Untitled - International Commission of Jurists
Untitled - International Commission of Jurists
Untitled - International Commission of Jurists
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
however, linked the habeas corpus application with the disclosed violation <strong>of</strong> a<br />
fundamental right in terms <strong>of</strong> Article 13(4) <strong>of</strong> the Constitution and, reversing the<br />
order <strong>of</strong> the Court <strong>of</strong> Appeal, held the State liable in the absence <strong>of</strong> individual<br />
responsibility being proven. Justice Shirani Bandaranayake stated:<br />
“Considering the contents <strong>of</strong> Article 13(4), this Court has taken the position<br />
that no person should be punished with death or imprisonment except by an<br />
order <strong>of</strong> a competent court. Further, it has been decided […] that if there is no<br />
order from Court no person should be punished with death and unless and<br />
otherwise such an order is made by a competent court, any person has a right<br />
to live. Accordingly Article 13 (4) <strong>of</strong> the Constitution has been interpreted to<br />
mean that a person has a right to live unless a competent court orders<br />
otherwise. […] It is reasonable to conclude that the corpora were kept in the<br />
Army Camp with the knowledge and connivance <strong>of</strong> the Army <strong>of</strong>ficers. Hence,<br />
Army authorities are responsible to account for the whereabouts <strong>of</strong> the two<br />
sons <strong>of</strong> the appellant...” 122<br />
These decisions by a few judges committed to the protection <strong>of</strong> rights were, however,<br />
overshadowed by contrary tendencies that undermined the integrity <strong>of</strong> the Court. In<br />
response to the Court’s failure to consistently protect fundamental rights, the United<br />
Nations Human Rights Committee accepted a number <strong>of</strong> individual communications<br />
filed under the First Optional Protocol to the <strong>International</strong> Covenant on Civil and<br />
Political Rights (ICCPR). Up to mid-2009, twelve Communications <strong>of</strong> Views had<br />
been delivered in which the Committee found that Sri Lanka had violated its<br />
obligations in terms <strong>of</strong> the ICCPR, 123 effectively meaning that Sri Lanka’s Supreme<br />
Court had failed in its constitutionally-vested jurisdiction to protect rights. In fact, in<br />
two Communications, the Court’s own actions were put in issue when the Committee<br />
declared that the use <strong>of</strong> contempt powers by the Supreme Court abused civil liberties<br />
and called upon Sri Lanka to enact a contempt <strong>of</strong> court legislation. 124 In one<br />
Communication pertaining to the judicial process in particular, the Committee found<br />
that the Judicial Service <strong>Commission</strong> was engaging in the arbitrary disciplining <strong>of</strong><br />
122 Justice Bandaranayake, Kanapathipillai Matchavallavan v. OIC, Army Camp, Plantain Point,<br />
Trincomalee and others S.C. Appeal No. 90/2003, S.C. (Spl) L.A. No. 177/2003, SCM. 31.03.2005.<br />
The State was ordered to pay a sum <strong>of</strong> Rs.150,000 for each <strong>of</strong> the two sons <strong>of</strong> the appellant, who had<br />
disappeared in detention as compensation and costs.<br />
123 Anthony Michael Emmanuel Fernando v. Sri Lanka, CCPR/C/83/D/1189/2003, adoption <strong>of</strong> views,<br />
31.03.2005; Nallaratnam Singarasa v. Sri Lanka, CCPR/C/81/D/1033/2001, adoption <strong>of</strong> views,<br />
21.07.2004; Jegetheeswaran Sarma v. Sri Lanka, CCPR/C/78/D/950/2000, adoption <strong>of</strong> views,<br />
31.07.2003; Jayalath Jayawardena v. Sri Lanka, CCPR/C/75/D/916/2000, adoption <strong>of</strong> views,<br />
22.07.2002; Victor Ivan Majuwana Kankanamge v. Sri Lanka, CCPR/C/81/D/909/2000, adoption <strong>of</strong><br />
views, 27.07.2004; Sister Immaculate Joseph and 80 Teaching Sisters <strong>of</strong> the Holy Cross <strong>of</strong> the Third<br />
Order <strong>of</strong> Saint Francis in Menzingen <strong>of</strong> Sri Lanka v. Sri Lanka, CCPR/C/85/D/1249/2004, adoption <strong>of</strong><br />
views, 21.10.2005; Sundara Aratchige Lalith Rajapakse v. Sri Lanka, CCPR/C/87/D/1250/2004,<br />
adoption <strong>of</strong> views, 14.07.2006; Raththinde Katupollande Gedara Dingiri Banda v. Sri Lanka,<br />
CCPR/C/D/1426/2005, adoption <strong>of</strong> views, 26.10.2007; Dissanayake Mudiyanselage Sumanaweera<br />
Banda v. Sri Lanka, CCPR/C/93/D/1373/2005, adoption <strong>of</strong> views 22.7.2008, Vadivel Sathasivam and<br />
Parathesi Saraswathi v. Sri Lanka, CCPR/C/93/D/1436/2005, adoption <strong>of</strong> views, 08.07.2008, Soratha<br />
Bandaranayake v. Sri Lanka, CCPR/C/93/D/1376/2005, adoption <strong>of</strong> views, 24.07.2008 and<br />
Weerawansa v. Sri Lanka, CCPR/C/95/D/1406/2005, adoption <strong>of</strong> views, 17.03.2009).<br />
124 Anthony Michael Emmanuel Fernando v. Sri Lanka, CCPR/C/83/D/1189/2003, adoption <strong>of</strong> views,<br />
31.03.2005; Dissanayake Mudiyanselage Sumanaweera Banda v. Sri Lanka, CCPR/C/93/D/1373/2005,<br />
adoption <strong>of</strong> views 22.7.2008.<br />
45