CCPR/C/120/D/2256/2013
The facts as submitted by the author
2.1
The author is an Indian Tamil. On 12 August 2001, when she was 17 years old, she
was abducted by two Sinhalese men on her way home from Sunday school in the town of
Talawakelle in Nuwara Eliya District, Central Province, Sri Lanka. She was raped by both
men inside their car between 2 and 6 p.m. She alleges that Indian Tamils living on tea
plantations, such as the author and her family, are historically the most marginalized and
socially and economically disadvantaged minority in Sri Lanka.
2.2
On 14 August 2001, the author filed, at the Talawakelle police station, a complaint
for rape. She was forced to make her statement through an unofficial interpreter translating
into Sinhala, since no facilities to record her statement in Tamil were provided, even though
Tamil is an official language of Sri Lanka.2 The author was then taken to Kotagala hospital
and subsequently to Nuwara Eliya hospital, from where she was discharged on 16 August
2001. The medical records indicated that it was “a case of rape”.3
2.3
The victim identified both perpetrators, who were arrested on 18 August 2001 and
held on police remand. The magistrates’ court of Nuwara Eliya initiated non-summary
proceedings following the author’s complaint. On 28 August 2001, both suspects were
released on bail. During the hearing, the defendants’ counsel publicly referred to the author
as a professional prostitute; no judge took action to protect the dignity of the author as a
victim of rape, despite being urged to do so by the author’s counsel. Such attitudes
reinforced the stigma attached to the author as a woman victim of rape in a conservative
society. No mention was made during the proceedings of the fact that she was a minor at
the time of the offence.
2.4
In 2005, after more than three years, the magistrates’ court concluded that there was
sufficient evidence to charge the alleged perpetrators and referred the case to the Attorney
General. On 23 October 2006, both suspects were indicted by the High Court of Kandy
under sections 357 and 364 (2) (G), read together with section 32, of the Penal Code.4
2.5
On 26 March 2007, the High Court approved new bail conditions for the suspects,
and on 27 April 2007, they were released on bail again. On 18 October 2007, the case was
called for trial, but the hearing was postponed as the prosecution had failed to produce all
the evidence on time.
2.6
The proceedings were then adjourned: on 1 February 2008, due to the absence of the
presiding judge; on 30 May 2008, due to the absence of the prosecuting State counsel; on
30 January 2009, due to the absence of a permanent judge; and on 15 May 2009, due to the
fact that all the evidence had not yet been received by the court. On 19 October 2009, it was
decided that the case had to be transferred to the new High Court of Nuwara Eliya, which
had just been established.
2.7
The new High Court was formally seized of the case early in 2010. On 12 July 2010,
the case was called for trial, but the hearing was postponed due to delays in the transfer of
the case. On 5 October 2010, the case was adjourned because one of the accused failed to
present himself in court. On 20 April 2011, the process was postponed again at the request
of a lawyer of one of the accused. The presentation of evidence started on 14 June 2011,
and was ongoing at the time of submission of the complaint to the Committee.5 The author
never failed to attend hearings, and she has not been responsible for any of the delays in the
proceedings. In 2004, the author lodged a civil claim for damages, which is also still
pending before the District Court of Nuwara Eliya.
2
3
4
5
2
Sections 109 and 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provide that victims should be allowed to
receive information in a language they understand and to give their statement in writing in the
language of their choice.
Medical records issued by the Nuwara Eliya hospital on 15 August 2001.
Section 357 of the Penal Code prohibits illicit intercourse; section 364 (2) (G) provides for the
punishment of gang rape, and section 32 specifies that when a criminal act is done by several persons
in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same
manner as if it were done by him alone.
The file does not contain any updates on the current status of the domestic proceedings.