CCPR/C/118/D/2412/2014 torture was widely practised in Sri Lanka,11 especially in the context of counter-terrorism operations by the armed forces and the police, including the Terrorist Investigation Division.12 He further claims that the Division was implicated in numerous instances of mistreatment and torture. Persons held in their detention facilities were often held incommunicado and denied visits from family members, lawyers and human rights groups.13 3.3 As to his allegation under article 7, the author claims that at the moment of his arrest and while in detention, he suffered treatment at the hands of Terrorist Investigation Division officials and guards that was contrary to the provisions of article 7 of the Covenant. In particular, in August 2008, he was interrogated for several hours and forced to sign a false confession under conditions of torture, in which he stated that he had imported an illegal GPS device for LTTE. The author alleges that all the events he experienced individually and collectively constitute torture. Should the Committee disagree with that assessment, the author submits that they constitute cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. 3.4 The author further submits that the State party violated his rights under article 9 of the Covenant. He was not detained on lawful grounds, as the grounds for his initial arrest were neither reasonable nor probable. In addition, the officers of the Terrorist Investigation Division who arrested him did not inform him of any discernible reason for his arrest. He never appeared before a magistrate and was given no opportunity to challenge any aspect of his detention. He was not allowed access to legal counsel until his first appearance before a magistrate, which took place only after he had been held in detention for one year without charges. 3.5 The author claims that, in addition to a violation of article 7 of the Covenant, the conditions at the different centres in which he was held constituted a violation of his rights under article 10, as well as numerous provisions of the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners. He points out that while in detention, he was denied medication for treatment of his diabetes for some time and officials at Welikada prison did not provide him with medication for chest pains, despite a doctor’s prescription and 11 12 13 Watch (HRW), Return to War (6 August 2007). See A/HRC/7/3/Add.6, pp. 7, 19, 20, 23, 25, 28-34 and 46-50; Human Rights Watch, “Legal limbo: the uncertain fate of detained LTTE suspects in Sri Lanka” (February 2010), pp. 7, 11, 12 and 16; Asian Human Rights Commission, Recovering the Authority of Public Institutions. A Resource Book on Law and Human Rights in Sri Lanka (Hong Kong, China, 2009), pp. 42-44 and 158. The author claims that the Emergency (Miscellaneous Provisions and Powers) Regulation No. 1 of 2005, Emergency (Prevention and Prohibition of Terrorism and Specified Terrorist Activities Regulations) No. 7 of 2006 and the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act No. 48 of 1979 regulate the operations of the Sri Lankan army and the police, including the Terrorist Investigation Division. The author submits that the Prevention of Terrorism Act, inter alia, allows for a suspect to be detained by the security forces, without charge for up to 18 months or right of habeas corpus; has a vague and far-reaching definition of “unlawful activities”; allows for the impunity of officials who commit torture against persons detained under that legislation and for involuntary and forced confessions made in police custody to be submitted as evidence in court; reverses the burden of proof such that the detainee must prove that their confession was made under duress; and that detainees arrested under the Act and/or the Emergency Regulations were routinely denied due process and held arbitrarily without being charged. The author refers to A/HRC/7/3/Add.6, pp. 7 and 20; Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, Sri Lanka, “Changes to the emergency regulations and the Prevention of Terrorism Act (AugustSeptember 2011)”, (29 September 2011); Amnesty International, “Locked away: Sri Lanka’s security detainees” (2012), pp. 10-14; Human Rights Watch, “Sri Lanka: ‘bait and switch’ on emergency law”(7 September 2011) and “‘We will teach you a lesson’: sexual violence against Tamils by Sri Lankan security forces” (February 2013); and Asian Human Rights Commission, Police torture cases in Sri Lanka: 1998-2011 (2012). 7