Introduction A state's preference for how it treats its inhabitants arises from balancing individual rights with national security. A state will therefore abuse the human rights of its inhabitants when it believes that doing so will promote national security. The most common justification for a state to abuse the human rights of its citizens is the interest of national security. Third world countries like Sri Lanka never hesitate to use this excuse regarding human rights violations, to avoid the rebuke of the international community. It is unfortunate that it is not a Herculean task for Sri Lanka to avoid accountability in cases such as land law and practices and procedures within the jurisdiction that defend human rights violators. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get Original EssayAlthough the international community has attempted to penetrate International Human Rights Law (IHRL) into the country, Sri Lanka retains the upper hand on the question of whether or not to accept the terms of the IHRL. However, in some cases, countries such as Sri Lanka are forced to recognize and implement IHRL for various reasons. However, the procedures adopted in the application of the IHRL, the political will in the implementation and the attitude towards the IHRL hinder the process of holding the State accountable for the human rights violations that have occurred over the years. This article deals with: − The reluctance of third world countries in formulating and implementing the IHRL − The importance of the same − The famous “Trinco 5” murders which amount to a gross violation of human rights − The impossibility of part of the State to be held accountable for the said human rights violation - Impediments of the IHRL to remedy the said violation with the political will to implement the IHRL and with the way in which Sri Lankan law is structured Reluctance of countries to apply and formulate IHRL It is important for many countries in the world to conduct IHRL litigation so that IHRL is recognized worldwide. Since IHRL obliges states to provide remedy to victims of serious human rights violations, it is important that this is recognized and practiced. However, most third world countries are reluctant to do so for many reasons. Some countries require that there be a link between the status of the forum and the violation of human rights. Third world countries such as Sri Lanka view accusations of human rights violations as attempts by Western powers to thwart emerging development in the country. Demand impartial investigations into serious human rights violations by the international community, which constitute interference in the island's internal affairs and an attack on its sovereignty, the growth of anti-Western attitudes in Sri Lanka and the country's rapprochement with countries such as China and Russia, and as an attempt by the West to exert neo-imperial influence in the country's internal affairs, the change brought about by the IHRL at the domestic level by allowing direct supranational judicial proceedings, the complementarity with domestic judicial proceedings of some violations criminal norms of international human rights law, the fact that international human rights law can change not only the behavior of the political power accumulated by the state in its interstate relations, but also alter the behavior of the state at the grassroots level as units and agencies Subsidiary policies, courts, individuals, multinationals and other non-state actors also make third world countries more reluctant to join.to the IHRL. However, states like Sri Lanka, which are generally reluctant to enforce IHRL, may not be reluctant, when such law does not require a change in state behavior, or out of fear of coercion. Beyond this, obtaining direct development assistance or other social 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 compensation to victims of serious human rights violations. Lillich argued that an International Convention on the Redress of Violations of Human Rights would oblige state parties to enact legislation to that effect. Lillich also argued that customary IHRL, national law and relevant foreign laws represent different policies and interests that guide domestic courts to have the best policy in HR disputes. Furthermore, in third world countries, there are many reasons for the need for IHRL in national jurisdictions. IHRL can be used to hold states accountable for violations that have taken place and to compensate victims of such violations. The lack of genuine action and trust in national legal bodies to ensure justice for affected parties has led to growing calls for international involvement in investigations and actions. The incorporation of IHRL into national law is therefore vital, in order to move away from the culture of impunity in human rights violations that occurred in countries such as Sri Lanka during and after the long civil war. The five Sri Lankan Tamil students who failed to live to see the end of the civil war Case "Trinco 5" A culture of impunity in cases of human rights violations has developed in Sri Lanka as no investigations have taken place and appropriate prosecution of human rights violations during and after the war. One of these cases that has not been served justice is the famous “Trinco 5” case. This case concerns the murder of five Tamil students in Trincomalee in 2006. On 2 January 2006, five students, who were only 20 years old at the time, were allegedly shot dead by the Sri Lankan Special Task Force on the beach of Trincomalee. The government quickly claimed that the group of students were LTTE rebels carrying out a grenade attack. However, according to reports, the men who went to the accident site in a green three-wheeler threw a hand grenade on 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 members entered the accident site and attacked the students with weapons. Subsequently, the students were forced to lie face down and were shot in the back of the head. Although there were many witnesses and other evidence listed in the case before the Magistrate, there was great reluctance on the part of the witnesses to come forward to testify. Dr Manoharan, father of one of the deceased, categorically stated that in a phone call addressed to him, his son had informed him that they were surrounded by law enforcement agencies. Dr Manoharan also heard the explosion and rushed to the spot, but the Navy personnel denied him entry. He observed the place and saw 20-25 people on the ground face down. He noted that security forces and their vehicles were at the scene. While trying to reach the spot, he heard cries for help in Tamil languagefollowed by gunshots. He also saw flashes of automatic gunfire aimed at the ground. Dr Manoharan clearly observed a high-ranking police officer in a military vehicle occupying a command position at the scene. Dr Manoharan was later approached by armed military personnel and was forced to sign a document stating that his son was an LTTE member killed in an explosion, which he was refused. A week after testifying at the inquest into his son's death, Dr Manoharan and his family received continued death threats. Eventually, he was forced to leave the country and seek asylum in the UK. Likewise, many other key witnesses were threatened, intimidated, murdered and prevented from showing up to provide information and evidence in court. After extremely reluctant investigations and recommendations by a commission set up to investigate the violation, some soldiers were arrested on two occasions, but were later dismissed and released for lack of evidence and for failing to take action against them. Analysis Although there were many witnesses and evidence, investigators and the prosecution were unable to obtain a conviction in this case due to the witnesses' reluctance to provide evidence. It was evident that the witnesses had been threatened and intimidated by the security forces who allegedly committed the heinous crime. However, no action was taken against any of the members of the security forces. Furthermore, the high-ranking police officer who occupied a commanding position at the crime scene was never arrested, although there was more than reasonable suspicion of his involvement in the murders evident and established from the available evidence. It is important to note that although the government claimed that the deceased boys were LTTE rebels, the deceased were never given the opportunity to prove otherwise. It is known that one of the deceased came to Sri Lanka for university holidays from abroad. The State has thus blatantly violated all aspects of Article 13 of the Constitution which guarantees a fair trial to every person. Equality before the law, equal protection of the law and inherent right to life of these 5 students were also violated by the State. It is worth noting that this incident has drawn international attention to human rights due to the nature of the issue and the aftermath of the highly controversial killings that occurred during Sri Lanka's long civil war. Commissions have been appointed to investigate the crime, and many IHRL bodies have raised concerns about the investigation and prosecution of the matter. Furthermore, representatives of the Sri Lankan government informed the international community that the special task force was responsible for the killings. Unfortunately, to date, no person has been convicted for the gruesome murders committed in front of numerous witnesses, nor have any victims been compensated. Therefore, the failure to convict these perpetrators appears to be a pathetic excuse for the government itself to cover up the crime. The culture of impunity develops in Sri Lanka in human rights violations for various reasons, such as lack or delays in judicial proceedings, lack of independent investigations, poor protection of victims and witnesses, tampering, concealment and the destruction of evidence and political interference in investigative institutions. It is unfortunate to note that, in Sri Lanka, while one government is in power, alleged human rights violations by other parties would be investigated and when the other party comes to power, all such investigations would cease. This trend.