CCPR/C/118/D/2412/2014 instructions to do so. He was also forced to sleep on the ground among cockroaches and rats in tight handcuffs, all the while chained to a desk. At the Boosa detention centre he was kept in solitary confinement and forced to urinate in a bottle and defecate in a plastic bag. He was not segregated from prisoners convicted of murder and other violent offences. 3.6 The author finally submits that the State party has violated his rights under article 14 (1) (2) and (3) (g). The fairness of the judicial process was undermined and vitiated because the police submitted false information to justify the author’s continued detention and used against him a confession made under conditions of torture. The conduct of the court proceedings also violated his rights to a fair trial, because the court did not act independently or impartially and failed to investigate the ill-treatment inflicted on the author. Furthermore, the use of an involuntary confession that he made under duress is a violation of article 14 (3) (g) of the Covenant. The author further claims that cases where the Attorney General proceeded with an indictment were often based solely on forced confessions signed by the accused and that under section 16 (2) of the Prevention of Terrorism Act, forced confessions were admissible as evidence, with the burden placed on the accused to prove that the confession was “irrelevant”. In his case, the charges were dropped for lack of evidence, except the one charge to which he falsely confessed as a result of his torture and prolonged arbitrary detention. 3.7 The author requests the Committee to recommend the State party, inter alia, to: (a) acknowledge its breaches of the Covenant; (b) carry out an investigation into the violations suffered by him and take disciplinary and criminal action against the perpetrators; (c) provide him with compensation for the harm suffered by him and his family as a result of the violations committed and for other assessable damages; (d) provide assurance or guarantees of non-repetition; and (e) take the necessary legislative measures to give effect to the rights enshrined in articles 7, 9, 10 and 14 of the Covenant. Lack of cooperation from the State party 4.1 By notes verbales of 4 June 2014 and 22 February 2015, the State party was requested to submit information to the Committee on the admissibility and merits of the communication. On 27 August 2014, the State party informed the Committee that it was unable to provide the information requested, owing to the judgment of the Supreme Court of Sri Lanka in the case of Nallaratnam Singarasa v. Attorney General of 15 September 2006, in which the Supreme Court stated that by acceding to the Optional Protocol, the Government of Sri Lanka had violated the provisions of the Constitution and that only courts and tribunals set up under the Constitution could adjudicate on the rights of the people of Sri Lanka. The State party stated that it was imperative that it respected the judgments of its domestic courts. On 21 May 2015, the State party informed the Committee that following the presidential election of 8 January 2015, its authorities had initiated a process of consultations, taking into account the views of the Committee and the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights on the possibility of reviewing the decision of the Supreme Court mentioned above; and that a response pertaining to the communication would be submitted following that process. 4.2 By notes verbales of 15 June 2015, 22 December 2015 and 23 May 2016, the State party was again requested to submit information to the Committee on the admissibility and merits of the communication. The Committee notes that this information has not been received and that the State party has not provided any information as to the process of consultations mentioned in its note verbale of 21 May 2015. The Committee regrets the State party’s failure to provide any information with regard to admissibility or the substance of the author’s claims. It recalls that article 4 (2) of the Optional Protocol obliges States parties to examine in good faith all allegations brought against them and to make available 8