Your Excellencies,
We, Tamils from Eelam, the Tamil Nadu diaspora, the global Tamil community, and other organizations in solidarity with the Eelam Tamils, echo and amplify the unified demands of the Eelam Tamil homeland as articulated by five eminent groups, including political representatives, civil society leaders, and religious dignitaries, as well as fellow Tamil diaspora organizations from North America, Europe, and Asia. We reaffirm that the collective and unequivocal call of the Eelam Tamil people is for Genocide Justice, as substantiated in the supporting documents (Annexes I–VII). In this light, we signatories are deeply concerned that His Excellency the High Commissioner has urged the Government of Sri Lanka to embark on what he terms a comprehensive process which,
in practice, centres on a domestic mechanism. By highlighting selectively chosen emblematic cases, raising the challenges of sharing evidence with the Sri Lankan authorities, and speaking of complementary strategies for accountability at the international level, his approach nevertheless places its weight on expecting a domestic mechanism. Such an approach risks perpetuating a cycle of deferral to internal mechanisms that have repeatedly failed, not only over the last sixteen years of the post-war period but also throughout the entire duration of the war. This represents a recycling of a proven ineffective model that has consistently shielded perpetrators and denied justice to victims. By sidelining the unified and consistent call of the Tamil people for an entirely independent international accountability mechanism, this course of action threatens to undermine trust in the UN system and perpetuate impunity. Having carefully examined the advanced unedited version of the High Commissioner’s report, issued on 12 August 2025, we are concerned that its approach risks shirking state responsibility, dismissing genocide charges, legitimising ineffective domestic mechanisms, losing vital evidence, perpetuating impunity, and enabling reforms that are easily reversible.[^1] Rejection of Domestic and Hybrid Mechanisms
The erosion of judicial independence and the deplorable performance of the Sri Lankan judiciary in recent decades make a totally independent investigative mechanism an absolute imperative. Therefore, we categorically and unreservedly reject any process that relies on domestic mechanisms, whether standalone or hybrid. This position is not only ours as a diaspora, but also reflects the voices of Tamil civil society, religious leaders, and political representatives of the Tamil homeland[^2]. Member States must recognise that these actors, who risk their safety to speak out, have been clear: no domestic or hybrid process will ever deliver justice for Tamil genocide. The Tamil Nadu Factor: Economic, Political, and Geopolitical Significance
This call for justice is not solely a matter of human rights for the Eelam Tamil people; it also carries profound geopolitical implications. A credible justice framework would significantly contribute to political stability in the Indian Ocean region, which serves as a strategic fulcrum for global trade and security. Situated across the Palk Strait, Tamil Nadu plays an instrumental role. Its approximately 1,000 km coastline, 80 million population, and USD 420 billion economy (nearly 10 per cent of India’s GDP) underpin vital sectors such as automotive manufacturing, IT services, pharmaceuticals, agriculture, textiles, and leather exports. Tamil Nadu’s political orientation often shapes New Delhi’s electoral calculus; its historic parliamentary sweep in the 2024 general elections, securing all 39 electoral seats, demonstrates the state’s pivotal influence. Consequently, Tamil Nadu State Assembly’s resolutions[^3] calling for justice for Genocide and self-determination for Eelam Tamils are not only morally grounded but also strategically essential for both India’s internal cohesion and the broader Indo-Pacific order. Global powers invested in a multipolar world must thus recognize and address the Tamil issue in the island of Sri Lanka as both a legal and strategic priority, as reflected in the State Assembly’s resolution calling for justice and self-determination for Eelam Tamils. To give substance to this call, it is imperative to set out clear pathways for international accountability that respond to the urgent demands of the Eelam
Tamil people and rectify decades of failed justice initiatives. The following key positions derived from extensive consultations with the above-mentioned Eelam Tamil homeland stakeholders and legal experts outline a principled strategy to address Sri Lanka’s state and individual responsibility for Eelam Tamil genocide under international law. IIIM/IIMM Pathways
