CCPR/C/132/D/2508/2014 Advance unedited version Consideration of the merits 6.1 The Committee has considered the present communication in the light of all the information submitted to it by the parties, as required under article 5 (1) of the Optional Protocol. 6.2 Regarding the author’s claims under article 7 of the Covenant, the Committee takes note of the events that took place on 28 February 2008 when the author’s motorbike was struck by a truck driven by Mr. P.V.Ch. In particular, the Committee notes the author’s statements that in addition to the injuries he suffered as a result of the accident, he was severely beaten up at the scene by some police officers and the truck driver who even threw a cup of acid into the author’s face. The Committee observes that instead of providing him with prompt and adequate medical treatment required by his critical medical condition, the author was placed in detention in which he remained until the evening of 1 March 2008. During this period he was again ill-treated by police officers and the truck driver who reappeared at the police station. The Committee is mindful of the author’s submission that as a result of his ill-treatment and late medical intervention, his eye had to be operated on multiple times and eventually, it had to be removed. His condition continues to cause him physical and mental suffering and further difficulties in some areas of his life, such as employment. 6.3 The Committee recalls its General Comment no. 20 on the Prohibition of Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment establishing that it is the duty of the State party to afford everyone protection through legislative and other measures as may be necessary against the acts prohibited by article 7, whether inflicted by people acting in their official capacity, outside their official capacity or in a private capacity (para. 2). Furthermore, in line with its jurisprudence, the Committee reaffirms its position that the burden of proof cannot rest solely on the author of the communication, especially considering that the State party alone has access to some of the relevant information. 5 In the absence of any rebuttal statements or any comments from the State party on the above-mentioned facts, the Committee gives due weight to the author’s contentions that have also been confirmed by findings of the national authorities 6 . The Committee considers that the torture and conditions described, notably the use of acid and beatings inflicted by the truck driver; the police’s failure to protect the author while in their control and to seek prompt medical assistance; and the author’s further physical abuse by police officers during his detention, which have caused him severe pain and permanent disability, are such as to violate the author’s right not to be subjected to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment under article 7 of the Covenant. 6.4 The Committee also notes the author’s allegations that the State party could not demonstrate that his arrest had been “reasonable” or “necessary” in the circumstances of his case. It also notes that according to the information at its disposal, the author was never convicted for the charges, fabricated or not, brought against him. In the absence of a clarification on the part of the State party as to the grounds of the author’s detention from 28 February to 1 March, the Committee finds a violation by the State party of the rights of the author under article 9 of the Covenant.7 6.5 The author also invokes article 2 (3) in conjunction with articles 7 and 9 of the Covenant, whereby all States parties have the obligation to ensure that any person whose rights under the Covenant are violated has an effective remedy. The Committee recalls that criminal investigation and consequential prosecution are necessary remedies for violations of human rights such as those protected by articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant.8 In the instant case, the Committee is concerned that more than thirteen years after the incident, no one has been brought to justice for the author’s ill-treatment. In this connection, the Committee 5 6 7 8 6 See, for example, Belamrania v. Algeria (see note 20 above), para. 6.5; and communication No. 1832/2008, Al Khazmi v. Libya, Views adopted on 18 July 2013, para. 8.2. Recommendations of the Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka dated 27 February 2009 and the judgment of the Supreme Court of Sri Lanka dated 2 August 2016. See, for example, Amarasinghe Arachchige Simon Amarasinghe v. Sri Lanka (CCPR/C/120/D/2209/2012), para 6.7. See, for example, Thissera Sunil Hemachandra v. Sri Lanka (CCPR/C/113/D/2087/2011), para 6.3.