CCPR/C/120/D/2209/2012 2.13 On 3 March 2011, an application for the discharge of the police officers was made on the basis of the Solicitor General’s letter. The magistrate dismissed the application, holding that the Code of Criminal Procedure does not indicate a power to discharge an accused on the basis of the Attorney General’s advice before calling the evidence in the case.7 The author explains that, under that Code, an accused may only be discharged on the order of the Attorney General after he or she is sent to trial before the High Court or at any time during the trial before the High Court. 8 2.14 On 8 March 2011, the counsel for the accused again presented submissions to the magistrate seeking the discharge of the accused on the basis of the Attorney General’s determination. The magistrate again refused to make the order and decided to proceed with the inquiry.9 2.15 On 31 March 2011, the non-summary inquiry commenced. The Senior State Counsel appearing on behalf of the prosecution made submissions for the discharge of the police officers from the proceedings. The magistrate refused to make the order and fixed the examination of the case for 28 April 2011. 2.16 On 20 April 2011, further written submissions were made by the author’s representatives. However, by that time, the accused had already been released without condition a few days earlier,10 contrary to the magistrate’s order.11 2.17 On 31 April 2011, the police officers appealed the magistrate’s order to continue with the non-summary inquiry by way of a writ to the Court of Appeal of Sri Lanka. 12 The police officers complained that the proceedings against them by the magistrate had been unlawful and sought orders quashing the proceedings in the Magistrate’s Court and prohibiting further proceedings. The author explains that the petition failed to refer to a number of important facts in the case and did not include a number of documents from the case records, including the witness evidence implicating the police officers in the assault on his brother and the failure of the judicial medical officer to appear before the magistrate during the inquest. 2.18 On 3 June 2011, the Court of Appeal held an interim hearing, at which the counsel for the accused police officers, the officer in charge of the Kirindiwela police station and the Attorney General were present. The author submits that neither he (fourth respondent) nor the magistrate (third respondent) were present at the hearing. The Attorney General, who was a respondent to the petition, supported the grant of the orders sought by the accused police officers. 2.19 At the hearing, the Court of Appeal ordered an interim stay of the proceedings before the magistrate until final determination of the application before the Court of Appeal, and the unconditional release of the two police officers. The author submits that the Court’s reasons referred only to the information presented by the petitioners and did not make reference to the evidence contrary to the police officer’s version of events given before the magistrates. 2.20 Following notification of that order, the author and the magistrate filed notices of objection to the Court of Appeal and requested it to dismiss the petition lodged by the police officers. 2.21 On 21 April 2017, the author informed the Committee that the case was still pending before the Court of Appeal. He also submitted that on two occasions the case was taken for argument but postponed owing to a change of judges. According to the author, there are no remedies available to accelerate the pace of the proceedings in the matter. 7 8 9 10 11 12 4 attached format”. The author refers to the Record of Proceedings and Order, dated 3 March 2011. The author refers to the Criminal Procedure Code, s.192 and s.194. The author refers to the Record of Proceedings and Order, dated 8 March 2011. The author does not provide the exact date. The author refers to the Record of Proceedings and Order, dated 8 March 2011. The author refers to the Amended Petition to Court of Appeal, dated 31 May 2011. He also indicates that the case number is 338/2011.