Proponents of an International Criminal Tribunal contend that the present OHCHR Sri Lanka Accountability Project (OSLAP), confined within OHCHR, is insufficient[^4] to address the full scope of obligations under the Genocide Convention, including its maximum temporal reach. For this reason, they also advocate for a full-fledged International, Impartial, and Independent Mechanism (IIIM) of the kind established for Syria, or an IIMM-type (Independent Investigative Mechanism for Myanmar) mandate, to be created for Sri Lanka[^5]. State Responsibility on Genocide at the ICJ
Almost all homeland representatives stress that the time has come for Member States to earnestly consider bringing Sri Lanka before the International Court of Justice to determine a case on genocide[^6]. Addressing state responsibility through the ICJ is indispensable, as it provides a forum for determining violations of obligations erga omnes and erga omnes partes under the Genocide Convention. This path is seen as essential to ensure that Sri Lanka, as a State, is held accountable for genocide, complementing but not replacing the pursuit of individual criminal responsibility. The Eelam Tamils have openly identified the crime of genocide inflicted upon them, a process that intensified after the so-called independence and that, from 1956 onward, was pursued as a matter of state policy, as identified by the late leader of the ITAK, Thanthai S.J.V. Chelvanayagam. The Trincomalee Resolution of the ITAK (Federal Party) proclaimed on 19th
August, 1956: The promulgation of the Sinhalese Only Act in the teeth of the unanimous opposition of all Members of Parliament representing Tamil-speaking constituencies and its imposition on a totally unwilling people indicates clearly that the policy of the Government is to perpetrate the genocide of a people, whose history in this country is as ancient and as glorious as that of the Sinhalese.[^7]
This was one of the first warnings to the international community on the part of the Eelam Tamils that genocide was to follow the Sinhala Only policy. On 27 March 2013, the State Assembly in the neighbouring Tamil Nadu, a State in the Indian Union, passed a unanimous resolution demanding international investigations into genocide. A few days before that, on 18 March 2013, the late Selvi J. Jayalalithaa, then Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu, wrote to the late Dr. Manmohan Singh, then Prime Minister of India, highlighting the shortcomings of the draft resolution about to be tabled at the 22nd UN Human Rights Council session. She made a specific reference as follows: In operative para 1, there should be an unequivocal call for a credible, independent, international mechanism to prosecute genocide, war crimes and war criminals, and the accused should stand trial before an International Court.[^8]
In the same letter, she had also stated that there should be a strong call to the Government of Sri Lanka to accept the establishment of an impartial, international institution. In November 2013, the Permanent Peoples’ Tribunal (PPT), a Rome-based international tribunal of public opinion, in its second session on Sri Lanka held in Bremen, Germany, reached a unanimous consensus in finding the Sri Lankan state guilty of the crime of genocide against Eelam Tamils. Note the terminology Eelam Tamils and not merely Tamils, which was explained explicitly in the Tribunal’s verdict[^9]. Regarding the characterization of the victims as belonging to a particular national, ethnical, racial or religious group population, the Tribunal specifies that the victims are in this case the Eelam Tamils as a national group.[^10]
In 2015, Northern Provincial Council passed a unanimous resolution, titled “Sri Lanka’s Genocide Against Tamils,” emphasising the need to assess the genocide over six decades: Sri Lanka’s historic violations include over 60 years of state-sponsored anti-Tamil pogroms, massacres, sexual violence, and acts of cultural and linguistic destruction perpetrated by the state. These atrocities have been perpetrated with the intent to destroy the Tamil people and therefore constitute genocide.[^11]
ICT/ICC and Pre-2002 Crimes
