Introduction A state's preference in how it treats its own people results from the search for a balance between individual rights and security national. A state will therefore violate the human rights of its own inhabitants when it believes that doing so will promote national security. The most common justification by a state for violating the human rights of its citizens is the interest of national security. Third world countries like Sri Lanka never hesitate to use this pretext when it comes to human rights violations, in order to avoid reprimands from the international community. It is unfortunate that it is not a Herculean task for Sri Lanka to avoid accountability in matters such as the law of the land and the practices and procedures within the jurisdiction to defend human rights violators. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get the original essay Although the international community has attempted to introduce International Human Rights Law (IHRL) in the country, Sri Lanka maintains the upper hand on whether or not to accept the terms of IHRL . However, in some cases, countries like Sri Lanka are obliged to recognize and apply IHRL for various reasons. However, the procedures adopted in the application of IHRL, the political will in its implementation and the attitude towards IHRL hinder the process of holding the State accountable for human rights violations committed over the years. This article addresses the following subjects: − The reluctance of third world countries to formulate and apply IHRL − The importance of it − The famous “Trinco 5” murders which constitute a flagrant violation of human rights − The inability of the State to be accountable for the said violation of human rights − Obstacles to IHRL to remedy the said violation with the political will to implement IHRL and with the way Sri Lankan law is structured Reluctance of countries to apply and formulate IHRL It is important that many countries around the world take legal action under IHRL for IHRL to be recognized worldwide. Since IHRL requires States to provide a remedy to victims of gross human rights violations, it is important that it is recognized and put into practice. However, most third world countries are reluctant to do so for many reasons. Some countries require that there be a nexus between the forum state and the human rights violation. Third world countries like Sri Lanka view allegations of human rights violations as attempts by Western powers to thwart the country's nascent development. Demand impartial investigations into gross human rights violations by the international community, which constitute interference in the internal affairs of the island and an attack on its sovereignty, the growth of anti-Western attitude in Sri Lanka and bring the country closer to countries such as China and Russia, and as part of an attempt by the West to exert neo-imperial influence in the country's internal affairs, the change brought about by IHRL at the national level by allowing direct supranational prosecutions, in complementarity with national prosecutions for certain criminal violations of international rights. human right, the fact that international human rights law can change not only the behavior of the accumulated political power of the state in its interstate relations, but also change the behavior of the state at local levels such that political units and agenciesSubsidiary institutions, courts, individuals, corporations and other non-state actors also make third world countries more reluctant to adhere to IHRL. However, states like Sri Lanka, which are generally reluctant to apply IHRL, may not be so, where this law does not require a change in state behavior, or for fear of coercion. Furthermore, obtaining direct development assistance or other club goods, such as access to trade preferences, has forced states like Sri Lanka to accept human rights obligations. Need for IHRL in Conflict Contexts According to Richard B. Lillich, the courts of a single state cannot provide even a partial solution to the problem of providing reparations to victims of gross human rights violations. Lillich argued that an International Convention for Redress for Violations of Human Rights would require state parties to adopt legislation along these lines. Lillich also argued that customary IHRL, domestic law, and relevant foreign laws represent different policies and interests that guide domestic courts to adopt the best policy in human rights litigation. Furthermore, in third world countries, there are more reasons why IHRL is necessary in national jurisdictions. IHRL can be used to hold States accountable for violations that have occurred and to provide reparation to the victims of those violations. The lack of real action and trust in national legal bodies to deliver justice to affected parties has led to growing calls for international involvement in investigations and actions. The integration of IHRL into national law is therefore vital, in order to move away from the culture of impunity in human rights violations that has developed in countries like Sri Lanka during and after the long civil war. The five Sri Lankan Tamil students who could not see the end of the civil war “Trinco 5” case A culture of impunity in cases of human rights violations has developed in Sri Lanka, because proper investigations and prosecutions have not taken place for human rights violations. during and after the war. One such case that has not been served with justice is the famous “Trinco 5” case. This case concerns the murders of five Tamil students in Trincomalee in 2006. On January 2, 2006, five students, who were only 20 years old at the time, were allegedly shot dead by the Sri Lankan special force on the beach in Trincomalee. The government hastily claimed that the group of students were LTTE insurgents carrying out a grenade attack. However, reports indicate that men who arrived at the scene of the incident in a green three-wheeler threw a hand grenade at the group and headed towards the army headquarters. After the explosion, Navy personnel closed the entrances and exits to the beach and a military jeep carrying STF personnel entered the incident site and attacked the students with their weapons. Afterward, the students were forced to lie face down and shot in the back of the head. Although many witnesses and other evidence were listed in the case before the magistrate, the witnesses were very reluctant to come forward to testify. Dr Manoharan, father of one of the deceased, categorically stated that during a phone call, his son informed him that they were surrounded by the forces. Dr. Manoharan also heard the explosion and rushed to the scene, but the Navy personnel denied him access to the scene. He hasobserved the scene and saw 20 to 25 people on the ground, face down. He noted that security forces and their vehicles were on site. As he tried to get to the scene, he heard cries for help in Tamil, followed by gunshots. He also saw flashes of automatic fire aimed at the ground. Dr. Manoharan clearly observed a high-ranking police officer in a military vehicle who was in a commanding position at the scene. Dr Manoharan was then approached by armed soldiers and forced to sign a document stating that his son was an LTTE cadre killed in an explosion, which he refused. A week after giving evidence at the inquest into his son's death, Dr Manoharan and his family received continuous death threats. Eventually, he was forced to leave the country and seek asylum in the United Kingdom. Likewise, many other key witnesses were threatened, intimidated, murdered and assured that they would not appear to give evidence in court. After extremely reluctant investigations and the recommendations of a commission created to investigate this violation, a few soldiers were arrested twice, but they were later released for lack of evidence and for taking no action against them. Analysis Although there were numerous witnesses and evidence, investigators and the prosecution were unable to obtain a conviction in this case due to the reluctance of witnesses to testify. It is clear that the witnesses were threatened and intimidated by the security forces who allegedly committed this heinous crime. However, no action was taken against any member of the security forces. Furthermore, the high-ranking police officer who held a command position at the crime scene was never apprehended, even though more than reasonable suspicion of his involvement in the murders was evident and established by the available evidence. . It is important to note that although the government claimed that the deceased boys were LTTE insurgents, the deceased were never given the opportunity to prove otherwise. It is common knowledge that one of the deceased had come to Sri Lanka from abroad for his college vacation. The State has thus blatantly violated all aspects of Article 13 of the Constitution which guarantees everyone a fair trial. Equality before the law and equal protection of the law and the inherent right to life of these 5 students were also violated by the state. It is pertinent to note that this incident brought international attention to human rights due to the nature of the case and the aftermath of the highly controversial killings that took place during Sri Lanka's long civil war. Commissions have been appointed to investigate this crime and many IHRL bodies have expressed concerns about the investigation and prosecution of this case. Additionally, Sri Lankan government officials also informed the international community that the Special Task Force was responsible for the killings. Unfortunately, to date, no one has been convicted for these horrific murders committed in front of numerous witnesses and no victim has received reparation. Therefore, the non-conviction of these perpetrators seems to be a pathetic excuse to cover up the crime by the government itself. The culture of impunity grows in Sri Lanka in relation to human rights violations for various reasons such as the absence or delays in prosecutions, lack of independent investigations, poor protection of victims and witnesses, falsification, concealment and destruction of evidence, and political interference in investigative institutions. It is regrettable to note that in Sri.