Chemmani mass grave: aggrieved parties reject archaeological team’s interim findings, file legal action

 

Families of Disappeared persons in North rejected the archelogical report submitted by Prof Raj Somadeva saying he deliberately omitted the word 'mass grave' in the report. File pix

As Aggrieved Parties in the Chemmani mass grave case, the Families of Disappeared moved a motion to the Jaffna Magistrate's Court this week challenging the interim report submitted by the archaeological team led by Prof Raj Somadeva.

They urged the court not to treat the disputed conclusions of the summary report as conclusive before properly examining identified material objections and evidentiary issues.

In the motion moved by Attorney at Law Mrs Kasthury Ahalankan on behalf of the aggrieved parties, the families of disappeared object to the findings, observations, interpretations and conclusions in the report.

The motion submitted that the findings in the report “ must be examined in the light of location of discovered human remains, the circumstances of their discovery, the archaeological context, the recovered artefacts, the number and distribution of the remains, and the historical circumstances that prevailed in the area and location at the relevant period.”

The parties also contended that no designated burial section or authorised burial ground allocation has been identified in relation to the precise location where the remains were recovered.

 Pointing out that Prof Raj Somadeva used the term “ mass grave” in the previous three interim reports he had submitted to courts earlier, the parties noted he had deliberately omitted the term in the latest report. “The omission raises serious doubts about the accuracy and validity of the interim report.” 

Without adequate examination of the physical evidence and the archaeological context, the aggrieved parties objected to any conclusion that ordinary burial has been established by the report.

“More than one pair of skeletons were identified in association with an adult carrying a child, a finding that is highly unusual and inconsistent with a pattern of ordinary burial. These circumstances warrant careful forensic and archaeological examination to determine the context and manner in which remains were deposited.”