CCPR/C/132/D/2508/2014 Advance unedited version
3.3
He alleges that his arrest was arbitrary under article 9 (1) and (2) of the Covenant since
there was no lawful basis for his detention and he was not informed immediately of the
reasons for his arrest. He notes that he only learnt that he had been accused of possessing a
firearm and a hand grenade when he was transferred to the Matara hospital on 1 March 2008.
Furthermore, he was not brought promptly before a court and his counsel was not provided
with the records of his case until 1 March 2008. He argues that in practice, he was deprived
of his right to have the lawfulness of his detention reviewed by a court in violation of article
9 (4) of the Covenant.
3.4
The author claims that his ill-treatment in police custody constituted unlawful
differential treatment in breach of article 26 of the Covenant. In this respect, he argues that
detainees are more likely to be subjected to torture with impunity than any other group of
persons and that there is no reasonable and objective justification for such inequality, which
amounts to discrimination on the basis of his prisoner status.
3.5
Lastly, the author argues that the State party has failed to provide a prompt,
independent and impartial investigation into his allegations of torture and that perpetrators
were not brought to justice, which constitutes a violation of articles 2 (3) in conjunction with
articles 7, 9 and 26 of the Covenant. He holds that domestic procedures are unreasonably
long and ineffective. The two criminal cases launched under the Act on Torture against the
police officers are awaiting the determination of the Attorney General even more than
thirteen years after the events. He claims that the widespread practice of non-prosecution or
selective prosecution of perpetrators of torture is contrary to the absolute prohibition of
torture, the obligation of the State party to investigate such complaints and breaches the
principle of equality before law. He further argues that he fears to take any other legal action
against the police since the officers implicated in the events remained in their positions.2
3.6
In his submission dated 15 July 2020, the author maintained his position that the
violation of his rights remains in impunity. He argues that despite the decisions issued by the
Supreme Court and the Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka in favour of some aspects
of his case, the findings of facts were narrow, the responsibility established of those involved
in the events was limited in scope, and the compensation awarded did not take into account
the seriousness of the violation of his rights. Although the Supreme Court’s ruling recognized
that the lack of medical assistance to the author while in police custody had constituted torture
and inhuman treatment, the Court did not address the author’s arbitrary arrest and other forms
of violence he had been subjected to. Furthermore, the Supreme Court failed to order the
competent authorities to bring perpetrators to justice in line with article 2 (3) of the Covenant.
The only person who had been found responsible for the violation of the author’s rights is
deceased, and no one has been convicted of any crime in criminal proceedings. The author
further submits that his case is not an isolated one because the culture of impunity is directly
attributable to the entire criminal justice system of the State party. Sri Lanka’s Attorney
General and the judiciary are reluctant to investigate and prosecute allegations of torture, the
competent authorities lack independence. Furthermore, those who pursue their claims may
be subjected to acts of reprisals. The author argues that the measures taken so far to combat
impunity are insufficient. 3 The author further submits that according to the findings of the
Committee Against Torture only 17 cases of torture have been filed under the Convention
against Torture Act since 2012 and only 2 have resulted in convictions, suggesting that only
a small number of allegations of torture have actually been investigated. The Committee
noted with concern the considerable discrepancy between the low number of complaints of
torture reportedly received by the police since 2012 (150 cases) and the high number of
2
3
4
The author claims that because of his previous complaints he had been detained unlawfully and
accused of false charges in 2011 and 2012. Four out of six fabricated charges have already been
dismissed by courts. The communication does not provide further details in this regard.
The author refers to the Report of the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or
degrading treatment or punishment on his Mission to Sri Lanka (A/HRC/34/54/Add.2) and the Report
of the Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers on Her Mission to Sri Lanka
(A/HRC/35/31/Add.1).