REPORT:WHAT IS HAPPENING WITH THE

PTA DETAINEES IN SRI LANKA NOW?

13/06/2016
Centre for Human Rights and Research (CHR) Sri Lanka has unveiled its comprehensive report
on the Prevention of Terrorism act (PTA) What is happening with the detainees now? The
forgotten political prisoners under the Yahapalanaya.
In the report CHR puts the PTA in context of Sri Lankan history, analyzes the draconian
anature of the law, provides case studies of how PTA has affected those detained under it and
their families and details how the good governance administration has tackled the PTA issue.
Civil Sociaty Organizations (CSOs) who played a main role in ensuring the victory of this
government has been insisting for decades to repeal the law. While the current administration
has remarked that it will amend the PTA according to international norms, it has not taken
proactive steps to ameliorate those affected by the PTA.
Moreover some sections of the state are still using the PTA and torture, which seems to
accompany the draconian law. Most recently Sarath Dissanayake, one of the key witnesses
against Gamini Senarath, the former aide to President Rajapaksa, was arrested and tortured by
the Police. It is only the intervention of the CSOs that prevented these officials from detaining
Dissanayake under the PTA, thus it is evident that PTA is still being used by some elements to

fulfill their personal agenda even under this administration.

CHR expects that this report will rekindle and enrich the discussion of the PTA.
The Report:
Sri Lankas draconian Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA) will be undergoing a much-needed
reform with the Government deciding to enact three fresh laws to protect security and promote
law and order. However, these new laws have to undergo many rounds of discussions to be
adequately transparent and include progressive clauses for the reforms to be successful.
Minister of Law and Order, Sagala Ratnayake has informed the United Nations (UN) CounterTerrorism Committee Executive Directorate of the three new proposed laws to replace the PTA.
Minister Ratnayake said that the Government had decided to enact three new laws relating to
the national and public security and law and order, to comprehensively and efficiently respond
to the contemporary manifestations and threats of extremism and terrorism, other attacks on
national security including organized crime and to address the issues of public order and for the
maintenance of essential services.
Government discussions centered around the revision of anti-terrorism legislation including
technical assistance to draft comprehensive counter-terrorism legislation to replace the PTA, in
accordance with the UN Human Rights Council (HRC) Resolutions and in keeping with
international best practices.
The PTA lengthens the detention period of those suspected of involvement in terrorism,
detained under Emergency Regulations promulgated under the Public Security Ordinance. The
Police can detain suspects for as long as 18 months without filing charges against them. The
PTA goes further as to usurp the powers of the detainee to seek relief from the Superior Courts
(Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court). Section 10 of the PTA specifically states that, Any
order made under Section 9 shall be final and shall not be called into question by any Court or
tribunal by way of writ or otherwise.
Furthermore, not only does the PTA undermine the terms in the Constitution but it also
disregards various international instruments to which Sri Lanka is party to and is thus bound by
international law to uphold. Article 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)
states that, No one shall be subject to arbitrary arrest, detention or trial. Moreover Article 9 of
the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights states that, Everyone has the right to
liberty and security, and no one shall be subject to arbitrary arrest or detention.
Now the war has ended and the question which then comes to mind is whether the terms of the
said Act can be amended to at least reflect the greatly improved security situation in Sri Lanka
post-war. Under the Evidence Ordinance, confessions made to the Police or other public
officers and confessions made while in the custody of the Police are not admissible as
dispositive evidence in ordinary criminal cases, unless they are made in the presence of a
Magistrate. Yet such confessions are admissible under the provisions of the PTA.
Human rights defenders argue that the practice of making confessions to ordinary Police

officers must be changed by which either a Superintendent of Police or a Deputy Inspector

