- 69 (c) By paramilitaries, who apparently are not a regular force fully responsible to the military command. 177. Even though the number of instances of torture is rather high, the majority of suspects are not tortured; some may be treated roughly. 178. The Government does not condone torture and is employing various means to prevent it. It appears that instructions to that effect are not always obeyed, and there was no appropriate follow-up to ensure compliance. 179. Investigation by the Sri Lankan police of alleged instances of torture is not satisfactory, as it has been often inordinately delayed. Prosecution or disciplinary proceedings have until recently been rare. 180. Noteworthy remedial action is that taken by the High Court in respect of fundamental rights petitions. Mention may also be made of the work of the Human Rights Commission. The work, though recently improved, still leaves a lot to be desired, particularly in ensuring compliance with instructions to prevent torture and dealing with the possible effect of new emergency legislation on human rights. 181. On the basis of the above, the Committee has reached the conclusion that, although a disturbing number of cases of torture and ill-treatment as defined by articles 1 and 16 of the Convention are taking place, mainly in connection with the internal conflict, its practice is not systematic. 182. In reaching this conclusion, the Committee has taken into account its views with regard to the meaning of “systematic practice of torture” expressed at the end of its first inquiry under article 20 of the Convention in 1993 and endorsed in subsequent inquiries (A/48/44/Add.1, para. 39; A/51/44, para. 214; and A/56/44, para. 163).1 These describe the ordinary meaning to be ascribed to the term “systematic” in the context of its use in article 20 of the Convention as required by article 31 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 1969. 183. The Committee also took into consideration the fact that the Government and the government security forces began implementing most of the recommendations addressed to the State party by the Committee. 1 “The Committee considers that torture is practised systematically when it is apparent that the torture cases reported have not occurred fortuitously in a particular place or at a particular time, but are seen to be habitual, widespread and deliberate in at least a considerable part of the territory of the country in question. Torture may in fact be of a systematic character without resulting from the direct intention of a Government. It may be the consequence of factors which the Government has difficulty in controlling, and its existence may indicate a discrepancy between policy as determined by the central Government and its implementation by the local administration. Inadequate legislation which in practice allows room for the use of torture may also add to the systematic nature of this practice.”