Within this consensus on Justice for Eelam Tamil Genocide, different perspectives exist on the path forward. Some emphasize the necessity of a referral to the International Criminal Court (ICC)[^12] through the UN Security Council. Others, adopting what they describe as a pragmatic approach due to the threat of Vetoes[^13] at UNSC, argue that the international community must persuade the incumbent Sri Lankan government itself to become a State Party to the Rome Statute. Another concern, explicitly and implicitly raised by many, is that the ICC lacks the necessary temporal jurisdiction to address crimes committed before 1 July 2002, such as those linked to the killing fields of Chemmani, Thirukkeatheesvaram, Kokkuththoduvaay, 1983 Black July state-sponsored Anti-Tamil pogrom and the many mass graves that continue to be uncovered[^14] – corroborating patterns of genocidal intent. The discovery of such overwhelming evidence provides compelling basis to establish an effective mechanism with jurisdiction to investigate, prosecute and adjudicate those most responsible and therefore call for the establishment of a Special International Criminal Tribunal. Universal Jurisdiction and Its Limitations on Accountability for Genocide
At the same time, Universal Jurisdiction litigations are being promoted by those who have little confidence that the ICC, ICT, or ICJ avenues will materialize in practice. In this broader context, almost all homeland representatives across the spectrum categorically reject any hybrid tribunal in which the Sri Lankan State plays a role. While Universal Jurisdiction allows States to prosecute individuals for heinous crimes regardless of where they were committed, it does not impose a binding duty on States to prosecute or extradite such individuals. In the United Kingdom, for example, the International Criminal Court Act 2001 — which replaced the Genocide Act 1969 — limits domestic jurisdiction over genocide to offences committed after its enactment and only by UK citizens or residents. The UK Government’s stated position is that genocide is not an offence under customary international law that can be prosecuted without statutory authority, thereby restricting its applicability.[^15] These limitations, combined with the very high legal threshold for proving genocidal intent, make Universal Jurisdiction too limited to deliver justice for the genocide committed against Eelam Tamils in Sri Lanka.
Comparative practice confirms this: even in countries where Universal Jurisdiction exists (e.g., France, Spain, Belgium, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Canada), it is usually constrained by “presence” or “residency” requirements, temporal non-retroactivity, subsidiarity or “link” tests, and executive gatekeeping. To be effective, it must be preceded by a truly independent and impartial international Monitoring, Reporting, and Fact-Finding (MRF)[^16] mission — with the correct subject-matter and temporal scope. This should then be followed either by a plausibility ruling at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) or by the detection of a similar pattern through criminal prosecution at the ICC or an International Criminal Tribunal (ICT). In the case of Sri Lanka’s genocide against Eelam Tamils, addressing State Responsibility especially is equally important to addressing individual criminal accountability and any one of these measures can never be bartered away for the other. Additionally, there is a well-established NGO line already pursuing the Universal Jurisdiction-based roadmap, which victims see as a complementary measure.[^17] Even if only a few individuals are prosecuted abroad, many war criminals will remain beyond the reach of justice, leaving the United Nations’ erga omnes obligations from its 2008–2009 inaction unfulfilled.
Furthermore, Universal Jurisdiction will not address the crime of genocide without a proper UN fact-finding process and/or a subsequent assessment initiated by an international court beforehand to evaluate the plausibility of genocide, which in itself requires a formal legal determination. Thematic UN Special Rapporteurs — whether on human rights and fundamental freedoms or on extrajudicial, summary, or arbitrary executions — are also inadequate to fulfil this requirement. Similarly, the Office of the Special Adviser on the Prevention of Genocide (OSAPG) has a limited mandate, primarily focused on early warning and prevention, and lacks the authority or capacity to conduct a comprehensive legal analysis of past genocide cases. Evidence and scope demanding action
Our repeated calls for an independent international investigation into the genocide committed against the Eelam Tamil civilians are rooted in the urgent need for lasting protection, guarantees against future violence, and full accountability for mass atrocities. We recognise that only a State can initiate genocide proceedings before the ICJ. Therefore, we urge Member States, in their discussions on the High Commissioner’s report, to explicitly call for the creation of a mechanism to collect, safeguard, and analyse evidence concerning the plausibility of genocide, ensuring it is accessible for any State considering legal action before the ICJ. So far, UN-led findings have concluded that crimes against humanity and war crimes were committed, especially in the final stage of the war.