General of Police can hear the confessions. These are just a few technical issues that a new set
of laws will have to tackle. The larger challenge will be the political difficulties of pushing
forward reconciliation when opportunistic politicians will use it as a window to whip up antiminority hysteria as well as figuring out how best to deal with people already detained under
the PTA. ________________________________________- See more at:
http://www.ft.lk/article/537258/PTA-reform#sthash.juZn551t.dpuf
Meanwhile, issuing directives based on the Directives on Arrest and Detention issued by
previous heads of State and binding international human rights law standards to be followed by
designated officials arresting persons under the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary
Provisions) Act, No. 48 of 1979, in order to ensure that the fundamental rights of the persons
arrested or detained are respected and protected, and such persons are treated humanely, the
Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka (HRCSL) observed that the PTA should be construed
narrowly and used in very specific circumstances, and should not be used to arrest persons for
ordinary crimes.
The HRCSL informed that officials of the Commission or any person authorized by it should be
permitted access to persons arrested, detained in custody or confined under the PTA.
The HRCSL noted that they should be permitted to enter, at any time, any place of detention
(only to be held at gazetted authorized detention centres), Police station or any other place at
which such person was detained in custody or confined.
The HRCSL directives addressed aspects concerning the arrest process, the process to be
followed after the arrest, and special measures related to the arrest of women and persons under
18 years and highlighted that the HRCSL should be informed of arrests and detentions and the
place of custody and detention under the PTA and of any transfers or releases.
These directives should be equally applicable to any situation of a declared state of public
emergency. Arrests or detentions under the PTA or orders for such must be in accordance with
the law, must follow proper procedure, and must only be done by legally authorized persons.
The person making the arrest should identify himself/herself by name and rank and show
identification to the person being arrested or a relative or a friend of such person. The reason
for the arrest must be informed to the arrestee. The person making the arrest or detention shall
issue to the spouse, parents, or relations, an arrest receipt acknowledging the fact of arrest.
Seizure of property must be notified in a similar manner. The time and date of arrest, and the
place at which the person will be detained shall also be specified. The receipt shall be attested
by the person to whom the receipt is issued, and be counter signed by the arrestee, whose name,
address, identity card number and reason for arrest shall also be stated in the receipt. The
receipt shall be issued in the language that the arrested person ordinarily uses. Where it is not
possible to issue an arrest receipt, the arresting officer, if a Police officer, shall make an entry in
the Information Book detailing reasons why it was not possible to issue the receipt. The
arrested or detained person shall be allowed to communicate with a family member, relative or
friend to inform of his/her whereabouts if person is arrested when not in the presence of family
or relatives. Searches of the arrested must be done with due respect to dignity and care for the
right to privacy, without force or aggression. In the case of forcible resistance to arrest,

minimum force to overcome such resistance may be used, however injuries to the person being
arrested, visible or otherwise, should be avoided. Medical assistance must be arranged and
provided for by the Police. This must be recorded contemporaneously in a register along with
any major or minor visible injuries on his/her body. The arrested should be produced before a
Judicial Medical Officer as soon as possible, and no later than 48 hours after the arrest. The
arrestee shall be permitted to meet his/her lawyer during interrogation. The statement of a
person arrested or detained should be recorded in the language of that persons choice. A person
who desires to make a statement in his/her own handwriting should be permitted to do so.
Adequate provision for basic amenities like food, proper ventilation, light, bedding, sanitation
facilities, mosquito net or coil, should be made available in all lockups. Any detainee who
alleges that s/he has been raped or sexually abused must be given an immediate medical
examination. Women Police officers should be present where the person being arrested is a
woman or a person under 18 years of age and a person of their choice should be allowed to
accompany them to the place of questioning. Immediately following arrest the arrested should
be allowed and supported to make childcare arrangements for the children in their care. If a
child is separated from its mother, the mother should be immediately notified and kept
continuously informed of the childs whereabouts and she should be given reasonable access to
the child, Chairperson of the HRCSL, Dr. Deepika Udagama outlined.
However, reputed Human Rights Lawyer, Lakshan Dias observed that unfortunately the
directives issued by the HRCSL had not come to fruition in reality with the said directives not
being the practice or the norm at the ground level with regards to processes to be adhered to
and procedures to be followed when dealing with such matters pertaining to the PTA.
I went to the Terrorism Investigation Division (TID) to see a client of mine. The TID is still
playing by their old tactics. When I mention directives by the HRCSL, they told me that even
though the HRCSL had given directives, they would have to ask the client whether the client
needed me and that the client needed to get his sister to tell him that they had hired me. Since
the family visits day is Sunday, according to the TID, I have to wait till Sunday and therefore
until Sunday, I am prevented from seeing my client. Can the HRCSL and the International
Committee of the Red Cross intervene here, either by way of handing over the letter attesting to
the retaining of a lawyer or by way of getting rid of these tactics adopted by the TID as
otherwise even with HRCSL directives in this regard, a lawyer has to wait for a week until the
day for family visits to meet his/her client and by which time anything bad could happen, Dias
explained.
The approximately 120 odd suspects detained under the PTA, are afforded a low priority by the
civil society, the political leadership and the Government. The Centre for Human Rights and
Research (CHR) which has been engaged in a continuous campaign, since the new Government
came into power, to get those detained charged in the courts, to get those against whom charges
cannot be filed released and to get the cases of those released on bail to be expedited in the
courts instead having the trial hearings/proceedings being constantly postponed, has inquired
into those who are presently detained under detention orders.
The report is in two parts. The first section will discuss the current situation with regards to the
PTA while the second part will include information and details concerning those presently

