CCPR/C/118/D/2412/2014 obstructed the proceedings. In that connection, the author asserts that he would also have been unsuccessful had he filed a fundamental rights application against the State and/or particular State officials, owing to the politicization of the Attorney General’s office. The author claims that he would not have been permitted to bring an application for judicial review of the Emergency Regulations in light of Public Security Ordinance 1947 and regulation 19 (10) of the Emergency Regulations 2005 to the Supreme Court since regulation 19 (10) states that any administrative detention order made under the Emergency Regulations “shall not be called in question in any court on any ground whatsoever”. 2.17 Upon release from detention, the author felt that there was no reasonable prospect of success in attempting to overturn his conviction after experiencing the unfair practices of the legal system. 6 In that connection, he submits that several cases similar to his were brought before the Sri Lankan courts and were unsuccessful. He points out that the shortcomings in the criminal proceedings, such as undue delays in the investigation of human rights violations, has profoundly affected the fairness of the criminal justice system. 7 He also feared for his and his family’s safety. His fear of reprisal was based on the acts of torture and threats that he had experienced during his detention, as well as the reaction of the authorities after he reported his story to a newspaper in Canada. In addition, the author claims that it would be too dangerous for him to return to Sri Lanka in pursuit of any domestic remedies. Despite increased allegations of widespread torture, ill-treatment and disappearances at the hands of law enforcement officials, impunity concerning human rights violations has over the years become institutionalized and systematized in Sri Lanka. 8 In that context, the judiciary lacks independence, leaving victims, in particular persons of Tamil origin, with little or no prospect of remedies or reparations for serious human rights violations. 9 Although there are some judicial rulings, successful prosecutions and other positive results, which have favoured victims in Sri Lanka, it is well documented that the success stories are few and far between and remain exceptions to the general trend of impunity that exists in the country. Against that background, any effort by the author to pursue remedies in Sri Lanka would be futile. The complaint 3.1 The author claims that the State party violated his rights as set forth in articles 7, 9, 10 and 14 of the Covenant. 3.2 As background information, the author submits that in the context of the armed conflict between the Sri Lankan security forces and LTTE, since 2005 the authorities have increased military and police operations, in which Tamils have frequently been victims of arbitrary arrests, extrajudicial executions, enforced disappearances and torture. Reports indicate that war crimes and crimes against humanity were committed, particularly during the final stages of the armed conflict from February to May 2009.10 During those years, 6 7 8 9 10 6 The author refers to communications No. 1293/2004, de Dios Prieto v. Spain, decision of inadmissibility adopted on 25 July 2006, para. 6.3, and No. 1313/2004, Castaño López v. Spain, decision of inadmissibility adopted on 25 July 2006, para. 6.3. The author refers to the report of the Panel of Experts on accountability in Sri Lanka, pp. ii-iii and para. 320. Ibid., pp. 100-101. The author refers to “Authority without accountability: the crisis of impunity in Sri Lanka”, pp. 12, 39, 55, 72, 111 and 166-67; International Crisis Group, “Sri Lanka’s judiciary: politicised courts, compromised rights”, Asia report No. 172 (30 June 2009) p. 8; and International Bar Association, “Justice in retreat: a report on the independence of the legal profession and the rule of law in Sri Lanka” (May 2009). The author refers to the report of the Panel of Experts on Accountability in Sri Lanka pp. ii-iii and 6669; Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, Sri Lanka: Treatment of Tamils in Colombo by Members of the Armed Forces and Police (2005-2006) (11 December 2006); and Human Rights