However, the war itself resulted from a protracted genocide, characterised by entrenched cultural and structural discrimination, as well as state-sponsored pogroms, which predate both the 2002 Rome Statute and the peace process. UN-led MRF missions applied to our situation hitherto have not employed the necessary temporal scope nor the level of independence required to assess the plausibility of genocide, particularly concerning the mental element of special intent (dolus specialis). As a result, the body of evidence collected so far has focused almost exclusively on two categories of international crimes, without adequate integration of the wider subject matter and temporal context. Before advancing to the prosecution step, this evidentiary foundation must be strengthened to address the above-mentioned broader scope— or, failing that, international courts must ensure that at the prosecution stage, the most serious crime is not overlooked. The recent discovery of mass graves at Chemmani and other sites, many of which predate 2002, highlights the urgent need for international efforts to tackle the main crime and the underlying cause of the war.
The island of Sri Lanka currently remains in a post-war, not post-conflict, situation. Any measures taken by the current regime to address these issues could easily be reversed by a future government — as has happened repeatedly in the past. This fact highlights the need for credible, independent, and irreversible international mechanisms. Meanwhile, Eelam Tamils in the North-East continue to live under heavy militarisation, with armed forces that are almost entirely non-Tamil. This military presence functions as collective punishment and poses constant risks — including intimidation, arbitrary violence, and even military interactions with preschool children. For the nearly two million Eelam Tamils in these regions, genuine protection can only come through a political solution that fully accommodates the right of self-determination, ensures irreversible political power, and provides robust international protection. The ongoing dispossession of Tamil land, particularly at sites of cultural heritage, must also be urgently addressed.
Under the guise of archaeological excavation, military-run outfits and allied Buddhist monks are constructing Sinhala-Buddhist structures, intimidating local Tamils, and erasing cultural heritage. Court orders are ignored, leaving only protests as a recourse. This constitutes cultural genocide and must be met with strong censure from the United Nations and its Member States. Other grave crimes requiring international investigation and prosecution include war crimes, crimes against humanity, and enforced disappearances — including the above-mentioned discovery of mass graves such as at Chemmani. Given the temporal limitations of the International Criminal Court, we urge the establishment of a dedicated International Criminal Tribunal for Sri Lanka (ICT), similar to the ICTR.[^18] In the case of Chemmani and other mass graves, immediate deployment of independent international forensic experts is essential to secure evidence and protect the integrity of future prosecutions. In accordance with international justice procedures as outlined in The Bournemouth Protocol on Mass Grave Protection and Investigation, all such actions must be carried out entirely independent of Sri Lanka, with binding safeguards, to ensure they remain beyond the sovereignty of Sri Lanka. At the same time, the international community must also provide technical assistance to the victims, enabling them to pursue their own justice mechanisms. We therefore respectfully urge Your Excellencies to: Reject any primary reliance on domestic mechanisms as the main vehicle for accountability; instead, establish independent international justice processes for Sri Lanka’s jus cogens crimes, including a clear roadmap for initiating proceedings before the International Court of Justice to address the crime of genocide. While emphasising to the Sri Lankan state the need for necessary reforms as a last resort (ultimum remedium), such reforms must never substitute for, or delay, independent international accountability processes.
