A/HRC/7/3/Add.6 page 18 institutions to maintain consistent relationships with civil society, stated that the appointment process caused civil society in Sri Lanka to question the constitutionality of the NHRC, thereby affecting its credibility. 62. The Government reported that the direct appointment by the President of the Commissioners was compelled by circumstances in which the Constitutional Council was not validly constituted and thus could not make any valid recommendations. The President also holds the residual power of appointment in the event of any such consultative forum not being in existence. The non-establishment of the Constitutional Council was not due to any fault on the part of the President or the Government but, rather, to a weakness in the legal provisions. The issue is now being addressed, reports the Government. 5. Compensation 63. Article 17 of the Constitution entitles every person to a remedy for the infringement of fundamental rights by State action. Furthermore, article 126 (2) states that “any person [who] alleges that any such fundamental right … has been infringed … may … apply to the Supreme Court … praying for relief or redress in respect of such infringement”. In granting relief, the Supreme Court has construed the relevant constitutional provisions as containing a right to compensation.17 64. The Supreme Court has in its jurisprudence interpreted torture as “any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person by a public official acting in the discharge of his executive or administrative duties or under colour of office for such purposes as obtaining from the victim or a third person a confession or information, imposing a penalty on the victim … or coercing the victim or third person to do or refrain doing something”. 18 65. The Government reported that Sri Lankan jurisprudence provides that a torture victim may not only claim for the harm suffered but also, according to the Supreme Court, claim for future medical expenses. These expenditures may be charged to the State. In recent years, the 17 Saman v. Leeladasa and Another, S.C. Application No. 4/88, 6 and 7 October 1988: Per Fernando, J.: “An impairment of personality - the violation of those interests which every man has, as a matter of natural right, in the possession of an unimpaired person, dignity and reputation, and whether it be a public or private right - committed with wrongful intent established liability in the actio injuriarum; patrimonial loss, as well as damages for mental pain, suffering and distress can be recovered. When the Constitution recognized the right set out in article 11, even if it was a totally new right, these principles of the common law applied, and the wrongdoer who violated that right became liable, and his master too, if the wrong was committed in the course of employment. It was not necessary for a new delict to be created by statute or judicial decision.” Per Amerasinghe, J.: “Our Court has preferred to treat a violation of a Fundamental Right as something sui generis created by the Constitution and not as a delict.” 18 De Silva v. Chairman Ceylon Fertilizer Corporation, (1989) 2 S.L.R. 393.