CCPR/C/118/D/2412/2014 prescribing medication for the chest pains and gave it to the escort guard for the prison hospital. However, the author never received any medication for chest pains. 2.14 The author claims that he was brought before the court approximately once every two weeks after his first court appearance. Each time, the court extended his detention order without adjudicating the merits of the charges against him. On an unspecified date, the author requested his lawyer to do something to resolve the situation. The lawyer talked to the Department of the Attorney General, with which he negotiated an agreement. He was eventually able to reach an agreement with the prosecutor to drop all the charges, except the one regarding possession of a GPS device. Believing he had no other choice, he agreed to plead guilty to that charge and to pay a fine of five lakhs, which he did on 19 August 2010. He was released from Welikada prison on 27 August 2010. 2.15 The author returned to Canada on 28 April 2011. He submits that after he reported his story to a Canadian newspaper, the National Post, the Government of Sri Lanka refused to give police clearance for his family to leave the country. Eventually, on 14 February 2012, his wife and children were able to travel to Canada. The author, his wife and children reside in Toronto. However, he continues to suffer the physical and psychological consequences of the events he experienced in Sri Lanka. In that connection, he argues that he has pain in his left leg and pain and numbness in his hand from the beating on 17 December 2007; that he suffers from an irregular heartbeat and hypertension; that he needs to take painkillers; that he has been treated for depression and diagnosed with posttraumatic stress disorder. As a result of his suffering and his medical condition, the author is unable to work. 2.16 The author submits that there were no available domestic remedies for him to exhaust at the time his rights were violated, nor do they currently exist, since they would be ineffective. From the time of his arrest and detention, the author was denied legal protection and judicial guarantees and the legal proceedings suffered a considerable delay. Since his detention was ordered in accordance with the 2005 Emergency Regulations, which did not observe human rights standards,4 he was unable to file an application before ordinary courts. That made it impossible for him to pursue any remedies. The Public Security Ordinance 1947 and the Prevention of Terrorism Act gave State officials immunity, which prevented the author from pursuing a civil action against the State party and the officials responsible for his detention and torture. Likewise, the Code of Criminal Procedure, Act No. 15 of 1979 (as amended), provided State officials with immunity from being sued for actions taken in good faith in the discharge of their duties. In any event, even if civil action against the State and/or the individuals involved had been available to the author, it cannot be considered an adequate and effective remedy in his case. The author further submits that under the Sri Lankan legal system, it would have been possible to bring a fundamental rights application before the Supreme Court or make representations to the Attorney General in an attempt to have a law declared ultra vires, or encourage prosecution of public officials. However, none of those alternatives constituted an effective remedy since the judicial system was not independent and impartial in Sri Lanka. Other individuals who have brought fundamental rights applications before the Supreme Court have been unsuccessful for a variety of different reasons, or because the applications remained pending after several months or years.5 In addition, the Attorney General was not impartial and often refused to take action on complaints brought by individuals who alleged violations of their fundamental rights, or 4 5 The author refers to two reports of the International Commission of Jurists, “Authority without accountability: the crisis of impunity in Sri Lanka” (November 2012), pp. 31 and 37; and “Beyond lawful constraints: Sri Lanka’s mass detention of LTTE suspects” (September 2010), pp. 6 and 13. The author refers to Edward Sivalingam v. Jayasekara, S.C. (F/R) application No. 326/2008, decided on 10 November 2011 (Supreme Court of Sri Lanka), and Sri Lanka v. Makavitage, Suresh, Gunasena and others, case No. HC 326/2003 (Negombo High Court). 5