CCPR/C/113/D/2087/2011 The complaint 3.1 The authors submit that the State party has failed to carry out an adequate investigation into the unlawful and arbitrary arrest and detention, torture, and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment of Sunil, and into his death, in violation of article 6 (para. 1), article 7, article 9 (paras. 1, 2 and 4) and article 10, of the Covenant, read alone and in conjunction with article 2 (para. 3), of the Covenant. 3.2 Regarding article 6, the authors stress that Sunil Hemachandra was arbitrarily deprived of his life by the State party. They submit that in cases of custodial death, there is a presumption of State responsibility. This presumption applies equally whether, as in the present case, the victim died in hospital following a transfer from police custody, or as a result of injuries sustained in detention. The authors stress that the direct medical cause of Sunil’s death is not clear. The report of the consultant judicial medical officer (para. 2.13) concluded that the cause of death could be a fall in a state of alcohol withdrawal, however the report is poor and inconclusive, as it does not explain which examinations were carried out, and also failed to detect the injury that was identified by the Additional Magistrate (para. 2.12). A second independent opinion4 revealed several defects in the forensic examination report, including the absence of appropriate additional examinations, such as histological and toxicological examinations, inter alia to confirm the hypothesis of alcohol abuse, and to discard the possibility of torture, which was not even considered. In any event, even if the conclusions of the report of the judicial medical officer, relied upon by the Supreme Court, were to be accepted, four possibilities were evoked which could have triggered Sunil’s death. Only that of alcohol withdrawal was considered. No further measures, such as identifying the police officers involved, taking their testimony, or examining the scene of the alleged violation, were taken to investigate possible causes of death other than alcohol withdrawal. The authors thus invite the Committee to draw the inference that the victim’s death was a direct consequence of his ill-treatment, specifically, being severely beaten up on his head and abdomen by the police during and immediately after his arrest. 3.3 The authors submit, subsidiarily, that the authorities of the State party failed to take the requisite steps to protect Sunil Hemachandra’s health and life while he was in detention. No medical examination was carried out upon his admission to the Moragahahena Police Station detention facility to establish whether he had any condition (e.g. intoxication, epilepsy or mental instability). Instead, he was placed in a very small cell with other detainees, with no medical supervision. When it was found that he was bleeding severely, no medical assistance was provided to him for a period of at least three hours. Sunil Hemachandra only started receiving medical treatment after his belated transportation to the hospital. This lack of prompt action in a situation of life-threatening injury to a detainee was, in itself, in violation of the State party’s obligations under article 6 (para. 1) of the Covenant. 3.4 The authors further claim that Sunil Hemachandra was subjected to torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, in violation of article 7 of the Covenant. The officers of Moragahahena Police Station subjected him to severe beatings during the course of his arrest, in particular on the head. Beatings continued in the police jeep during the transfer of Sunil Hemachandra and Chanaka to Moragahahena Police Station, particularly in the form of beatings on Sunil’s head and abdomen. Sunil Hemachandra died four days later. It has never been disputed, in particular throughout the Supreme Court proceedings, that his injuries were sustained while in police custody, although versions concerning the origin of the injuries varied. The authors submit that the burden of proof should be shifted 4 6 Commissioned by the human rights organization Redress.