A/HRC/7/3/Add.6 page 19 Supreme Court has held that both the State and individual perpetrators may be liable to pay compensation to the victim. In awarding and calculating compensation, the Supreme Court has taken into consideration the gravity of the injuries, the methods of torture employed and the harm caused. The Special Rapporteur welcomes the far-reaching jurisprudence of the Supreme Court with regard to violations of article 11 of the Constitution. Given the high standards of proof applied by the Supreme Court in these torture-related cases it is highly regrettable that the facts established do not trigger more convictions by criminal courts.19 66. In Sri Lanka, compensation cannot be claimed as part of criminal proceedings. However, in cases related to article 321, PC (“intentionally causing harm”), Magistrate Courts may award compensation to be paid by the offender when the Court refrains from imposing a prison sentence or from a proceeding to conviction (art. 17 (4), CCP). 67. A rape victim may obtain compensation from the offender according to the provisions stipulated in the Penal Code Amendment Act No. 22 of 1995. 68. Under Civil Law (Civil Procedure Code) torture victims or relatives of torture victims can also bring a damages claim before the District Court for pecuniary and non-pecuniary losses incurred as a result of torture against an individual. 69. The NHRC may recommend a compensation for a victim of torture or, in case of death, his or her relative to be paid by the police or army officer (art. 15 (3) (c) of the Establishment Act). II. THE SITUATION OF TORTURE AND ILL-TREATMENT 70. In the opinion of the Special Rapporteur, the high number of indictments for torture filed by the Attorney General’s Office, the number of successful fundamental rights cases decided by the Supreme Court of Sri Lanka, as well as the high number of complaints that the NHRC continues to receive on an almost daily basis are a clear indication that torture is widely practised in Sri Lanka.20 During his visits to places of detention in various parts of the country, 19 The Government reported that there are two principal standards of proof that are operational in Sri Lanka: proof as to the balance/preponderance of probabilities (civil standard); and proof beyond a reasonable doubt (criminal standard). According to the Government, in the so-called “Fundamental Rights” cases, the Supreme Court decides on the basis of documentary evidence and oral pleadings and applies the civil standard. However, for a criminal conviction to be upheld, the court must be satisfied that the offence (including torture) is proved beyond a reasonable doubt - a much higher standard of proof. In fundamental rights cases the liability is primarily on the State whereas in criminal cases penal sanctions are imposed against the individual (most often involving deprivation of liberty). 20 The Government notes the clarification made by the Special Rapporteur during the debriefing session with the Government on 8 October 2007, wherein he stated that what he meant by the term “widely practised” was that he encountered instances of probable torture in several diverse locations and not as a systematic practice.