22.01.2015 Views

States of Emergency - Centre for Policy Alternatives

States of Emergency - Centre for Policy Alternatives

States of Emergency - Centre for Policy Alternatives

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

1.4.1
 The
 Singarasa
 Case
 and
 Sri
 Lanka’s
 International
<br />

Obligations<br />

The case <strong>of</strong> Singarasa
 v.
 Attorney
 General
 (2006) concerned an<br />

application <strong>for</strong> revision and / or review <strong>of</strong> an earlier decision <strong>of</strong><br />

the Supreme Court upholding the conviction <strong>of</strong> the petitioner on<br />

charges under emergency regulations and the PTA. The<br />

application was made on the basis <strong>of</strong> the views <strong>of</strong> the Human<br />

Rights Committee in respect <strong>of</strong> Communication 1033 <strong>of</strong> 2000 that<br />

had been made by the petitioner, availing himself <strong>of</strong> the right <strong>of</strong><br />

individual communication provided by the First Optional Protocol<br />

to the ICCPR.<br />

In the course <strong>of</strong> the judgment, Silva C.J., speaking <strong>for</strong> the court,<br />

went on to make some remarkable pronouncements that are <strong>of</strong><br />

major signiLicance not only <strong>for</strong> human rights protection in Sri<br />

Lanka, but which also throws into question the fulLilment <strong>of</strong><br />

fundamental international obligations by the Sri Lankan State.<br />

The reasoning <strong>of</strong> the court is perplexing when assessed against<br />

widespread contemporary thinking regarding the judicial role in<br />

the protection <strong>of</strong> human rights, and appears to depart from<br />

modern developments in international human rights and<br />

comparative public law in several respects. Moreover, the court<br />

adopts an attitude to the interpretation <strong>of</strong> sovereignty as laid<br />

down in the constitution that can reasonably be described as<br />

outmoded, and is inconsistent with the State’s undertaking <strong>of</strong><br />

international obligations under the ICCPR and the First Optional<br />

Protocol. In view <strong>of</strong> the relatively uncomplicated, although limited,<br />

reception <strong>of</strong> international human rights norms evidenced in the<br />

fundamental rights jurisprudence <strong>of</strong> the Supreme Court in the<br />

past, the Singarasa
judgment represents a strident departure from<br />

previous judicial attitudes.<br />

225

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!