being detained in custody.

Madiarasan Sulakshan (Age: 28), who was arrested on 2009 May 19 (Case Number: HC-V
2491/2013) is to this day being detained, for two and a half years now, until the Attorney
Generals Department amends his charge sheet. The only evidence against him is an alleged
confession made by him during the period of detention.
He is just one of many such individuals who have been affected by the PTA. They are deprived
of a right to legal counsel, bail and charged based on their own confession.
The case against many of the detainees, about whom detailed information is presented in this
report, is no different from the aforementioned tale of facts.
The PTA allows the Government to detain individuals suspected of terrorism for prolonged
periods of time and also admits the confessions of such alleged terrorists; both acts which are
contrary to the Code of Criminal Procedure. The repeal of the PTA and the replacement of it
with national security legislation that is in keeping with international best practices was a
promise made by the yahapalanaya (good governance) Government that was provided with a
mandate at the Presidential Election in 2015 January and at the Parliamentary/General Election
in August 2015.
High profile members in both the 100 days programme Government and the post-2015 August
joint Government including the Executive President, the Prime Minister and the Foreign
Minister on various platforms including at the UN Headquarters in New York and at the
UNHRC sessions in Geneva (including in the content of the resolution concerning Sri Lanka
which was co-sponsored by the Government of Sri Lanka), pledged to do away with this
draconian piece of legislation that was used as a tool of oppression and terror. The incumbent
Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe in a statement made at the beginning of the year in
Jaffna affirmed the fact that the PTA being an archaic piece of legislation will be repealed and
legislation more in line with the anti-terrorism laws in the United Kingdom would be
introduced into the Sri Lankan legal arena. Meanwhile the Minister of Foreign Affairs echoed
the Premiers statement where, in March at Geneva, he reiterated the fact that the PTA will be
repealed and new counter-terrorism legislation will be introduced instead, in keeping with
current international practices.
Despite the statements made by those in the Government, the PTA to-date remains very much
in force with mere drafts being put forward by the Law Commission of Sri Lanka on its
amendments/reform and repeal. Sri Lanka is yet to see and debate on a solid anti-terrorism bill.
Since the incumbent Government came into power the number of political prisoners; a term
which in itself has been the totem of many an acrimonious debate, which was in excess of 270,
dwindled to a figure of 118. Some detainees were granted bail and given an opportunity to a
trial and access to due process, yet, still others are languishing in various prisons and detention
centres and are denied the due process of law. On the other hand, the issue of political prisoners
has been a mere slogan for mostly opportunistic Tamil political parties like the Tamil National

