The Committee against Torture this morning began its consideration of the second periodic report of Sri Lanka on the efforts of that country to give effect to the provisions of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.

Sarala Fernando, Permanent Representative of Sri Lanka to the United Nations Office at Geneva, introduced the report, saying that Sri Lanka assiduously followed a tradition of close and constructive cooperation with all the human rights treaty bodies, as well as special procedure mechanisms of the Commission on Human Rights in a spirit of openness and constructive engagement. This tradition was maintained during the time of conflict and the extraordinary threat posed by terrorism in Sri Lanka. The national human rights protection system continued to strengthen, in line with Sri Lanka’s constitutional and international obligations as a party to 17 international human rights instruments. The Government of Sri Lanka was committed to ensuring that all allegations of torture were promptly, independently and effectively investigated and prosecuted.

Serving as Rapporteur for the report of Sri Lanka was Committee Expert Andreas Mavrommatis, who said that during his visit to Sri Lanka, he had concluded that there were serious violations of certain articles of the Convention in Sri Lanka, although these did not necessarily constitute torture. With regards to the Peace Agreement, this had put an end to the alleged violations of the Convention by the Army and also the Police connected with the emergency, and this was welcomed, and it was hoped further talks would be resumed, leading to a resolution of the problem. The number of torture incidents alleged against the army and navy had considerably dropped, and this was welcomed.

Ole Vedel Rasmussen, the Committee Expert serving as Co-Rapporteur for the report, said the key issue was to react on measures that needed to be changed. In order to prevent torture, there was a need to respect fundamental safeguards, and these included the right to inform relatives, to have a lawyer, to be seen by a doctor, and to be informed about rights, and it was appreciated that there were posters to this effect in three languages in police stations. However, there were allegations that these rights were not observed. The authorities should inquire into all reported cases of intimidation of witnesses, and install a witness protection programme in order to eliminate the climate of fear that existed, as had been recommended before, as numerous allegations were still being received by victims and their lawyers that they were being harassed and intimidated, with the result that many torture victims had withdrawn or not made complaints.

Other Committee Experts raised questions on issues pertaining to, among other things, whether there were any statistics on how many people had requested investigations, and how many indictments and convictions there had been; what procedures were in place to facilitate the monitoring of sexual violence and abuse in custody, and what was in place to facilitate the reporting of such cases; how many perpetrators of rape in custody had been brought to justice; a request for information on the actual mandate of the Human Rights Commission; and whether there were any mechanisms reported to have been created within the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) structure to deal with allegations of torture.

Also representing the delegation of Sri Lanka were representatives of the Solicitor-General and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

The delegation will return to the Committee at 3 p.m. on Friday, 11 November to provide its response to the questions raised this morning.

Sri Lanka is among the 140 States parties to the Convention and as such it must present periodic reports to the Committee on how it is implementing the provisions of the Convention.

When the Committee reconvenes at 3 p.m., it will hear the response of Nepal to questions raised by the Committee on 9 November.

Report of Sri Lanka

The second periodic report of Sri Lanka (CAT/C/48/Add.2) says the policy of Sri Lanka on torture is derived from the fundamental consideration that the promotion, fostering and protection of human rights is an obligation devolving on the State by virtue of the fact that Sri Lanka is party to 16 major international human rights conventions, including the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. In keeping with its policy on human rights, Sri Lanka has made sustained and determined efforts on a broad front, encompassing national and international means, to promote and protect human rights.

Act No. 22 of 1994 designates and defines torture as a specific crime. The High Court of Sri Lanka is vested with the jurisdiction for offences of torture committed by a Sri Lankan or a non-Sri Lankan in or outside the territory of the country. Criminal proceedings are instituted upon indictment being preferred against the accused by the Attorney-General. With the introduction of this Act the Extradition Law was also amended by designating the offence of torture as an extraditable offence under the Extradition Law in order to provide an “extradite or prosecute” regime, as envisaged in the Convention. The Government of Sri Lanka, taking serious note of the recent allegations regarding torture as well as deaths while in police custody, has introduced short- and long-term preventive mechanisms to address this issue.

