CAT/C/LKA/CO/3-4 Impunity for acts of torture and ill-treatment 18. The Committee remains concerned about the prevailing climate of impunity in the State party and the apparent failure to investigate promptly and impartially wherever there is reasonable ground to believe that an act of torture has been committed. It also notes the absence of an effective independent monitoring mechanism to investigate complaints of torture. The Committee expresses concern over reports that the Attorney General’s office has stopped referring cases to the Special Investigations Unit (SUP) of the police and the large proportion of pending cases still outstanding. The Committee is also concerned at numerous reports concerning the lack of independence of the judiciary (arts. 11, 12 and 13). The State party should: (a) Ensure that a prompt and impartial investigation is made into all complaints of torture or ill-treatment. In particular, such investigation should be under the responsibility of an independent body, not under the authority of the police; (b) Establish an independent complaints system for all persons deprived of their liberty; (c) Launch prompt and impartial investigations spontaneously and wherever there is reasonable ground to believe that an act of torture has been committed; (d) Ensure that the Attorney General’s office fulfils its responsibilities to refer cases to the SUP; (e) Ensure that, in cases of alleged torture, suspects are suspended from duty immediately for the duration of the investigation, particularly if there is a risk that they might otherwise be in a position to repeat the alleged act or to obstruct the investigation; (f) Ensure that, in practice, complainants and witnesses are protected from any ill-treatment and acts of intimidation related to their complaint or testimony; (g) Bring to trial the alleged perpetrators of acts of torture or ill-treatment and, if they are found guilty, ensure sentences with penalties that are consistent with the gravity of their acts. In this connection, legislative measures should be taken to guarantee the independence of the judiciary. Witness and victim protection 19. The Committee remains concerned at the absence of an effective mechanism to ensure the protection of and assistance to witnesses and victims of human rights violations and abuses, which has a negative impact on the willingness and ability of witnesses and victims to participate in investigations or to testify in proceedings. In this regard, the Committee is concerned about the impunity in the cases of attacks against witnesses and victims, as illustrated in the case of Gerald Perera and those allegedly involved in his murder following his allegation of torture against several police officers. The Committee notes with concern that a bill on witness and victim protection has been on the parliamentary agenda since 2008. The Committee regrets the scant substantive information provided by the State party regarding the case of Siyaguna Kosgodage Anton Sugath Nishantha Fernando, a complainant in a torture case before the Supreme Court, who was killed by unidentified gunmen on 20 September 2008. The victim had repeatedly requested protection measures for himself and his family against alleged perpetrators (arts. 2, 11, 12, 13 and 15). The Committee reiterates its earlier recommendation (CAT/C/LKA/CO/2, para. 15) that the State party should ensure that witnesses and victims of human rights violations are effectively protected and assisted, in particular by ensuring that 8