Alliance and the few non-governmental organizations, non-State actors and civil society
organizations who have sought to advance their causes in certain cases while genuinely
intervening in others.
As discussed earlier the PTA is controversial for mainly two reasons. First being the arrest and
subsequent detention of alleged perpetrators of terrorism and second, the acceptance of
confessions (most likely obtained through torture) as evidence of the crime.
Section 7 of the PTA provides:
Any person arrested under subsection(1) of section 6 may be kept in custody for a period not
exceeding seventy-two hours and shall, unless a detention order under section 9 has been made
in respect of such person, be produced before a Magistrate before the expiry of such period and
the Magistrate shall, on an application made in writing in that behalf by a police officer not
below the rank of Superintendent, make order that such person be remanded until the
conclusion of the trial of such person: Provided that, where the Attorney-General consents to
the release of such person before custody before the conclusion of the trial, the Magistrate shall
release such person from custody.
In terms of Section 6 and 7 of the PTA it is interesting to note that the arrest can take place in
the absence of a warrant and the individual detained for up to 72 hours until such time he is
produced before a Magistrate. This is a new procedure of law veering away from the criminal
procedure whereby the detainee should be produced before a Magistrate by 48 hours and
should also be arrested upon a warrant being issued for his arrest.
Section 9 of the PTA provides that:
Where the Minister has reason to believe or suspect that any person is connected with or
concerned in any unlawful activity, the Minister may order that such person be detained for a
period not exceeding three months in the first instance, in such place and subject to such
conditions as may be determined by the Minister, and any such order may be extended from
time to time for a period not exceeding three months at a time: Provided, however, that the
aggregate period of such detention shall not exceed a period of eighteen months.
Accordingly persons detained by the order of the Minister can be so held in such place and
under such conditions as may be determined by the Minister. Given the controversial manner in
which arrests take place the subsequent conditions of detention should be regulated by law and
set out clearly rather than being under the control of an individual who can and in most cases
will exercise it as s/he thinks fit if not according to his/her whims and fancies.
Furthermore, although the Evidence Ordinance provides that confessions made by perpetrators
in the presence of Police officers or while in custody cannot be admissible, under the PTA
however this privilege is not given to those apprehended. The only paltry consolation is that
such confession should be made in the presence of an officer not below the rank of an Assistant
Superintendent of Police.

Confessions are obtained from suspected terrorists by way of torture, inhumane and derogatory
treatment. Incidents at the Abu Ghraib Prison is no far cry from what takes place within our
Island.
Article 5 of the UDHR states that, No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or
degrading treatment or punishment. Moreover the UN Convention against Torture (CAT) in
Article 2 reiterates the fact that each State party shall take effective legislative, administrative,
judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction and no
exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal
political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.
Although Sri Lanka is no party to the UDHR, it is a party to the UNCAT. However the latter,
unfortunately has no force in domestic jurisdiction due to it not being enacted in the land.
Late Supreme Court Judge, Justice Mark Fernando observed in Weerawansa v Attorney
General (2000) 1 SLR 387 that, When the PTA Bill was referred to this court, the court did not
have to decide whether or not any of those provisions constituted reasonable restrictions on
Articles 12 (1), 13 (1) and 13 (2) permitted by Article 15 (7) (in the interests of national
security etc.), because the court was informed that it had been decided to pass the Bill with
two-thirds majority (SC SD No. 7/79, 17.7.79). The PTA was enacted with two-thirds majority,
and accordingly, in terms of Article 84, PTA became law despite many inconsistencies with the
constitutional provisions.
In countering terrorism one must keep in mind that it is a warfare between curbing the agendas
of terrorists and terrorist organizations while recognizing and affording them their inalienable
rights in the event they are convicted of the said offence. The difficulty of legislators lies in
balancing these two pillars while respecting the rule of law. This report is a compilation of the
cases of those arrested under the PTA and are awaiting trial or are in some stage of their case
being heard before a court of law. We believe that whatever their faults may be morally or
under the law of the land, they should not be deprived of their basic rights in the due process.
This report purports to present these individuals and their cases not as unblemished saints but
as Sri Lankans to whom the Government owes a duty of restorative justice.
Conclusion
While commending the steps/measures taken by the Government to enact new legislation, the
CHR calls on all civil society organizations to apply pressure on the Government to file cases
in court against those in detention who have charges against them, to provide them with an
opportunity for a fair and just trial, to release those in detention who do not have charges
against them, to grant bail to those who have been in detention for long and to file legal action
in courts against them.
Annex 1
Details of the PTA detainees
Summary
1
Name : Madiarasan Sulakshan

