Section 28 of the Human Rights Commission Act is misleading...When the judiciary itself is subservient to the executive, Sri Lanka’s Human Rights Commission has no effective role...Many law enforcement officers consciously disregarded it and had not notified the SLHRC of arrests. Other officers had not notified the SLHRC of arrests and detentions because the section 28 requirements were not well known.

The SLHRC does not have financial independence. In its 2000-2001 annual report, the Commission stated that “the budgetary provision that is being made is not adequate for the Commission to perform all its functions efficiently and expeditiously...”

Although, the SLHRC has many regional offices, the decision-making is Colombo-centric. The regional offices also lack resources and equipment. For example, three of the regional offices had no method of transportation for 7-8 months at a time. Furthermore, field officers are not given proper protection when their inquiries place them in danger.

The SLHRC lacks transparency. According to the Colombo-based Law and Society Trust, “HRC was unable to provide information on the number of complaints of disappearances it had received during 2000...”

The most common and damaging complaint about the HRC concerns its inefficiency. Cases referred from the Supreme Court under the Act’s section 12(1) have been delayed for up to 15 months past the deadline issued by the court...

The Supreme Court; restrictive accessibility: “Although there is a complete chapter on human rights in the Constitution, complaints on violations of human rights could be lodged only in the Supreme Courts...Therefore, the opportunity for a poor, innocent person with no high social status to obtain relief in the violation of human rights is very limited...”

The restrictions imposed by Sri Lankan Constitution are telling. Article 126 of the Sri Lankan constitution provides:

(1) The Supreme Court shall have sole and exclusive jurisdiction to hear and determine any question relating to the infringement or imminent infringement by executive or administrative action of any fundamental right or language right declared and recognized by chapter II or chapter IV.

(2) Where any person alleges that any such fundamental right or language right relating to such person has been infringed or is about to be infringed by executive or administrative action, he may himself or by an att- orney-at-law on his behalf, within one month thereof, in accordance with such rules of court as may be in force, apply to the Supreme Court by way of petition in writing addressed to such court praying for relief or redress in respect of such infringement...

(3) Where in the course of hearing in the court of appeal into an application for orders in the nature of a writ of habeas corpus, certiorari, prohibition, procedendo, mandamus or quo warranto, it appears to such court that there is prima-facie evidence of an infringement or imminent infringement of the provisions of chapter II or chapter IV by a party to such application, such court shall forthwith refer such matter for determination by the Supreme Court.

(4) The Supreme Court shall have the power to grant such relief or make such directions as it may deem just and equitable in the circumstance in respect of any petition or reference referred to in paragraphs (2) and (3) of this Article or refer the matter back to the court of appeal if, in its opinion, there is no infringement of a fundamental right or language right.