Explicitly call, through a new resolution, for the creation of a mechanism to collect, safeguard, and analyse evidence concerning the plausibility of genocide. The current OHCHR Sri Lanka Accountability Project (OSLAP) faces structural, mandate, and financial challenges. Consequently, most civil society groups in the homeland of Eelam Tamils advocate for establishing an IIIM-type (International, Impartial, and Independent Mechanism, as set up for Syria) or an IIMM-type (Independent Investigative Mechanism for Myanmar) mandate for Sri Lanka. This would involve gathering, preserving, and analysing evidence of all international crimes, including genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes. Such a mechanism could also establish a credible repository of case files, meeting the requisite standards of proof, which is essential since the crime of genocide requires conclusive evidence of intent, for use in prosecutions before international tribunals or courts exercising universal jurisdiction outside Sri Lanka. If this proves infeasible, the scope, mandate, and independence of the OSLAP should be expanded and upgraded to facilitate fact-finding into genocidal intent and other international crimes, with full temporal coverage and the development of case files for legal test and prosecution. In such a case, the OSLAP should be transformed into a standalone investigative unit with its own leadership, operating independently.
Urge the willing States to pursue accountability for genocide in Sri Lanka by initiating proceedings before the International Court of Justice under the Genocide Convention. In parallel, adopt a resolution at the UNHRC recommending that the UNSC establish a Special Tribunal (ICT-style and not Hybrid) for Sri Lanka with retroactive jurisdiction over crimes committed before 1 July 2002, or, if the ICC can lawfully exercise jurisdiction, to refer the case to the International Criminal Court. In either pathway, it is essential that prosecuting authorities thoroughly examine the mental element of genocidal intent and related crimes, ensuring that limited existing evidence does not preclude a comprehensive assessment of the State’s responsibility.
Insist the Sri Lankan State to implement immediate, conducive measures that do not run contrary to, or diminish, the international accountability processes requested herein: demilitarise the North-East; end what is perceived as cultural or structural genocide, including land grabs; return dispossessed lands to their rightful owners; release Tamil political prisoners, and establish the truth regarding those subjected to extrajudicial enforced disappearance or summary execution. The continued failure of the international community to hold Sri Lanka accountable has effectively given a green light to ongoing acts amounting to cultural genocide against Eelam Tamils, making such measures even more urgent. The Sri Lankan state needs to be pressurised to hold long-overdue Provincial Council (even though the PC is not a substitute for a political solution) elections to restore democratic governance and implement the recommendations in A/HRC/60/21 where they align with, and support, the objectives outlined in this letter.
Call upon the International Community to pursue a political solution through a new constitution that acknowledges the Eelam Tamil nation’s non-derogable sovereignty, respects the right to self-determination, and ensures substantial political power. This requires dismantling the current hierarchical conception of the state through a pre-constitutional agreement in the form of a treaty that guarantees an irreversible high degree of self-government to the self-determining unit (whether described as a sovereign compact, confederation or autonomous region) in the North-East, under strong international safeguards, with the option of binding international arbitration to ensure compliance. Such a process must not be supported if it diminishes or compromises the rights and security of Tamils. Suppose such a settlement fails or is not honoured. In that case, the option of an UN-monitored referendum should be retained to ascertain the will of the Eelam Tamils, who have enjoyed sovereignty for centuries without ceding it to the Sinhala nation, whether through consent or conquest. Therefore, the Constitution shall not contain a clause declaring the state indivisible. We also point out that many homeland-based activists, dignitaries, and representatives have opposed the 6th Amendment to the existing constitution[^19].
A Political Track for Tamil Sovereignty: Jus Cogens Justice and Geopolitical Realignment
The Eelam Tamils’ struggle is rooted in unfinished decolonization, denied sovereignty, and the jus cogens right to self-determination. This diaspora joint call outlines the legal, political, and geopolitical foundations for remedial sovereignty, drawing on international precedents and the Tamil people’s continuous democratic mandates. It further highlights how Sri Lanka’s 6th Amendment to the Constitution, reinforced by the Prevention of Terrorism Act, criminalized the peaceful advocacy of self-determination in violation of the ICCPR, shutting down democratic expression. It calls on the international community to recognize the Eelam Tamil homeland and, failing a just political solution, to pave the way for an internationally supervised referendum. It remains legally and procedurally possible to revive a decolonization claim for a people or nation that was never listed as a Non-Self-Governing Territory, by challenging the restrictive “Blue Water” doctrine and invoking UN General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV)[^20]. Such a claim would require strong geopolitical sponsorship and, in practice, an ICJ advisory opinion to overcome historical exclusion.
