The Asian Human Rights Commission draws your kind attention to Sundara Arachige Lalith Rajapakse who was the author of the communication mentioned above.
The AHRC understands that a copy of the decision has been sent to you by an Attorney-at-Law on behalf of Lalith Rajapakse. I refer to the letter by R.S. Weerawickrama, Attorney-at-Law dated 5th September 2006 wherein he has drawn your attention for compliance with the recommendations of the Human Rights Committee on this communication.
As you are aware the Human Rights Committee has expressed the following views:
- The Human Rights Committee has expressed that the State party (Sri Lanka) has violated Article 2, paragraph 3 in connection with 7 of the covenant (meaning the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)) in the failure of the State party to provide a remedy that is speedy and effective.
- That the State party has violated Article 9, paragraph 1, 2, and 3 alone and together with Article 2 paragraph 3 by illegal arrest and by not bring him promptly before a judge.
- That the State party has violated Article 9 paragraph 1 of the Covenant by their failure to provide protection to the author thus forcing him to live in hiding from the time of the initial incident which was on 18th April 2002 due to fear of reprisals from the accused police officers.
The Human Rights Committee left the issue of torture to be determined by the Sri Lankan Supreme Court and the Negombo High Court in the two cases which are pending.
The Human Rights Committee was of the view that the state party should take the following actions:
- the High Court and Supreme Court proceedings are expeditiously completed;
- the author is protected from threats and/or intimidation with respect to the proceedings;
- the author is granted effective reparation. The State party is under an obligation to ensure that similar violations do not occur in the future.
I am writing to you regarding sub paragraph b and c above which is to provide protection from threats and intimidation with respect to the proceedings and for the granting of effective reparation.
In terms of the violations of human rights mentioned in paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 above reparation involves acts that should be done by the State in order to repair the lost rights and also payment of compensation for the wrong done.
The wrongs that have been done to Lalith Rajapakse cannot be estimated in monetary terms. However, for the purpose of implementing the recommendations of the Human Rights Committee the attorney for Lalith Rajapakse has in his letter mentioned earlier quantified the damages as amounting to Rs. 4,000,000 (Four Million) on all the three counts.
The AHRC draws your kind attention to Article 2 of the ICCPR where the state party is under obligation to provide an effective and enforceable remedy for violations of human rights.
Lalith Rajapakse’s attorney has made the request that you place his request for adequate compensation before the Inter-Ministerial Committee on Human Rights as well as before the Cabinet. The AHRC is now making this same request from you on this issue.
Thank you.
Yours sincerely,
Basil Fernando
Executive Director
Asian Human Rights Commission, Hong Kong
