COI Report March 2012 - UK Border Agency - Home Office

SRI LANKA 7 MARCH 2012
Impunity
these types of cases, and plaintiffs were awarded damages in a number of instances.
Observers cited bureaucratic inefficiencies in this system, leading to delays in the
resolution of many cases; cases filed by persons suspected of having ties to the LTTE
appeared to be subject to delays much more frequently. Where damages were
awarded, there were relatively few problems in enforcing the court orders.‖
8.61 The USSD 2010 report 176 noted that ―There was no independent authority to investigate
complaints. Senior officials in the police force handled complaints against the police.‖
and added that ―Impunity, particularly for cases of alleged police torture and corruption,
was a serious problem.‖ as well as that ―In cases in which security force personnel
allegedly committed human rights abuses, the government generally did not seek to
identify those responsible or bring them to justice. Case law generally failed to uphold
the doctrine of command responsibility for human rights abuses.‖ The same report
further noted that ―Lawyers who defended human rights cases sometimes were under
physical and verbal threats.‖ 177
8.62 The AI Annual Report 2011, Sri Lanka 178 observed that ―Investigations into human
rights violations by the military, police and other official bodies and individuals made no
apparent progress; court cases did not proceed.‖
8.63 The UNCAT‘s Concluding Observations 179 of 25 November 2011 observed:
―18. The Committee remains concerned about the prevailing climate of impunity in the
State party and the apparent failure to investigate promptly and impartially wherever
there is reasonable ground to believe that an act of torture has been committed. It also
notes the absence of an effective independent monitoring mechanism to investigate
complaints of torture. The Committee expresses concern over reports that the Attorney
General‘s office has stopped referring cases to the Special Investigations Unit (SUP) of
the police and the large proportion of pending cases still outstanding. The Committee is
also concerned at numerous reports concerning the lack of independence of the
judiciary…‖
Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka (HRCSL, aka SLHRC)
8.64 The USSD 2010 report 180 observed that:
176 US State Department 2010 Human Rights Report: Sri Lanka (USSD 2010), released on 8 April 2011,
http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2010/sca/154486.htm , date accessed 11 May 2011, Section 1d
177 US State Department 2010 Human Rights Report: Sri Lanka (USSD 2010), released on 8 April 2011,
http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2010/sca/154486.htm , date accessed 11 May 2011 Section 1e
178 Amnesty International, Annual Report 2011, Sri Lanka, released on 13 May 2011,
http://amnesty.org/en/region/sri-lanka/report-2011 date accessed 19 May 2011
179 UNCAT, Forty-seventh session, 31 October–25 November 201, Consideration of reports submitted by
States parties under article 19 of the Convention, Advance Unedited Version, Concluding observations of
the Committee against Torture, 25 November 2011
http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/cat/docs/co/CAT.C.LKA.CO.3-4_en.doc
Date accessed 13 January 2012
180 US State Department 2010 Human Rights Report: Sri Lanka (USSD 2010), released on 8 April 2011,
http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2010/sca/154486.htm , date accessed 11 May 2011, Section 2a
82 The main text of this COI Report contains the most up to date publicly available information as at 3 February 2012.
Further brief information on recent events and reports has been provided in the Latest News section
to 2 March 2012.