Library

A collection of documents on THE IMPEACHMENT MOTION AGAINST SHIRANI BANDARANAYAKE Chief Justice Of Sri Lanka by Asian Human Rights Commission

To all persons whose support is solicited An impeachment motion has been filed by 117 Members of Parliament who are members of the ruling alliance against the Chief Justice, Mrs. Shirani Bandaranayake.The background to the filing was some judgements given by the Supreme Court bench of which the Chief Justice was the head declaring some bills submitted to them by the government were in conflict with the Constitution. These judgements have been seen by almost everyone as the reason behind the impeachment.The lawyers for the Chief Justice have already issued…

Rajapaksha Pathirage Justin Rajapaksha vs. Prasanna Rathnayake and other police officers SC/FR 689/2012

”The petitioner by this petition, inter alia, seeks a declaration to the effect that his fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 11,12,13(1) and 13(2) of the Constitution have been violated by the 1st to 5th and/or 6th and/or 8th Respondents. This court, by its order dated 12.2.2013, granted leave to proceed for alleged violations of Article 11 of the Constitution against 1st to 6th Respondents; for alleged violations of Article 13(1) and 13(2) of the Constitution against the 1st Respondent and for alleged violations of Article 12(1) of the Constitution against…

Suppiah Sivakumar vs ergeant Jayaratne and others SC. FR. No. 56/2012

On 15th May 2011 around midnight, the Petitioner had been in the vicinity of the Bambaragala Junction with his wife and his daughter to watch Theru celebrations. Around 1. 30 am, a riot had broken out in the area and as the Petitioner made haste to take his wife and daughter to safety, he alleges that he was assaulted by the 1st to 3rd Respondents with a club. The Petitioner had also alleged that he was subjected to continuous verbal and physical abuse for about 20 minutes by the said…

Arshan Rajinikanth vs Officer in Charge Bulathsinhala Police Station and others SC/FR Application No:-194/2012

The Petitioner who was 22 years at the time of the incident worked as a three wheeler driver. The Petitioner states that on 13th October 2011 at about 9.30 a.m three individuals by the names of Roshan, Selvanayagam and Raja arrived on a motor bicycle at the Petitioner’s residence and informed the Petitioner that he was wanted by the police. The Petitioner recognized these individuals as they lived in the same area. The two individuals named Roshan and Selvanayagam got the Petitioner on to the motor bicycle and took the…

Mananadewage Shifani and others vs W.A. Somaratne Wijayamuni, and others S.C. (F.R.) Application No.368/2012

The petitioners, by this petition, seek a declaration that their fundamental rights guaranteed by Articles 11, 12(1), 13(1) and 13(2) of the Constitution have been violated by the respondents. This Court, by its order dated 15.12.2012, granted leave to proceed for alleged violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 12(1), 13(1) and 13(2) of the Constitution. ”Petition dismissed. For the aforementioned reasons, I dismiss the petition of the petitioners. In all the circumstances of this case I do not order costs.” Read the full judgement>>

Report of the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Juan E. Méndez A/HRC/19/61/Add.3

This document contains information provided by States, and other stakeholders, including National Human Rights Institutions and non-governmental organizations (NGOs), relating to the follow-up measures to the recommendations of the Special Rapporteur and his predecessors made after conducting country visits. In paragraph 5 d) of its resolution 16/23 on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment of March 2011, the Human Rights Council urged States ―To ensure appropriate follow-up to the recommendations and conclusions of the Special Rapporteur.‖ The report submitted to the fifty-ninth session of the Commission…

Jayalath Perera vs Jagath Nishantha, Sub Inspector of Police and others SC. Application FR. No 319/2012

The Petitioner, in his amended petition, further states that he was assaulted and tortured by the 1st , 3rd and 5 th Respondents at the Divisional Crime Investigation Unit. He, in paragraph 10 of the affidavit filed in this Court, states that the assault/torture at the said Divisional Crime Investigation Unit was witnessed by G.A. Hemantha Perera and G.A. Rathnasiri Perera who were his brothers. But surprisingly the said Hemantha Perera and Rathnasiri Perera in their affidavits marked P8 and P9 do not support the said version of the Petitioner.…

Kankanamge Nalin and Kankanamge Nalin vs Kamalsiri and others S.C(FR) No. 599/2011

His wife’s complaint is that she was assaulted by the 2nd and 3rd Respondents. Although she says in her affidavit that she suffered unbearable pain in the abdomen. Dr. who examined her on the day of the alleged incident has made the following observations. “No head injuries, no E.N.T. bleedings, no vomiting and no abdomen pain”. Therefore we feel that her complaint of assault has also not been supported by medical evidence. Both stories narrated by the 1st Petitioner and the 2nd Petitioner have not been presented with high degree…

SRI LANKA BULLETIN: RECENT REPORTS ON TORTURE AND ILL-TREATMENT 2011

This Country of Origin Information (COI) Bulletin has been produced by the COI Service, United Kingdom Border Agency (UKBA), for use by officials involved in the asylum/human rights determination process, The Bulletin brings to the attention of decision makers a number of reports released between September and November 2011 which document torture and other forms of ill treatment in Sri Lanka. It provides a selection of extracts from the sources as a guide to the general content of the reports, with a focus on events in 2011. However the Bulletin…

Suriyarachchige Lakshman de Silva and B.M.Ajantha Weerasinghe vs Patabendige Chaminda Edirisuriya and others SC.FR Application No:-09/2011

According to Petitioners on 10.08.2010 at about 12.45 a.m whilst the Petitioners and their children were visiting relatives and when they were not at home , the 1st, 2nd, 4th and 5th Respondents had visited the Petitioners’ residence in the 5th Respondents vehicle had forcibly instructed the 1st Petitioner’s mother and nephew to allow them to search their house. Soon thereafter whilst still in their home, the 1st Respondent telephoned the 2nd Petitioner and ordered her to bring her husband to Kiribathgoda Police Station immediately. Due to the abusive language,…