CCPR/C/120/D/2209/2012 The complaint 3.1 The author claims that his brother’s rights under articles 6, 7 and 9 of the Covenant, taken alone and in conjunction with article 2 (3), of the Covenant have been violated by the State party. 3.2 The author claims that the State party violated article 6 of the Covenant, since his brother died while in the custody of the Sri Lankan police. The author contends that his brother succumbed to an injury caused as the direct result of being severely beaten by police officers immediately after his apprehension and in the police vehicle. The author submits that the burden of proof rests on the authorities of the State party, which should have provided a plausible explanation for the cause of his death. The author indicates that the version advanced by the police in the proceedings before the magistrate that the victim inflicted self-harm under the influence of alcohol is not supported either by the testimony of eyewitnesses or by the results of the autopsy. Regarding the “inconclusive” cause of death suggested by the judicial medical officer, the author submits that it was only “tentative” and uncorroborated by any other factual element of the case. He adds that, according to the magistrate, the evidence of other injuries on the body of the victim through significant doubt on his conclusion and that, despite numerous summonses, the judicial medical officer failed to appear in the inquiry proceedings before the magistrate. 3.3 The author also claims a violation of article 7 of the Covenant. He sustains that grave injuries were found on his brother’s body, as confirmed by the results of the autopsy. The injuries were consistent with the evidence of the eyewitness who reported that his brother had been beaten all over his body, and that his head had been struck heavily against the police van. The author explains that the number and type of injuries are not consistent with the police officer’s contention that his brother suffered injuries after jumping from a van. The author also refers to the magistrate’s opinion that there was significant doubt that the injuries were consistent with the judicial medical officer’s conclusion that there was no evidence of injuries of intentional violence. 3.4 The author further claims a violation of the rights of his brother under article 9. He sustains that there were no legal grounds for his brother’s arrest and detention and that the police officers could not demonstrate that his detention was “reasonable” or “necessary” in the circumstances. 3.5 The author submits that, according to the statements made by the police officers, his brother was arrested for being under the influence of alcohol and for obstructing traffic. However, the toxicology report showed that there was no basis on which an objective observer would have concluded that the victim had been drunk at the time of arrest. The author adds that no eyewitness evidence supported the police officers’ allegation that his brother had been obstructing traffic at the time of arrest. 3.6 The author claims that the obstruction of the investigation and the absence of any prosecution in the present case constituted a violation of article 2 (3) of the Covenant, read in conjunction with articles 6, 7 and 9. He submits that the investigation and prosecution have been halted through the intervention of the Attorney General, which deprived him of any effective remedy. The author considers that the Attorney General relied on a highly selective view of the evidence and actively interfered with the inquiry led by the magistrate, in spite of the evidence favouring continuing investigation and prosecution. 3.7 The author submits that, while proceedings are still pending before the Court of Appeal, this should not be considered an effective and available domestic remedy under the meaning of article 2 of the Optional Protocol, and that he should therefore not be expected to exhaust domestic remedies while the State party does not comply with its responsibility. 3.8 The author also submits that no remedy is available for him to challenge the decision of the Attorney General not to take any further action. Referring to the Committee’s jurisprudence, he alleges that court proceedings before the superior courts in Sri Lanka, such as the Court of Appeal, are likely to be unduly prolonged, 13 while recognizing on 13 See communications No. 1250/2004, Lalith Rajapakse v. Sri Lanka, Views adopted on 14 July 2006, para. 9.4; and No. 1432/2005, Gunaratna v. Sri Lanka, Views adopted on 17 March 2009, para. 7.5. 5