CCPR/C/120/D/2256/2013 inaction of judges when she was called a prostitute during court proceedings, also constitute discrimination against her as a woman and as a member of the Indian Tamil minority. 3.5 As a remedy, the author requests that an independent investigation be conducted, that the alleged perpetrators be prosecuted, that the civil claim she lodged be expedited and concluded and that a full and adequate compensation be paid to her. 10 The author also makes a request to receive the fullest possible rehabilitation and a public apology acknowledging the violations of her rights. State party’s observations 4.1 On 2 December 2014, in response to the Committee’s request for information and observations on admissibility and the merits, the State party informed the Committee that it was unable to submit its observations owing to the Supreme Court’s judgment in the Singarasa case,11 citing respect for the judgment of its domestic courts as the justification. 4.2 The Singarasa case involved the issue of justiciability and enforcement of the Committee’s recommendations at the domestic level. The Supreme Court’s judgment set an interpretational precedent for dualism in the context of Sri Lanka.12 The court held that the accession to the Optional Protocol by an act of the President was a “purported exercise of legislative power”, and that since no steps were taken to give statutory effect to the rights enshrined in the Covenant, the findings of the Committee would be unenforceable and the court was not expected to give them effect.13 Author’s further submission 5. In a submission dated 15 June 2017, the author informs the Committee that in December 2015, the two perpetrators of the rape were convicted and sentenced by the High Court of Kandy, both to 23 years of imprisonment. While the conviction of the perpetrators, which had been obtained after extensive delays, was welcome, most of the violations of the author’s rights have remained unaddressed and the remedies at the domestic level have remained ineffective. The author recalls the previous jurisprudence of the Committee, arguing that the recent remedy should not hamper the assessment of the merits of her complaint, including the evaluation of whether an appropriate and effective remedy has been provided.14 In the view of the author, the recent convictions do not alter the fact that the investigations and prosecutions were unduly prolonged and delayed, and that the author has received no civil remedy. The author hence requests the Committee to find the communication admissible, assess the merits of her complaint, consider the adequacy of the remedy provided and identify the need for further action by the State party to provide an appropriate and effective remedy. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 6.1 Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Committee must decide, in accordance with rule 93 of its rules of procedure, whether the communication is 10 11 12 13 14 4 See communication No. 1610/2007, L.N.P. v. Argentina, Views adopted on 18 July 2011, para. 10.1. See also the Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Gross Violations of International Human Rights Law and Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law. Supreme Court of Sri Lanka, Singarasa v. Attorney General, judgment of 15 September 2006. Such interpretational precedent is, however, inconsistent with the doctrine and jurisprudence of the Committee. See in this regard paragraph 4 of the Committee’s general comment No. 31 (2004) on the nature of the general legal obligation imposed on States parties to the Covenant. See also article 27 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, according to which a State party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty. On 22 December 2014, the State party’s observations were submitted to counsel for information. See communications No. 868/1999, Wilson v. Philippines, Views adopted on 30 October 2003, para. 6.3, and No. 328/1988, Blanco v. Nicaragua, Views adopted on 20 July 1994, para. 9.2.