UN experts today criticised Sri Lanka’s new proposed counter-terrorism legislation and urged the government to make sure it complies with global human rights standards. They said the new bill does not go far enough to correct the shortcomings of the country’s harsh Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA).
The current Prevention of Terrorism legislation in Sri Lanka, according to UN experts and multilateral organisations, “is in violation of international law due to its vague terminology, its lack of protection for fundamental human rights, and a lack of independent oversight,” the experts said. They stated that it was “deeply regrettable” that none of these flaws were addressed by the proposed legislation.
The Sri Lankan Parliament is now debating the proposed counterterrorism bill. The country’s current Prevention of Terrorism Act, which has long been plagued by structural flaws that allow for the commission of torture, arbitrary detention, enforced disappearances, and other human rights crimes, is meant to be replaced by this new legislation.
The experts raised concerns that anti-terrorism laws and broad emergency powers are frequently abused in Sri Lanka to repress political opponents, dissidents, and advocates for human rights. Detainees have been kept in the nation for years without being tried under the PTA.
The UN experts claimed to have previously established a number of “benchmarks” for Sri Lankan anti-terrorism law to meet in order to be human rights compatible. These include using definitions of terrorism that adhere to international standards, ensuring clarity and legal certainty, particularly when legislation may affect the rights to freedom of expression, opinion, peaceful assembly, association, and religion or belief, putting in place strong safeguards to prevent and end arbitrary deprivation of liberty, making sure preventive measures are in place to stop torture and enforced disappearances, and adhering to their strict prohibitions.
The experts lamented that “unfortunately, only minor changes have been made to the expansive definition of terrorism contained in the legislation.” They said it was disturbing to see new definitions of terrorism that included crimes committed in a “place of public use” rather than the much-needed scaling back of counterterrorism authority.
They also raised alarm over the new law’s significant increase of police authority and lack of judicial monitoring of communications interception.
They were appalled by clauses that make it harder to arrest people who are suspected of committing or “possibly” engaging in legal violations. According to the experts, the law does not give magistrates the authority to ensure that all detainees are removed from places of confinement as soon as claims of torture or other cruel or inhumane treatment surface.
The right of those accused of breaking the law to consult with solicitors is likewise restricted under the anti-terrorism law.