The precedent of Mauritius and the Chagos Archipelago confirms that even after half a century, the UN and ICJ can affirm that decolonization was incomplete and that colonial detachment or annexation does not extinguish the right to self-determination. The case of the Eelam Tamils illustrates this unfinished decolonization: their historic kingdom was forcibly merged with the other two kingdoms of Ceylon in 1833 by the British for administrative convenience, without consent and without any subsequent social contract with the Sinhalese majority. After independence, the Eelam Tamils’ appeals for balanced representation and federal arrangements were denied, and instead they were subjected to structural, cultural, and physical genocide by the majoritarian state. This suppression was entrenched in law when, on August 8, 1983, Sri Lanka enacted the 6th Amendment to its Constitution, which flagrantly violates the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR, in force since March 23, 1976). By criminalizing the peaceful advocacy of self-determination, it stripped elected representatives of their mandates and imposed severe civic disabilities solely for holding a political opinion. The 6th Amendment effectively served as the precursor to the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA), institutionalizing repression and closing the door to non-violent democratic expression.
Having exhausted peaceful avenues, the Eelam Tamils embraced democratically mandated national liberation, established a de facto state, and demonstrated their capacity for sovereignty through functioning institutions, only to be crushed in the genocidal war of 2009. Since then, impunity and sham constitutional processes have entrenched a unitary framework under the so-called “indivisible and undivided Sri Lanka,” while structural and cultural genocide continues. The Tamil people have continually re-mandated their right to sovereignty across generations and geographies: from the Vaddukkoaddai Resolution of 1976 and the subsequent 1977 democratic mandate, through the Thimphu Principles of 1985, to the Pongku Thamizh student-led movement of the early 2000s and its declarations. After 2009, the Tamil diaspora carried this forward through self-organised referendums in ten host countries[^21]. In 2010, the Eelam Tamil diaspora also established the Transnational Government of Tamil Eelam (TGTE)[^22] and set up country-specific councils in North America and Europe. Furthermore, the diaspora youth articulated Tamil Sovereignty Cognition in 2012.
The diaspora re-mandating was further reinforced in 2013 by the Tamil Nadu State Assembly resolution, which demanded a UN-conducted referendum on an independent Tamil Eelam, marking the first such legislative endorsement from a neighboring polity. Together, these steps show that the claim to sovereignty is not episodic. Still, a sustained, democratically renewed political will of the Tamil nation, validated both in the homeland and across its global diaspora. Crucially, the ICJ has recognized that self-determination is a jus cogens norm, erga omnes in character, which cannot be derogated from. For a people who never acceded their sovereignty and have sacrificed greatly for its restoration, and who have faced genocide when denied it, the claim to remedial sovereignty is not only a political demand but a binding obligation on the international community under peremptory international law. To advance such a claim, the Tamils must situate their struggle within the shifting global balance: the emergence of a stronger Global South opens space for new alliances that can reframe unfinished decolonization as part of a wider anti-imperialist agenda. While the the group of Cochair Countries that were involved in the peace process and steer the agenda at the Human Rights Council through Core Group on Sri Lanka post-2009 has historically contained Tamil national liberation, the global Tamil diaspora now offers the capacity to engage multiple poles of power. By adopting a posture of neutrality and aligning with movements for global justice, the Tamils can reposition their demand for remedial sovereignty not merely as a regional grievance, but as part of the universal, jus cogens obligation to uphold self-determination and remedy genocide.
