CAT/C/LKA/CO/3-4
very outset of their detention. The Committee is concerned that, despite the content of the
2006 Presidential Directives, criminal suspects held in custody still have no statutory right
to inform a family member of the arrest or to have prompt access to a lawyer of their
choice. The Code of Criminal Procedure also lacks other fundamental legal safeguards,
such as the right to have a lawyer present during any interrogation and to be assisted by an
interpreter and the right to confidential communication between lawyer and client. The
Committee notes with concern that access to a doctor is left to the discretion of the police
officer in charge of the police station. It also expresses concern about reports that police fail
to bring suspects before a judge within the time prescribed by law and that accused persons
are often not adequately informed about their rights. The Committee also expresses its
concern at the absence of a State-sponsored legal aid programme; and, at the variety of
institutional, technical and procedural obstacles rendering the writ of habeas corpus
ineffective (art. 2).
The State party should take prompt and effective measures to ensure, in law and in
practice, that all detainees are afforded all legal safeguards from the very outset of
their detention. These include, in particular, the rights of each detainee to be informed
of the reasons for his/her arrest, including of any charges against him/her; to have
prompt access to a lawyer and to consult privately with him/her and, when needed,
legal aid, as well as an independent medical examination, if possible by a doctor of
his/her choice; to notify a relative and to be informed of his/her rights; to have a
lawyer present during any interrogation by the police and to be assisted by an
interpreter; to be brought promptly before a judge and to have the lawfulness of
his/her detention reviewed by a court, in accordance with international instruments.
The State party should ensure that, when suspects are produced before the courts by
the police, magistrates always inquire whether the suspect was tortured or mistreated
by the police while in custody. The State party should ensure that public officials, in
particular judicial medical officers (JMO), prison doctors, prison officials and
magistrates who have reasons to suspect an act of torture or ill-treatment, record and
report any such suspected or claimed act to the relevant authorities.
Secret detention centres
8.
Notwithstanding the statement of the Sri Lankan delegation categorically denying all
allegations about the existence of unacknowledged detention facilities in its territory, the
Committee is seriously concerned about reports received from non-governmental sources
regarding secret detention centres run by the Sri Lankan military intelligence and
paramilitary groups where enforced disappearances, torture and extrajudicial killings have
allegedly been perpetrated (art. 2 and 11).
The State party should ensure that no one is detained in any secret detention centres,
as these facilities are per se a breach of the Convention. The State party should
investigate and disclose the existence of any such facilities and the authority under
which any of them has been established. The State party should also ensure that the
results of the investigation are made public. It should abolish any such facilities and
any perpetrators found responsible should be held accountable.
Enforced disappearances
9.
While welcoming the State party’s Supreme Court judgement in Kanapathipillai
Machchavallavan v Officer in Charge Army Camp Plaintain Point, Trincomalee and Three
Others (2005), according to which enforced disappearance could constitute a violation of
article 13(4) of the Constitution, the Committee notes with concern that this reasoning has
not been reflected in more recent decisions. It also notes that that enforced disappearance is
not a separate offence under Sri Lankan criminal law and that such acts are charged under
other crimes in the Penal Code, including kidnapping, abduction and wrongful
3