Amnesty International's response to the assassination, serves to draw attention to the international significance of the role that Neelan Thiruchelvam had carved out for himself. Amnesty declared on 29 July 1999:

"Amnesty International today strongly condemned the assassination of Tamil Member of Parliament (MP), Neelan Thiruchelvam, and paid tribute to him as a politician who contributed greatly to his country.... A constitutional lawyer, Neelan Thiruchelvam entered parliament in August 1994 as a member of the TULF, a moderate Tamil party. He was a member of the parliamentary select committee on constitutional reforms, which devised an autonomy devolution package for north-eastern Sri Lanka. The package was aimed at settling the 16-year-old armed conflict between the Sri Lanka Government and the LTTE, who are fighting for a separate Tamil state called Eelam in north-eastern Sri Lanka..." (News Release Issued by the International Secretariat of Amnesty International News Service: 144/99 - AI INDEX: ASA 37/19/99)

Amnesty's condemnation of the assassination may be understandable - as the act was an unlawful act within the framework of the Sri Lankan legal frame. But Amnesty's tribute to Neelan Thiruchelvam 'as a politician who contributed greatly to his country' exposes Amnesty's own political standpoint.

In what did the greatness of Neelan Thiruchelvam's political contribution lie? Amnesty's evaluation of  that political contribution was at best, economical with truth.

Amnesty failed to state

That Amnesty failed to address these matters, may be because these 'political' issues were outside its 'human rights' remit. But, if that be the case, it was equally true that  Amnesty's tribute to Neelan Thiruchelvam 'as a politician who contributed greatly to his country' also went outside its 'human rights' remit, and conflicted with  its oft stated position that it does not 'take sides' in the conflict in the island.

The result is that Amnesty's 'political' assessment is partial - and therefore, misleading.