[1] The commission was mandated to investigate the facts and circumstances which led to the failure of the ceasefire agreement made operational on 27 February 2002, the lessons that should be learnt from those events and the institutional, administrative and legislative measures which need to be taken in order to prevent any recurrence of such concerns in the future, and to promote further national unity and reconciliation among all communities.
[2] The commission concluded that the Sri Lankan military didn't deliberately target civilians but the rebel Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) repeatedly violated international humanitarian law.
[citation needed] In September 2010 the LLRC published its interim recommendations:[19] The report provides a detailed analysis of the oral and written representations made to the commission.
Chapter 8 talks about the post war reconciliation and alleviating the grievances of affected groups, especially the Sri Lankan Tamil people, in broad terms.
"The process of reconciliation requires a full acknowledgement of the tragedy of the conflict and a collective act of contrition by the political leaders and civil society, of both Sinhala and Tamil communities.
In October 2010 the government established the Inter-Agency Advisory Committee headed by the then attorney general Mohan Peiris to implement the LLRC's interim recommendations.
[34] Amnesty claimed that the LLRC was a ploy by the Sri Lankan government to prevent an independent international investigation and that it would never deliver justice, truth and full reparations for the war victims.
[38][39][40] The independence of the commission has been questioned due to the fact its members were appointed by the Sri Lankan government, one of the parties accused of committing war crimes.
[31][40] The International Independent Group of Eminent Persons, who had been invited by the President to oversee the commission's work, resigned in April 2008 citing De Silva's behaviour as one of major reasons for doing so.
[31][40] The commission was seen as a tool to discredit the opposition United National Party whose leader Ranil Wickramasinghe was Prime Minister when the ceasefire agreement with the LTTE was signed in 2002.
According to TNA MP M. A. Sumanthiran the LLRC had contradicted itself by maintaining that it had no mandate to investigate into any incident and yet clearing of the armed forces of deliberately targeting civilians.
[46] The TNA subsequently issued a 115-page analytical response to the LLRC report in which it concluded that the LLRC had "failed to fulfill the expectations of the Tamil community" and that it did "not address important questions of accountability; was designed to shield civilian and military leaders responsible for serious crimes from blame; and evinces the Sri Lankan State’s unwillingness to acknowledge and address issues of accountability".
[23] Jathika Hela Urumaya, a Sinhalise national group, claimed that LLRC had over passed their mandate and had failed to look into the 9,878 civil assassinations carried out by the LTTE.
He explained, this had in fact not been the case as at that time, LRRP missions were taking down the Tiger command structure and followed and not preceded the disastrous Agni Kheela operation and the devastating Bandaranaike Airport attack.
Second one is that LLRC Report draws a veil of silence over the lopsided post-tsunami relief mechanism (PTOMS) which was negotiated at the tail end of the presidency of Chandrika Kumaratunga.
"[50] Editorial of "The Sunday Times" — the Sri Lankan English language daily — named "Heed LLRC's call to save Rule of Law" noted that while "the commission was not something the Government had in mind in the flush of its military victory over the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) in May 2009", it "quite correctly placed much of the blame for this polarization on politicians who were looking to bolster their vote base by whipping up the communal drum".
"[51] Australia - Australian Foreign Minister Kevin Rudd issued a statement on 13 February 2012 welcoming the report's recommendations but expressing concern that it failed "to fully address alleged violations of international humanitarian and human rights law".
[53] The Commonwealth Secretary-General Kamalesh Sharma issued a statement on 19 December 2011 welcoming the release of the report and the commitments given by the Sri Lankan government in respect the conclusions and recommendations.
[59] Instead the European Parliament passed resolution P7 TA-PROV(2012)0058 B7-0071/2012 in which it called for the "establishment of a UN commission of inquiry into all crimes committed, as recommended by the UN Secretary General's Panel of Experts on Sri Lanka".
[61][62] The spokesperson concluded that "It is important to ensure that an independent and credible mechanism is put in place to investigate allegations of human rights violations, as brought out the LLRC, in a time-bound manner".
[61] South Africa - The Department of International Relations and Cooperation issued as statement on 30 January 2012 noting the release of the final report and its positive recommendations.
[64] United Nations - UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon welcomed the public release of LLRC report and hoped "that the Sri Lankan Government will move forward on its commitments to deal with accountability...in good faith as an essential step towards reconciliation and lasting peace in the island country".
[71] Amnesty urged the Sri Lankan authorities to take the report's recommendations seriously but concluded that, based on previous experience, "effective investigation and prosecution of all wrongdoers...is very unlikely without the active support of the international community".
[71] Human Rights Watch has condemned the LLRC report for disregarding the worst abuses by government forces, rehashing long-standing recommendations and failing to advance accountability for victims of Sri Lanka's civil armed conflict.
[73][74] HRW has stated that the "serious shortcomings" of the report highlighted "the need for an international investigative mechanism into the conflict as recommended by the United Nations Secretary-General’s Panel of Experts".
[77] Noting that the Sri Lankan government had failed to implement prior commissions recommendations and its "unwillingness to take concrete steps", they concluded that the only way for the truth to be exposed is for the United Nations Human Rights Council "to create an independent investigative body to determine the facts and identify those responsible".
[78] Editor-in-Chief of The Hindu — the Indian English-language daily — N. Ram in his 22 December 2011 editorial stated that the report has established a key fact — that there were "considerable" civilian casualties in the final stages of the military operation to crush the LTTE.
In an opinion piece in The New York Times journalist Namini Wijedasa describes the report as "largely an apologia for the army" in respect of the events in the final stages of the civil war.
[83] Even in the final weeks when the government took violent measures to defeat the LTTE, the commission only admitted, "civilian casualties had in fact occurred in the course of crossfire".
[84] Report by Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission became the basis for the discussion on Sri Lanka at the United Nations Human Rights Council 19th session in March 2012.