Since the initial report under the Convention was submitted to the Committee against Torture in October 1997, significant developments have taken place in Sri Lanka in the promotion and protection of human rights. These developments include a drastic drop in reported cases concerning torture, as a result of numerous human rights protection mechanisms that the Government has put in place even before the signing of the memorandum of understanding between the Government of Sri Lanka and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam in February 2002.

The Inspector General of Police has reiterated that under no circumstances should any suspect be subjected to torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment while in police custody. Long-term preventive mechanisms include training and awareness programmes on human rights issues for police officers. The Government of Sri Lanka is committed to conducting prompt, impartial and comprehensive criminal investigations and domestic inquiries into all complaints and information received relating to the alleged perpetration of torture by public officials. The objective of conducting criminal investigations is to consider the institution of criminal proceedings. The objective of the conduct of domestic inquiries is to consider the adoption of necessary disciplinary action and the identification of suitable action for the prevention of such incidents in the future.

Presentation of Reports

SARALA FERNANDO, Permanent Representative of Sri Lanka to the United Nations Office at Geneva, said Sri Lanka regretted not being able to submit the second periodic report before the stipulated deadline, and this was due to extensive consultations that had taken place during its preparation, keeping in mind the need for a participatory approach involving a wide range of stakeholders. While all possible efforts were being made to submit periodic reports without delay, such delays were sometimes unavoidable. In a developing country with resource constraints, the enormous task of compiling periodic reports to all seven treaty monitoring bodies represented a considerable challenge.

Sri Lanka assiduously followed a tradition of close and constructive cooperation with all the human rights treaty bodies, as well as special procedure mechanisms of the Commission on Human Rights in a spirit of openness and constructive engagement. This tradition was maintained during the time of conflict and the extraordinary threat posed by terrorism in Sri Lanka. The national human rights protection system continued to strengthen, in line with Sri Lanka’s constitutional and international obligations as a party to 17 international human rights instruments. The Government of Sri Lanka was committed to ensuring that all allegations of torture were promptly, independently and effectively investigated and prosecuted.

The Constitution of Sri Lanka recognised freedom from torture as a fundamental right to which no restrictions could be placed. In this regard, judicial decisions of the Supreme Court had reaffirmed that freedom from torture was an entrenched provision of the Constitution, which could not be even amended or circumvented by a two-thirds majority in Parliament or by a referendum of the people. Since the signing of the Ceasefire Agreement in February 2002, the Government had taken a number of important steps towards the further promotion and protection of human rights. There had been no recent cases of disappearances linked to torture or any related allegations against the security forces. The Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka was a fully independent body, enjoying widespread support across the country, and it had declared a zero-tolerance policy against torture, and had fast tracked torture cases, established a special unit, and appointed special teams to make surprise visits to places of detention.

Despite significant steps that had been taken by the Government for the promotion and protection of human rights, extra-judicial killings and impunity for murder in areas under the control of the LTTE (Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam) remained a major challenge. It was a matter of concern that the majority of the violations of the Ceasefire Agreement fell under the category of human rights violations by the LTTE, in particular the odious practice of continued recruitment of under-age children as combatants.

Response by Delegation

The delegation responded to a series of written questions prepared by the Committee in advance and sent to the State party beforehand.

CHITTA RANJAN DE SILVA, Solicitor-General of Sri Lanka, speaking in an introductory statement, said that since the ceasefire, giant strides had been made in the promotion and protection of human rights. There had been a significant improvement in the human rights situation in Sri Lanka, including torture, due to the positive steps taken by the Government in prosecuting those guilty of torture and providing training to police officers and security officials.

Concerning a question on remedial action taken to comply with the recommendations of the Committee, Mr. De Silva said that since the signing of the Ceasefire, no person had been taken into custody in terms of the provisions of the Prevention of Terrorism Act. The State was committed to ensure that all allegations of torture were promptly, independently and effectively investigated and prosecuted. In addition to the many cases where disciplinary action had been initiated and charges under the Penal Code were framed against the alleged perpetrators, there had been over 50 cases of indictments under the domestic Torture Act. Statistics of complaints of torture and their investigation had revealed that a fair percentage of the complaints were false.