Date of Birth :
Age : 28
Residing Address : Karaveddi, Jaffna
Civil Status : Single
Family Details : His father had passed away in 2015. His mother is ailing. He has three younger
sisters. The family is in dire circumstances.
Date of Arrest : 2009 May 19
Case Number : HC-V 2491/2013
Charge :
Status of the Case : The charge sheet has been sent to the Attorney Generals Department for
amendment.
Background : On 2009 May 19, he had surrendered to the Omanthai Army checkpoint. He had
been rehabilitated for 13 months at the rehabilitation camp at the Omanthai Maha Vidyalaya.
Subsequently, he had been handed over to the Terrorism Investigation Division. Based solely
on a confession, in 2013, a case had been filed against him. Three months following the filing
of the case, as per the request of the State Counsel/States legal representative, the charge sheet
had been sent to the Attorney Generals Department for revision. Two and a half years later, the
amended charge sheet had still not been sent back by the Attorney Generals Department,
thereby causing him and the other suspect in this case, Dharshan Ganeshan/Ganeshan Dharshan
to engage in a fast. The Attorney Generals Department promised that the charge sheet would
be presented soon.
2
Name : Ganeshan Dharshan
Date of Birth :
Age : 26
Residing Address : Nawalapitiya
Civil Status : Single
Family Details : He is a member of a family living in dire poverty.
Profession :
Date of Arrest : 2009 May 20 and 2010 July 19
Case Number : HC-V 2491/2013
Charge :
Status of the Case : The charge sheet has been sent to the Attorney Generals Department for
amendment.
Background : On 2009 May 20, he had surrendered to the Omanthai Army checkpoint. He had
been rehabilitated for nearly a year at the rehabilitation camp at the Omanthai Maha Vidyalaya.
He had then gone to his house/home in Nawalapitiya. He had obtained employment at the Sri
Lanka Insurance Corporation. It was when he was working at the Sri Lanka Insurance
Corporation that he had been arrested again by the Terrorism Investigation Division on 2010
July 19. The case filed against him is based on a confession. Three months following the filing
of the case, as per the request of the State Counsel/States legal representative, the charge sheet
had been sent to the Attorney Generals Department for revision. Two and a half years later, the
amended charge sheet had still not been sent back by the Attorney Generals Department,
thereby causing him and the other suspect in this case, Madiarasan Sulakshan to engage in a
fast. The Attorney Generals Department promised that the charge sheet would be presented

soon.
3
Name : Perumal Chandramohan
Date of Birth :
Age : 35
Residing Address : Thalawakele
Civil Status : Single
Family Details : Both his parents are elderly. His mother is ailing. The household has no source
of income. There is no money to be spent on the Court case.
Profession :
Date of Arrest : 2010 October 12
Case Number : HC-NE 51/2014
Charges : Conducting and maintaining relations with suspect Kalimuththu Sudaharan, and
transporting goods including explosives
Status of the Case :
Background : On 2010 October 12, he was arrested in Kandy by the Terrorism Investigation
Division. He is detained in remand custody until 2011 August 08. He is presented before the
Nuwara Eliya Magistrate on 2014 September. Five cases had been filed against him in the
Magistrates Court. He had been released from four of the said cases and a case had been filed
in the High Court.
4
Name : Sundaralingam Kedeeshwaran
Date of Birth :
Age : About 25. He does not know for certain.
Residing Address : Batticaloa
Civil Status :
Family details : Both his mother and father are deceased. It is said that he was living with a
sister and an aunt.
Profession :
Date of Arrest : 2009 March 18
Case Numbers : B/48/2009 and BR/323/2008 at the Siyambalanduwa Magistrates Court, HC
11/2013 and HC 10/2013 at the Moneragala High Court, and HC 09/2013 at the Hambantota
High Court
Charges :
Status of the Cases : BR/323/2008 at the Siyambalanduwa Magistrates Court has been
postponed/put forward indefinitely.
5
Name : Sellaiyar Sadiskumar
Date of Birth : 1978 February 21
Age : 38
Residing Address : Kilinochchi
Civil Status : Married
Family Details : He has an eleven-years-old daughter.
Profession : Ambulance driver at the Kilinochchi Hospital
Date of Arrest : 2008 January 28

