Sri Lanka’s deficit of justice cannot be corrected by laws alone

Euphoria in regard to the Cabinet decision this week that Sri Lanka will sign the International Convention on Enforced Disappearances must be tempered by several factors.  First, a sober appraisal makes it evident that though we have ratified a bewildering array of such treaties, a huge gap exists between international commitments and practical realities.

Gap between theory and reality
Unfortunately this is so even when we have enacted domestic legislation giving effect to international obligations. A case in point is the enabling law in regard to the United Nations Convention Against Torture (UNCAT). An excellent law in theory, the 1994 CAT Act has become a miserable failure in practical terms. In the first decade after its enactment, the High Court handed down just three convictions of state officers. The convictions record since then has continued to be unimpressive.

Even those few convictions were laboured and confined to the most egregious violations. Judges have strained to let alleged torture perpetrators off the hook. Prosecutors have refrained from indicting Officers in Charge of Police Stations (OICs) who are culpably inactive when torture is committed under their watch. Some High Court judges have reprimanded the Department of the Attorney General for this failure.

The other example of comparable domestic legislation is the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) Act. This farcically titled law omits crucial ICCPR rights including the right to life. Even the limited rights brought in are of no effect. Its prohibition on advocating religious hatred has not been effectively used in prosecutions. This Government is now proposing new laws on hate speech. But relevant legal provision already exists. Laws, more laws and yet more laws do not correct Sri Lanka’s deficit of justice. Dysfunctional investigative, prosecutorial and judicial processes make such efforts a mockery.

Read More