Asked about the recent developments in respect of the Peace Agreement, Mr. De Silva said in April 2003, the LTTE had left the peace talks, and despite efforts by the Government to revive direct talks, only brief negotiations were possible to set up the post-tsunami operations management structure. Since the signing of the Agreement, the Government had taken a number of important steps towards the further promotion and protection of human rights. The Emergency Regulations, which were reintroduced in the aftermath of the tsunami, enabled quick action on human rights issues such as the protection of children from trafficking. There were no reported arrests under the Emergency.

With regard to the measures taken to strengthen the independence of the Human Rights Commission, Mr. De Silva said it enjoyed the powers, privileges and independence associated with the Paris Principles. On what steps were being taken with regard to prevention, investigation, prosecution and punishment in response to allegations of torture, extra-judicial executions, disappearances and other violations of human rights, he said there had been no cases of disappearances linked to torture since 2002, but this did not cover the human rights violations in areas under the control of the LTTE. The Inter-Ministerial Working Group on Human Rights reviewed the progress monthly with regards to the investigations on alleged violations of all human rights.

Responding to a question on whether legislation prohibiting torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment contained specific provisions regarding gender-based breaches of the Convention, Mr. De Silva said that Act No.22 of 1995 made special provision in respect of custodial rape. The need for specific provisions regarding gender-based breaches of the Convention did not arise, as the present legal provisions were considered adequate. In every case where there was an allegation of torture, there was a parallel investigation even in cases where there was no legally-admissible evidence. A suspect who was a public official was not interdicted unless a prima facia case of torture was established. The In-Service Training Division of the police conducted divisional level awareness programmes throughout the year.

On the issue of allegations by international NGOs which expressed concern about torture in custody, including rape and other sexual violent acts against women, Mr. De Silva said these allegations were investigated, and perpetrators dealt with. Since March 2002, there had been no allegations of rape and other sexual violence against women in custody. When a prisoner was admitted to prison for the first time, he or she was physically examined for injuries, and called upon to attend an admission class where their rights and duties as an inmate of the prison were clarified. Any police officer who had credible information that a person had been subject to torture could initiate an investigation.

On the role of the National Police Commission with respect to complaints of torture and ill-treatment, Mr. De Silva said there was a Public Complaints Investigation Unit set up under the National Police Commission, with the task of entertaining complaints from the members of the public against police officers or the Police Department, and take appropriate action to either investigate or initiate investigations with the view of taking disciplinary action depending on the result of the investigations. In any case where a person had suffered injury at the hands of any public official, they were entitled to seek compensation through the civil courts, and the Supreme Court could grant compensation on a just and equitable basis in respect to persons whose fundamental rights had been violated.

In reply to a question requesting comment on the allegations by international NGOs which expressed concern about the continued recruitment of child soldiers by the LTTE, Mr. De Silva said the laws of Sri Lanka did not have any provision that allowed the armed forces to recruit anyone under 18 years of age. The recruitment of under-age children by the LTTE constituted over 50 per cent of the total violations of the Ceasefire Agreement. The issue of Sri Lanka’s ratification of the Optional Protocol to the Convention was under consideration by the Authorities, and a high-level committee would be appointed soon in order to make a recommendation on the question of the ratification of the Rome Statue. Sri Lanka had, from the outset, pledged its unstinted support for the work of the international community on measures to eliminate international terrorism.

Questions by Experts

ANDREAS MAVROMMATIS, the Committee Expert serving as Rapporteur for the report of Sri Lanka, said he hoped that next time there would be an input from non-governmental organizations in the report, which would perhaps make it more complete. He expressed his condemnation of the assassination of the Foreign Minister, as well as all assassinations by the LTTE, and their use of child soldiers. During his visit to the country, he had concluded that there were serious violations of certain articles of the Convention, although these did not necessarily constitute torture. The recommendations that arose from the visit had been addressed, but further examination was required. With regards to the Peace Agreement, this had put an end to the alleged violations of the Convention by the Army and also the Police connected with the emergency, and this was welcomed, and it was hoped further talks would be resumed, leading to a resolution of the problem.

