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

Select target paragraph3