CCPR/C/113/D/2087/2011 3.9 Concerning article 2 (para. 3), the authors submit that there were serious flaws in the investigation in the present case. The investigation was carried out by the same members of the police force (from Moragahahena Police Station) as those implicated in the victim’s death, officers of Moragahahena Police Station conducted all important investigative actions — they took Sunil Hemachandra’s statement on 23 July 2003 and the statements from the authors and Chanaka on 26 July 2003, none of the officers involved in the alleged violation was suspended or reassigned pending the inquiry, and the case was not referred to the special investigation unit. 3.10 As regards the judicial process, the magistrates limited the scope of their inquiry to the circumstances of Sunil Hemachandra’s death. They had to rely on the evidence collected by the police officers, who lacked the requisite impartiality and independence. The Attorney General refused to inquire into the matter, despite the express order to do so from the Magistrate of Horana (paras. 2.15 and 2.16). The Supreme Court did not order any further investigative action, or a full separate investigation. The authorities failed to take prompt and effective action capable of establishing the truth about the circumstances surrounding the arrest, detention, torture and death of Sunil Hemachandra. Although the second author had complained about the torture of Sunil three days prior to his death, that is, on 23 July 2003, no forensic medical examination was ordered; no police officers involved in his arrest and detention were identified. Chanaka, who was arrested along with the victim, was only interrogated after Sunil Hemachandra’s death, and by the officers of Moragahahena Police Station. Similarly, the second author, who was an eyewitness to the victim’s arrest and beating in her house, was only interrogated after the victim’s death, by the same police officers. The only measure taken promptly was to visit Sunil Hemachandra in hospital, while he was in critical condition, with a view to obtaining a false statement. 3.11 The authors add that the Supreme Court did not address these shortcomings, and did not conduct or commission another investigation. Instead, it relied upon the testimony and other evidence gathered directly by, or under the control of, the officers of Moragahahena Police Station, that is, implicated police officers. In addition, the Supreme Court proceedings lasted almost seven years, although there was nothing in terms of case complexity that could justify such a delay. The authors conclude that article 2 (para. 3), read in conjunction with article 6 (para. 1), article 7, article 9 (paras. 1, 2 and 4) and article 10 (para. 1), was breached in respect of Sunil Hemachandra. 3.12 By way of remedy, the authors request (a) a full and independent investigation into the circumstances of the arrest, detention, torture and custodial death of Sunil Hemachandra; (b) the payment of full and adequate compensation to the authors, which is proportionate to the seriousness of the violations and the damages and suffering inflicted; (c) a public apology containing an unequivocal acknowledgement of the numerous violations of the Covenant in the present case; (d) as full a rehabilitation as possible for the authors, including psychological counselling services if appropriate; and (e) the establishment of an independent body or institution tasked with investigating complaints into serious human rights violations committed by police and other law enforcement personnel, which is capable of documenting and investigating incidents of torture, following the recommendation of the Committee against Torture (see CAT/C/LKA/CO/2, para. 12 (a)). Lack of cooperation from the State party 4. By notes verbales of 22 August 2011, 5 March 2012, 21 May 2012 and 6 July 2012, the State party was requested to submit information to the Committee on the admissibility and merits of the communication. The Committee notes that this information has not been received. The Committee regrets the State party’s failure to provide any information with regard to admissibility or the substance of the authors’ claims. It recalls that article 4 8