On 15 September 2006, in the case of Singarasa, Sri Lanka’s Supreme Court, composed of a panel of five judges including the Chief Justice, stated that, "the [ICCPR] does not have internal effect and the rights under the ICCPR are not rights under the law of Sri Lanka". The Court further held that Sri Lanka’s accession to the Optional Protocol to the ICCPR, which permits individuals to submit complaints directly to the Human Rights Committee, was unconstitutional and that consequently individuals "cannot seek to ‘vindicate and enforce’ [their] rights through the [HRC]".
Sri Lanka acceded to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) in 1980 and its Optional Protocol, in 1997. The Supreme Court’s decision seeks to nullify Sri Lanka’s obligations under these and other international human rights treaties to which it is party, except in respect of those provisions that have been directly incorporated into national legislation.
The judgement is based on a mistaken application of international law and in itself constitutes a violation of article 2 of the ICCPR. Contrary to the conclusions of the Supreme Court in this decision, there is no requirement that the ICCPR should be incorporated into domestic law, as emphasised by the Human Rights Committee in its General Comment 30 on Article 2. Furthermore, it is a general principle of international law, embodied in article 27 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, that a State Party cannot invoke the provisions of its national law as justification for its failure to perform its international obligations.
It is deeply alarming that the Supreme Court, which is charged with the protection of the human rights of the people of Sri Lanka, should seek to comprehensively undermine human rights in this way and jeopardise recourse to international monitoring mechanisms. This decision is of particular concern coming at a time when impunity for human rights violations and abuses in Sri Lanka remains endemic in large part as a result of weaknesses within the police and the judiciary. The availability of individual recourse to international mechanisms is vital to ensure that victims’ rights are implemented when the national justice system is defective. International monitoring is all the more essential in the context of the deepening humanitarian crisis in the North and East of the country, as well the surge in killings and abductions in Colombo.
The judgment stands in stark contradiction to the pledges made by Sri Lanka in April of this year, on the basis of which it was elected to the new Human Rights Council. In particular, Sri Lanka underlined its commitments under the seven major international human rights treaties and their optional protocols and undertook to "take appropriate implementational measures in respect of relevant recommendations made by the Human Rights Treaty Bodies".
It is now for the Human Rights Committee to adopt a strong and unequivocal position on this violation of the ICCPR by Sri Lanka’s highest judiciary and to remind Sri Lanka’s government, and reassure its people, that Sri Lanka remains bound by its international obligations.
Contact : Gaël Grilhot : +33-1 43 55 90 19