CCPR/C/113/D/2087/2011 to the State party when injuries were sustained in police custody. It should thus be presumed that the injuries found on Sunil Hemachandra’s body were inflicted by beatings by the officers of Moragahahena Police Station. 3.5 The authors add that under article 10 (para. 1) of the Covenant, the State party had a duty to guarantee proper medical care to Sunil Hemachandra while he was in detention. On 23 July 2003, the State party authorities were informed that Sunil was bleeding severely and was in a critical condition. Such a serious and potentially life-threatening situation required immediate medical treatment, including transfer to a hospital, given that adequate treatment could not be provided in situ. The actual response, however, was clearly inadequate: the co-detainee Chanaka was ordered to wipe the blood off the victim, to wash his face and to give him an iron rod. Even if this measure was taken out of a genuine belief that the victim was epileptic, the police officer should not have relied on his personal assessment and should have sought prompt medical advice. It took more than three hours for Sunil Hemachandra to be transferred to hospital. The authors conclude, therefore, that the rights of Sunil Hemachandra under article 7 and article 10 (para. 1), of the Covenant, were violated. 3.6 The authors also submit that the State party has breached article 7 in respect of them, by refusing to conduct an investigation into the death of their son and nephew, leaving them in continuous suffering due to the uncertainty surrounding the causes of his death. More than eight years after his death, both authors still do not know the exact circumstances surrounding the event, and the State party has yet to indict, prosecute or bring to justice anyone in connection with their relative’s death in custody. 3.7 With respect to article 9 (paras. 1, 2 and 4), the authors submit that Sunil Hemachandra was not informed, at the time of the arrest, of the reasons for such arrest. Furthermore, the unacknowledged character of his arrest and detention effectively deprived him of any meaningful possibility to take proceedings before a court, in order to challenge the legality of his detention. There is no objective evidence to substantiate any of the allegations considered by the Supreme Court as reasons for his arrest (para. 2.17). The authors also stress that the practice of fabricating charges to deter complaints against the police is well documented.5 3.8 The allegation that the victim was drunk at the time of arrest was also not supported by any evidence. No medical examination was conducted upon his arrival at Moragahahena Police Station, and there are no hospital records to that effect. Even if the assertion was true, detention on this ground was unnecessary and unreasonable in the circumstances of the present case. With regard to the alleged ground for arrest, according to which the victim had threatened to commit suicide, the authors submit that there is no evidence in support of this allegation. The fact that Sunil Hemachandra was placed in a small cell, shared with other detainees, and without any medical or psychological assistance, is irreconcilable with the suggestion that he was detained to prevent self-harm. The victim’s family was not informed about the place of detention, and he was not provided with an opportunity to contact his relatives, and had no legal representation. The authors add that the facts of the present case should be viewed in the context of the well-documented practice of police corruption in Sri Lanka, which has resulted in a series of cases involving extortion and illtreatment. The authors conclude that Sunil Hemachandra’s arrest and detention were unlawful and arbitrary. 5 The authors refer to reports from the Asian Human Rights Commission (“Sri Lanka: cases of torture and ill-treatment recorded from 2006-2010”) and from Redress (“Responses to human rights violations: the implementation of the right to reparation for torture in India, Nepal and Sri Lanka”). 7