On the replies that had been received in writing, Mr. Mavrommatis said that with reference to the Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka, it was clear that there was a political volition to do the job effectively, and it was hoped there would be considerable improvement. On article 3 of the Convention, which created an absolute prohibition, the delegation’s reply was insufficient, as it said there were no instances, and the Committee wanted to know if there were instruments and legal provisions in place to deal with the issue of deportation. Following the Peace Agreement, which allowed even leaders of LTTE to fly in and out from the Colombo airport, Mr. Mavrommatis asked for confirmation of this provision.

The number of torture incidents alleged against the army and navy had considerably dropped, and this was welcomed by the Committee, Mr. Mavrommatis said. A number of measures, institutions and mechanisms had been installed, but there were still reports of recurring incidents of torture, and these were not apparently isolated, but reports indicated that they were routine. The National Human Rights Commission had probably identified some of the reasons for why this was occurring, and had asked for training in DNA investigative techniques in order to provide alternatives to torture in detection of crime for illiterate police officers. Standards in the chain of command should also do a lot more. He asked whether it was true that the Special Investigations Unit had been disbanded, as this had done a good job. Investigations should be speeded up.

OLE VEDEL RASMUSSEN, the Committee Expert serving as Co-Rapporteur for the report of Sri Lanka, said the focussed response on what had been done with respect to the recommendations made by the visiting delegation were very much appreciated, as were the detailed answers to the list of issues, which had been very well covered. Regarding the security forces, the Convention, in article 2, which said an order from a superior officer or public authority could not be invoked as a justification for an illegal act, Mr. Rasmussen asked whether this was taught to the security forces, and whether they were told that they could disobey such an order. He also commended the training of medical officers with regards to torture, as well as the wide range of activities carried out by Sri Lanka. On the systematic review of places of detention, he noted that this implied visits to places, and that the Governors of the prisons were responsible on a daily basis for the application of human rights standards. Visits were of very high importance, and they should be carried out without warning.

Mr. Rasmussen also asked for assurance that conversations between detainees and their lawyers took place in private, not in the presence of a guard and in an room which was not bugged, saying that this was of extremely high importance. There should be a national system to review and react to findings of the review of places of detention. The National Commission had neither power, nor money to make changes, and had to rely on the Ministry of Justice to make changes. The key issue was to react on things that needed to be changed. In order to prevent torture, there was a need to respect fundamental safeguards, and these included the right to inform relatives, to have a lawyer, to be seen by a doctor, and to be informed about rights, and it was appreciated that there were posters to this effect in three languages in police stations. However, there were allegations that these rights were not observed.

A person detained in a police station had no access to a lawyer of his or her choice under Sri Lankan law, Mr. Rasmussen said, asking for confirmation of this. The authorities should inquire into all reported cases of intimidation of witnesses, and install a witness protection programme in order to eliminate the climate of fear that existed, as had been recommended before, as numerous allegations were still being received by victims and their lawyers that they were being harassed and intimidated, with the result that many torture victims had withdrawn or not made complaints, and even witnesses were pressurised into withdrawing their statements, and lawyers intimidated from making official complaints, all of which was very grave and serious. Police officers under investigation for crimes of torture still worked in police stations, and this was in sharp contrast with how other crimes were dealt with. Any statement made as a result of torture should not be used in any proceeding, Mr. Rasmussen said, asking for confirmation that this was not the case.

Other Committee Experts also raised a series of questions. An Expert asked what legal definition was held in Sri Lanka for custodial rape. The high number of unconvicted prisoners was also of interest, said an Expert, noting that the presumption of innocence was prime. Other questions focussed on whether there were any statistics on how many people had requested investigations, how many indictments and convictions there had been; what procedures were in place to facilitate the monitoring of sexual violence and abuse in custody, and what was in place to facilitate the reporting of such cases; how many perpetrators of rape in custody had been brought to justice; a request for information on the actual mandate of the Human Rights Commission; and whether there were any mechanisms reported to have been created within the LTTE structure to deal with allegations of torture.

For use of the information media; not an official record

CAT05024E

Back to ALRC Alternative Report to Committee against Torture on Sri Lanka

Back to ALRC Home Page