The Eelam Tamils’ historical and traditional homeland, their nationhood, and their right to self-determination must be formally recognized. An irreversible political solution must be secured without delay through the arbitration of the international community. If such a solution cannot be achieved or implemented within a reasonable timeframe, the international community must pave the way for an internationally supervised referendum. This referendum would allow the Tamil people to freely determine their own destiny and establish a just and lasting solution that ensures their right to govern themselves in peace, dignity, and security. If the West fails to seek genocide justice and continues to suppress the Tamil aspiration, this demand will only grow stronger, embraced with greater determination by the global Tamil diaspora and, in time, by Tamil Nadu itself We trust that Your Excellencies will act with urgency and resolve to ensure that justice, accountability, and lasting protection for Tamils on the island of Sri Lanka are no longer deferred. We would also be grateful if Your Excellencies could kindly share your response with us at jointcall@tamildiaspora.org We have attached seven supporting documents (Annexes I–VII) providing further detail and evidence in support of the positions outlined above.
Yours respectfully,
The undersigned Tamil Diaspora Organizations:
UK: Tamil Information Centre (TIC)
USA: Ilankai Tamil Sangam USA, Inc.
USA: Atlanta Thamizhar Peravai
Norway: Norwegian Council of Eelam Tamils
Switzerland: Tamil Youth Organization
Canada: National Council of Canadian Tamils
Canada: Canadians for justice and equality
USA: Tamil Movement of America, Connecticut
UK: Tamils for Labour
UK: Alliance for Development of Tamil Language, Culture and Heritage
UK: British Tamil Conservatives
UK: ICPPG for Prevention and Prosecution of Genocide
France: La Maison du Tamil Eelam
Canada: Alliance Creative Community Project
Canada: International United Women Federation
France: Association Culturelle des Tamouls en France (ECOSOC status)
France: Actions Ecologiques Francaises (ECOSOC status)
France: Association Pour le Droit de l’Homme et le Développement Durable (ECOSOC status)
France: Association Les Caribous Libérés (ECOSOC status)
France: Agaram
Norway: Eelam-Tamilsk Solidaritetsfront (ETS)
Canada: Tamil Rights Group
Malaysia: Malaysian Tamilsamayam Peravai
Malaysia: Pertubuhan Transformasi Sosial Dan Masyarakat
Malaysia: Tamilology Research Organization of Malaysia
Malaysia: Naam Tamil Association Malaysia
Switzerland: International Institute of Tamil Arts
France: Association des Droits de L’HOMME
Switzerland: A.Jeyanathan
Switzerland: ITC
Australia: Political wing of tamil eelam
UK: Arulmihu Muthumari Amman Temple, Croydon
UK: Nadarajar Temple
UK: Alliance for Development of Tamil Language, Culture and Heritage
France: La Maison du Tamil Eelam
Canada: Alliance Creative Community Project
Canada: International United Women Federation
France: Association Culturelle des Tamouls en France (ECOSOC status)
France: Actions Ecologiques Francaises (ECOSOC status)
France: Association Pour le Droit de l’Homme et le Développement Durable (ECOSOC status)
France: Association Les Caribous Libérés (ECOSOC status)
France: Agaram
Norway: Eelam-Tamilsk Solidaritetsfront (ETS)
UK: Justice for the Tamil people in Sri Lanka
Kuwait: TMCA – Tamil Nadu Muslim Cultural Association (Kuwait)
Kuwait: Dhiravidar Kazhagam (Kuwait)
Kuwait: MIDA-Kuwait (Non-Kuwait)
Kuwait: Thamilan Vedi Kolagam – Payilagam And O.Kuwait
Kuwait: Vellimadu Thamizhar Nara Ponniyam (Kuwait)
Kuwait: D.M.K – Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (Kuwait)
Kuwait: ADMK
Kuwait: Helping Hands – Uthavum Karangal (Kuwait)
Kuwait: DMDK – Desia Murpokku Dravida Kazhagam
Kuwait: TKMCA, Humanitarian Cultural Association (MTK)
Kuwait: MIDA-Kuwait
Kuwait: Thamilan VettiKolagam – Payilagam And O.Kuwait
Kuwait: Dhiravidar Munnetra Kazhagam (Kuwait)
Kuwait: Viduthalai Chiruthaigal Katchi (Kuwait)
…
###