U.S. court dismisses case against President Rajapaksa

DC: A United States District Court on Wednesday tossed out a lawsuit against Sri Lanka's President Mahinda Rajapaksa citing that a sitting head of the state is immune from suit while he is in office.
District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed the lawsuit filed by the relatives of Tamil victims under the Torture Victim Protection Act (TVPA) of 1991 for lack of jurisdiction since the Court found that the "United States' Suggestion of Immunity is binding on the Court and dispositive of the Court's jurisdiction." Plaintiffs Kasippillai Manoharan, Kalaiselvi Lavan, and Jeyakumar Aiyathurai have filed the suit against President Rajapaksa, alleging him of violations of the Torture Victim Protection Act in his individual and official capacity as the President of Sri Lanka. The lawsuit filed against the Sri Lankan President in the District Court of Columbia in Washington, DC sought US$30 million on behalf of the three plaintiffs who said their relatives were killed in three incidents, including the Sri Lankan army's offensive in 2009 against the final holdout of the Tamil Tiger (LTTE) terrorists. The plaintiffs were represented by Bruce Fein, a lawyer who has been allegedly supportive of the pro-LTTE groups in the US. Dismissing the law suit Judge Kollar-Kotelly wrote that the Court finds it is bound by the United States' Suggestion of Immunity which suggests Defendant Rajapaksa is entitled to head of state immunity while he remains in office. The US filed a "Suggestion of Immunity" at the United States District Court for the District of Columbia on Friday (13) for President Rajapaksa recognizing him as the "sitting head of state of a foreign state." Head of state immunity is a well-established principle of federal common law, which Congress did not override in enacting the Torture Victim Protection Act, she said in her conclusion. However Judge Kollar-Kotelly said the Court does not take this step lightly. "The Plaintiffs� Complaint contains shocking allegations of human rights abuses and violations of United States and international law. The Court's dismissal of this case is in no way a reflection of the merits of Plaintiffs' claims or Defendant's defenses. Rather, two centuries of case law and basic constitutional and statutory principles prevent this Court from allowing Plaintiffs' Complaint to move forward at this time," she wrote in her Memorandum of Opinion.