Advance unedited version CCPR/C/132/D/2508/2014
2.8
On 23 August 2008, the Deputy Inspector General of Police brought a report to the
National Police Commission and recommended that disciplinary and criminal actions should
be taken against policemen of the Pitabaddara police station for misbehaviour and violations
of the author’s human rights, under the Penal Code and under Act 22 of 1994 on Torture. In
parallel, criminal charges were brought against Mr P.V.Ch. for pouring acid onto the author’s
face. Although he was initially detained; he was later released on the condition of signing
two personal bonds and was never tried in court.
2.9
On 27 February 2009, the Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka published its final
recommendations on the matter. It held that the failure of the officer-in-charge and the other
police officers to take legal action against Mr. P.V.Ch. amounted to a violation of article 12
(1) of Sri Lanka’s Constitution, which provides that all persons are equal before the law and
are entitled to the equal protection of the law. The Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka
recommended that compensation be paid in the amount of 5000 Sri Lankan rupees
(approximately 50 US dollars) and in order to obtain such compensation the author is to file
a claim for damages in a court of law. The decision did not address, however, the author’s
allegations of torture by the police officers, his arbitrary arrest and the fabricated charges
brought against him.
2.10 In addition, in February 2009, the author’s father submitted, on behalf of his son, a
constitutional complaint to the Supreme Court under article 126 of the Sri Lankan
Constitution claiming violations of articles 11, 12 (1), 13 (1) and (2) of the Sri Lankan
Constitution.
2.11 On an unspecified date in 2009, the author also submitted an action for compensation
in the Morawaka District Court.
2.12 On 15 July 2020, the author provided up-to-date information about the status of the
domestic proceedings and informed the Committee that there were two criminal cases
launched against the police officers under the Act on Torture before the Matara High Court.
Both cases were referred to the Attorney General for advice on 21 May 2019, however, his
instructions have not been received yet. Therefore, the cases are still pending more than
thirteen years after the events took place.
2.13 The author further informed the Committee that on 2 August 2016, the Supreme Court
delivered its judgment finding that the Pitabaddara police station’s failure to seek immediate
medical attention for the author, who had been severely injured, constituted cruel, inhuman
and degrading treatment. The Supreme Court considered that this was the sole responsibility
of the then officer-in-charge of the police station, the late Mr. K., who was also found
responsible for not having guaranteed the author’s right to equal protection of the law. The
Supreme Court held that the liability of other police officers who were only following the
orders of Mr. K. could not be established. The Supreme Court awarded the author
compensation in the amount of 200000 Sri Lankan rupees (approximately 1075 US dollars)
that was paid him.
2.14 Furthermore, the author informed that his civil compensation claim is still pending
before the Morawaka District Court.
Complaint
3.1
The author claims that his rights under articles 7, 9 and 26 taken alone and in
conjunction with article 2 (3) of the Covenant have been violated by the State party by failing
to conduct effective investigation into his torture claim and arbitrary detention and to bring
perpetrators to justice.
3.2
The author submits that he was severely beaten and tortured in other forms during his
arrest and detention, by and with the knowledge of police officers of the Pitabaddara police
station, in breach of article 7 of the Covenant. In this respect, he argues that the State party
not only violated its negative obligation under this provision, namely, not to subject the
author to torture by State actors, but also failed to respect its positive obligations including
the obligation to protect detainees from violence inflicted by private actors. In addition, he
was not provided with prompt and adequate medical care in spite of his repeated requests as
a result of which he endured severe pain and sustained permanent bodily injuries.
3