Sri Lanka: Supreme Court Finds Police Ill-treatment and Lifts Statute of Limitations

The petitioner, a 46-year-old truck driver, was asleep in his vehicle when police officers violently woke him around midnight. The Supreme Court noted that the incident likely stemmed from a private dispute between the petitioner and one of the police officers. An officer entered the truck and struck the petitioner on the head with a helmet before dragging him out, throwing him to the ground, and kicking him repeatedly on his back and chest. His wife and children, alerted by his screams, witnessed the assault. Officers then lifted him by his head and legs and threw him into a police jeep, where further kicks followed. He spent the night in a cell at the police station. The next morning, after learning that he had reported the assault to the doctor, the officer-in-charge threatened him and slapped him on the right side of his face. Medical examinations confirmed significant injuries, including trauma to his right eye, bruises, and difficulty opening his mouth. The Supreme Court concluded that he had been subjected to cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment in violation of Article 11 of the Constitution.

Under Sri Lankan law, a fundamental rights application must ordinarily be filed before the Supreme Court within one month of the alleged violation. Where a victim first lodges a complaint with the Human Rights Commission within that period, the law allows the Supreme Court deadline to be suspended while the Commission’s inquiry is pending. Complaints to the Human Rights Commission and fundamental rights petitions before the Supreme Court are separate and complementary remedies, with only the Supreme Court empowered to make binding constitutional findings. In this landmark case, the petitioner lodged a complaint with the Human Rights Commission three days after the one-month period. Until now, the Supreme Court’s practice has been to decline to entertain such fundamental rights applications that were made after the one-month period. In this landmark ruling, however, the Supreme Court accepted the petition, recognising that the petitioner was unable to submit a complaint in time because he was hospitalized due to the ill-treatment he suffered. This is the first time the Court has examined a case filed outside both the statutory time frame and constitutional time frame. While this is a significant development, the reasoning does not fully reflect the absolute nature of the prohibition of torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. The United Nations Committee against Torture has repeatedly affirmed that the Convention against Torture, which Sri Lanka ratified in 1994, excludes any statute of limitations for the crime of torture and other forms of ill-treatment. The ability to bring an initial complaint of torture or ill-treatment therefore cannot depend on any procedural time limit, regardless of whether the victim was hospitalized or otherwise unable to file a formal complaint.

Suren D. Perera, the lead counsel for the petitioner and member of the Asia Litigators Group stated: "This ruling affirms that torture is an absolute right that cannot be subject to arbitrary time limits that effectively deny victims access to justice, but one favourable judgment cannot change a system where torture is routine and impunity is the norm."

This landmark ruling comes against a backdrop of systematic patterns of torture. The Supreme Court noted with evident frustration that previous judgments "have fallen on deaf ears" and urged the government to "intervene, examine the reasons for police brutality and take action." Available data underlines the scale of the problem. In 2024 alone, the Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka received 2,686 complaints concerning violations of personal liberty, including arbitrary arrest and detention; cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment; threats and harassment; conditions of detention; sexual harassment; deaths in custody; extrajudicial killings; and enforced disappearance.

Recommendations

• Ensure prompt, independent, and effective investigations into all allegations of police torture, including this case, and adopt clear rules requiring the immediate suspension from duty of law enforcement officers accused of torture pending investigation.
• Prosecute all perpetrators of torture in accordance with the Convention Against Torture Act No. 22 of 1994, and ensure that disciplinary measures are not used as a substitute for criminal accountability.
• Guarantee full reparation to victims of torture, including adequate compensation, access to medical and psychological rehabilitation, and measures of satisfaction, in line with international standards.
• Remove procedural and practical barriers to justice in torture cases, including strict time limits that prevent victims from lodging complaints
• Fully implement the recommendations of the UN Committee against Torture, including by strengthening safeguards against torture in detention and submitting the State party report overdue since 2020.