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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

a comprehensive schedule annexed hereto was prepared with two<br />

columns. The column on the left gives the particular Article <strong>of</strong> the<br />

Covenant and the column on the right gives the legislative<br />

compliance within Sri Lanka and the relevant pronouncements<br />

made by the Supreme Court and the other Courts to further<br />

strengthen the guarantee <strong>of</strong> rights recognised in the Covenant.”<br />

This has not been publicly available, and it is there<strong>for</strong>e difLicult to<br />

verify its claims in respect <strong>of</strong> the compliance <strong>of</strong> Sri Lankan law<br />

with the ICCPR. The Supreme Court dismissed all <strong>of</strong> the<br />

submissions on seven speciLic matters made by counsel <strong>for</strong> the<br />

intervenient petitioners, mainly on the ground that many <strong>of</strong> these<br />

<strong>of</strong> submission were based on hypotheses. The court came to the<br />

conclusion that “…the legislative measures referred to in the<br />

communication <strong>of</strong>…the President dated 4.3.2008 and the<br />

provisions <strong>of</strong> the Constitution and <strong>of</strong> other law, including the<br />

decisions <strong>of</strong> the Superior Courts <strong>of</strong> Sri Lanka give adequate<br />

recognition to the Civil and Political Rights contained in the<br />

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and adhere to<br />

the general premise <strong>of</strong> the Covenant that individuals within the<br />

territory <strong>of</strong> Sri Lanka derive the beneLit and guarantee <strong>of</strong> rights<br />

contained in the Covenant” and “that the a<strong>for</strong>esaid rights<br />

recognised in the Covenant are justiLiable through the medium <strong>of</strong><br />

the legal and constitutional process prevailing in Sri Lanka.”<br />

It is difLicult to agree with the Supreme Court, given that the<br />

opinion did not contain a full and reasoned basis on which its<br />

conclusions can be defended. For example, in relation to the ICCPR<br />

Act No. 56 <strong>of</strong> 2007, the court conLined itself to reiterating the<br />

claims made in the preamble – which is a total misnomer given the<br />

substance <strong>of</strong> the Act – and did not consider the fact that the ICCPR<br />

Act contains only four main substantive rights‐conferring<br />

provisions in Sections 2, 4, 5 and 6 (viz., the right to be recognised<br />

as a person be<strong>for</strong>e the law; entitlements <strong>of</strong> alleged <strong>of</strong>fenders to<br />

233

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

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!