A/HRC/34/54/Add.2 treatment to obtain a confession from detainees under the Prevention of Terrorism Act is a routine practice. 32. Moreover, the Special Rapporteur found that periodic hearings before a magistrate as per the Prevention of Terrorism Act do not amount to meaningful safeguards against either arbitrariness of detention or ill-treatment. Section 2 (1) of Prevention of Terrorism Act Regulation No. 4 of 2011 seems to eliminate entirely the judicial review of a detention order by providing that “Any person who has been detained in terms of the provisions of any emergency regulation … shall … be produced before the relevant Magistrate, who shall take steps to detain such person … .” Magistrates essentially rubber-stamp detention orders made by the executive branch and, as confirmed by many testimonies, do not inquire into conditions of detention or potential ill-treatment. 33. Persons detained under the Prevention of Terrorism Act are prosecuted before the High Court for security-related offences. Lengthy court proceedings leave defendants in remand detention for years. The Special Rapporteur interviewed detainees who had spent 10 years in remand detention under the Act. The Legal Aid Commission informed the Special Rapporteur that one High Court judge had been appointed by the Vice-President to deal with the backlog of cases under the Act. 34. The Special Rapporteur was further informed by the Ministry of Law and Order at the time of his visit that, with respect to the 95 cases under the Prevention of Terrorism Act that were pending before the High Court, 43 suspects remained in custody; 16 had been released on bail, 8 of whom were undergoing rehabilitation while the other 8 were awaiting a decision, to be made in July 2016, on whether they would be sent for rehabilitation or prosecuted; and 9 cases were outstanding. In addition, at the time of the visit, a total of 25 suspects detained under the Act remained in the custody of the Terrorism Investigation Division and 21 were in a remand prison in connection with more recent cases. 35. The Ministry of Law and Order informed the Special Rapporteur that the Government had initiated the drafting of new security laws, consisting of a national security act, a State intelligence services act and a prevention of organized crimes act, to replace the Prevention of Terrorism Act and the Public Security Ordinance. Shortly after the visit, in June 2016, the President reportedly issued new directives to the police and armed forces on arrests and detentions under the Prevention of Terrorism Act, which included the prohibition of torture and respect for fundamental rights as enshrined in the Constitution, and reiterating the mandate of the National Human Rights Commission to be informed of all arrests made under the Prevention of Terrorism Act and that the Commission had unrestricted access to places of detention. 36. While the Special Rapporteur regards these steps as positive developments, he maintains that the Government should immediately repeal the Prevention of Terrorism Act. He notes that the Act violates article 155 (2) of the Constitution, which does not allow for derogation from constitutional rights, except for the restrictions foreseen in article 15. All counter-terrorism legislation needs to be in full compliance with the country’s international human rights obligations. 37. Moreover, the Special Rapporteur was informed of a proposed amendment to the Code of Criminal Procedure Act, as published in the Sri Lanka Gazette of 12 August 2016, that would deprive a suspect of access to a lawyer until his or her initial statement had been recorded. Serious concerns have been expressed by the National Human Rights Commission and several civil society organizations, which are shared by the Special Rapporteur. 8