News

News

Lankan judiciary in the dock again over rights violations
The UN Human Rights Committee has slapped a second indictment within a month on the Sri Lankan judiciary by stating that another citizen's rights has been violated by denying him a fair trial.

Only a fortnight ago, it was announced that the UNHRC based in Geneva had stated that the State had violated international covenants by denying Ravaya Editor Victor Ivan a fair trial when he was charged under the country's then Draconian criminal defamation laws.

Now, the UNHRC has held that the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court violated international covenants by depriving Nallaratnam Singharasa a fair trial after the High Court sentenced him to 50 years imprisonment under the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA ), the Court of Appeal affirmed the sentence and the Supreme Court refused to grant him Special Leave to Appeal.

Mr. Singharasa was charged under the PTA for attacks on four Army camps in the Jaffna peninsula, but his lawyer Dr. Ranjit Fernando argued in the appellate courts that the confession made by the accused was not 'voluntary' as the police officer who recorded the confessional statement was also the same officer who arrested him and held the initial investigations thereby creating a possibility that he entertained a prejudicial influence on the whole exercise.

It was also claimed by Mr. Singharasa that he was tortured while in detention and asked to put his thumb-impression on a document ( his confession ) in Sinhala language which he did not understand.

Dr. Fernando also argued that no evidence was led during the trial as to whether the Army camps mentioned in the 'purported confession' were in fact attacked at the times mentioned. Like in the Victor Ivan appeal to the UNHRC, the State in this case also took up the position that Mr. Singharasa had not exhausted his domestic remedies.

For instance, they say, he could have applied to the President for a pardon. The State also said that Mr. Singharasa could have complained to the Police on any allegations of torture. Or that he could have instituted criminal proceedings against the perpetrators of torture in the Magistrate's Court.

The State also took up the position that Mr. Singharasa was afforded a fair trial and that the courts had stated that allegations of torture were "inconsistent" with the medical reports. The UNHRC held that a Presidential pardon is an "extra-ordinary remedy " and does not constitute an effective legal remedy available to a citizen.

They also held that State relied entirely on a questionable confession of guilt exacted from the accused to convict him, and that it was the duty of the State to show that the accused made a confession without duress. The UNHRC has stated that it is now the duty of the State to either release Mr. Singharasa or to commit him to a re-trial and compensation.

The UNRHC has asked the Sri Lanka Government to let it know within 90 days what steps it is taking to give effect to its views. Among these views is to amend the PTA to be compatible with the provisions of international covenants. A Foreign Ministry spokesman said that they are having legal consultations on the ruling regarding Mr. Ivan's case.

The Sunday Times learns that the Foreign Ministry has already contacted Attorney General K.C.Kamalasabeyson regarding the case. Justice Minister John Seneviratne said that the government would have to take a decision on the matter.

Mr. Ivan told The Sunday Times that he had so far not decided on the compensation to be paid to him and the compensation should include the legal cost as well as damages caused him including the mental pain.

Top

Back to News