acknowledged as the most ruthless terrorist entity, what options are open to a responsible government to save these "trapped and ill-treated civilians from the safe zone"?

1. The recommendation of the International Community is that there should be a long enough pause to permit the civilians to leave. This contradicts the admission by the very same International Community that the LTTE is using these civilians as a "human shield", meaning that the LTTE would do everything in its power to prevent the civilians from leaving. Therefore, whatever the duration of the pause, the civilians would be prevented from leaving the safe zone.

2. The claim of the LTTE is that the civilians are there on their own volition and that they have no desire to leave. If this is in fact the case, a pause no matter how long its duration would not induce the civilians to leave; a fact disproved by recent events when hundreds of thousands sought refuge in Government controlled areas.

3. Therefore a pause no matter its duration makes no sense.

4. If there is uncertainty as to whether the civilians wish to leave or not, what should a responsible Government do? If it does nothing the civilians would stay "trapped and ill-treated" indefinitely. The other option is to create the opportunities for the civilians to leave on their own accord recognizing that the creation of such opportunities could involve some collateral damage.

5. This in fact is the strategy that the Government has opted for. By breaching the defenses constructed by the LTTE, the Government has created opportunities for thousands to seek the protection of Government controlled areas. The civilians have availed themselves of the opportunity presented, which act demolishes the claim of the LTTE that the civilians have been with them by choice.

To state that the Government should be held accountable for actions that have resulted in liberating 100,000+ civilians from the safe zone is ridiculous. The desperation and alacrity with which the civilians sought the safety of the Government and vividly captured in video footage is sufficient to demonstrate the commitment of the Government to liberate the "trapped and ill-treated" civilians, and the preference of the civilians to move to the safety provided by the Government.

HRW is not accountable for its statements and actions. The LTTE being a non-state actor is also not accountable. Thus with regard to accountability, HRW and the LTTE have a lot in common. This lack of accountability gives both groups the license to act without any consequences for their respective actions.