UN Human Rights Committee orders Sri Lanka to compensate Canadian torture victim
A Toronto man who was imprisoned and tortured while visiting Sri Lanka must be compensated for the abuses he suffered, the United Nations Human Rights Committee has ruled.
The decision calls for Sri Lanka to prosecute those responsible and “provide adequate compensation” to Roy Samathanam, a Canadian who had filed a complaint with the committee three years ago.
Samathanam, 46, called the ruling handed down in Geneva “a measure of justice” in a statement to be released Monday by the Canadian Centre for International Justice, which worked with him on the complaint.
The case is another rebuke of Sri Lanka arising from abuses committed by security forces during the country’s long civil war that ended in 2009 with the defeat of the separatist Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam rebels.
“We are thrilled with the committee’s conclusions,” said Matt Eisenbrandt, legal director of the CCIJ, which urged Sri Lankan to “immediately implement” the obligations set out in the decision.
A refugee from Sri Lanka, Samathanam traveled to Colombo during a 2007 lull in the country’s civil war to marry. But police raided his home and seized 600 mobile phones he had helped import from Singapore for a friend’s business.
He said after he refused to pay a bribe to police he was taken to a Terrorism Investigation Division detention centre, where he was branded a “Canadian Tiger” and subjected to abuses.
He was locked up under the authority of controversial anti-terrorism measures. The order authorizing his detention accused him of “acting in a manner prejudicial to national security.”
Initially accused of importing “high tech communication and radar equipment” for the Tamil rebels, he was later accused of plotting to assassinate VIPs. But it was all untrue, he said.
While in custody, he was handcuffed in painful positions, slapped, kicked, struck with rifles, beaten with pipes, threatened with death and told his wife would be arrested and raped unless he confessed.
He eventually pleaded guilty to a single count of illegally importing an electronic device and paid a fine. He returned to Canada in April 2011 and testified before the House of Commons Subcommittee on International Human Rights.
Allegations that Sri Lanka committed atrocities during the conflict have long been dismissed by the Commonwealth nation, but videos and photos that appear to show victims of executions have surfaced, along with first-hand accounts of rape and torture.
(Source: National Post)
Latest Headlines in Sri Lanka
- Sri Lanka and United States discuss Economic Support and Reforms April 19, 2024
- Israeli missile strikes Iran amid escalating Middle East tensions April 19, 2024
- President says he will build a Sri Lanka that the youth aspire to April 19, 2024
- NPP presents 7-point pledge on Easter Sunday Attack to Cardinal Ranjith April 18, 2024
- Dialog Axiata to acquire Bharti Airtel’s telecom operations in Sri Lanka April 18, 2024
This is a blatant lie on the part of whoever spun it or the UNHRC is cluless about protocols dealing with international issues. It is probable that this guy has legitimate claims but then these maybe just another story.
In any case this can be case where the UN fund the entire investigation and appoint commission summon witneses to support his claim and nmae the accusers. If this guys claims fall apart then the role of the UNHRC is questionable
The United Nations Human Rights Committee is a United Nations body of 18 experts that meets three times a year for four-week sessions to consider the five-yearly reports submitted by 168 UN member states on their compliance with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, ICCPR, and any individual petitions concerning 112 States parties to the Optional Protocol.
The United Nations Human Rights Committee has the jurisdiction to examine individual complaints (or communications) concerning the violation of rights contained within the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), by virtue of the First Optional Protocol to the Covenant.
There is no prescribed form that a complaint must conform to, however, it must be in writing (in one of the working languages of the Secretariat: English, French, Spanish or Russian) and signed by the author or the author’s representative. The complaint should contain all relevant information to the event or events that have taken place, including a chronological factual account of the events themselves, the identifying features of the victim (name, date of birth, nationality and so on), as well as the state involved, and, finally, what steps have been taken by the victim to exhaust all domestic remedies available to him or her. It is also advised that any additional documents (such as domestic court decisions and any relevant municipal laws) are provided to the Committee as part of the complaint. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the author must establish why he or she believes that the event or events described constitute a violation of the rights granted by the ICCPR. It is important that the description of events are as detailed as possible; if necessary details are not included the author will be contacted and asked to provide them.
Following the submission of a complaint the author will be advised if it has been registered and the complaint will also be sent to the State concerned for comment.
Following the submission of a complaint the author will be advised if it has been registered and the complaint will also be sent to the State concerned for comment. Article Four of the First Optional Protocol provides that the State will have six months to submit comments on the complaint.[16] Once the Committee has received the comments from the State these comments will be provided to the author who can then issue a response (generally within two months). Following the comments there is generally a two-stage process comprising the “Admissibility” stage and the “Merits” stage, however, due to the immense workload that the United Nations Human Rights Committee has, these two stages are usually undertaken simultaneously. The Committee assesses complaints on a closed basis in accordance with Article Five of the First Optional Protocol and for that reason only the original written complaint, the response from the State and the reply by the author will be considered. The Committee does not take any further action to verify the information that has been provided and the author or representatives of the State cannot take part via phone or video connection.
When the Committee releases its view (or decision) it will outline the merits of the case or the reasons why it did or did not find that a violation had taken place. It will also include any conclusions drawn by Members whose findings differed from those of the Committee generally. This will be decided on the facts presented in the original complaint as well as taking into account the laws of the State party in conjunction with the rights contained in the ICCPR. If the State had made a reservation to the right in question when acceding to the ICCPR then generally the Committee will respect this, however, in some exceptional cases, they can come to the conclusion that the reservation itself is not acceptable.
Once the Committee has issued its view, the stance that it has taken will determine what happens next. If the Committee determines that no violation of a right contained in the ICCPR has occurred then no further action will be taken. However, if the Committee decides a breach has occurred then the State must submit an ‘update’ to the Committee of the steps that it has taken to address the violation within three months in accordance with Article 2, paragraph 3 of the ICCPR. In Article 2, paragraph 3 the State has agreed to remedy any breaches of rights contained within the covenant. This response is also transmitted to the original author.
Sri Lanka ratified the ICCPR in 1980.
This is a great outcome.
This decision means if allegations of war crimes and torture committed by GOSL are tested in an international arena, Sri Lanka’s Sinhala Buddhist leaders and their Armed Forces will be found guilty.
The way out of this dilemma is to provide for NEAR (North Eastern Autonomous Region) in the new constitution.