Case Number : HC V/2037/2009

Charge : Transportation of explosives
Status of the Case : Convicted and sentenced to lifetime imprisonment. An appeal had been
filed against the case under CA/94/2011. It has now been five years since the said appeal had
been filed.
Background : He is arrested on 2008 January 28 at the Thekkawatte Police checkpoint in
Vavuniya for allegedly hiding explosives in the jack of the vehicle he was driving. Normally, he
would drive the Hospitals ambulance. The decision to send him in a lorry to Colombo on this
day to obtain and bring back medicines urgently needed/required by the Hospital for an
emergency was taken by the Hospital. On 2011 May 11, he is sentenced to lifetime
imprisonment on the basis that the driver of the vehicle should be held responsible and
accountable for the goods in the vehicle s/he drives/drove. The drive he took was a special task
relegated to him on that particular day and was not part of his general daily duties. The lorry
belonged to the Ministry of Health. The inventory of the lorry is under someone elses name.
As he states, the officers at the Omanthai Police checkpoint had work related issues with him
and that therefore the said Police officers were not in good terms with him. He says that the
Police had used another person and had obtained a bribe of Rs 75,000 from his family
members.
6
Name : Kandawenam Gogulnath
Date of Birth : 1983 September 03
Age : 32
Residing Address : Nelliadi, Jaffna
Civil Status : Single
Family Details :
Profession : Business based in Colombo
Date of Arrest : 2009 May 12
Case Number : HC 5875/2011
Charge : Attempting to assassinate the President
Status of the Case :
Background : On 2009 May 12, he had been abducted by a group of unknown persons from
near a foreign employment agency in the Kudapaduwa area in Negombo. He had been detained
at an unknown location till 2009 November 26, on which date, he had been handed over to the
Terrorism Investigation Division. He had been handed over to the Terrorism Investigation
Division near a bridge in Colombo. On 2010 April 20, he had been placed in remand custody.
7
Name : Subramaniam Surendrarajah
Date of Birth : 1980 September 03
Age : 35
Residing Address : Matale
Civil Status : Married
Family Details : He has an eleven-years-old daughter. Without him, who earned an income as a
three-wheeler driver, his family has fallen on hard times. Due to the mental shock following
there being no information available about him after his abduction, his wife has been suffering
from a mental disease. Presently, his mother is earning a living by working for hire.

Profession : Driver
Date of Arrest : 2009 August 26
Case Numbers : B 8740/2007, and for B 1030/2006 a case has been filed in a High Court under
HC 6078/2012
Charges : B 8740/2007 involved former Minister Douglas Devananda being attacked with a
bomb and B 1030/2006 involves exploding a bomb/a bomb blast in front of the High
Commission of Pakistan in Sri Lanka
Status of the Cases : B 8740/2007 Released, and for B 1030/2006, the case HC 6078/2012
has yet to be taken up
Background : On 2009 August 26, about 20 persons, dressed in civil clothing, had abducted
him. He had been told that he would be handed over to the Matale Police. Until he had been
handed over to the coastal Police on 2009 September 15, he had been detained at an unknown
location and been severely assaulted. When the family members had not received any
information from the Police, they had sold the house/home in Matale, obtained the money and
started walking in search of him. His family members got some news about him only through a
message he had sent through someone who was at the coastal Police after he had been taken
there. On 2010 February 02, a signature had been obtained for a confession at the Ambalangoda
Police and he had been brought to Colombo and remanded. He is made a suspect to the
bombing in front of the High Commission of Pakistan in Sri Lanka, following a hire he had
taken in his three-wheeler. He was at the time residing in Colombo.
8
Name : Kadirawelan Kapilan
Date of Birth : 1990 June 09
Age : 25
Residing Address : Akkareipaththu
Civil Status : Single
Family Details : His mother survives by working for hire in the paddy fields in the village.
They are living under dire circumstances. They have no understanding of the cases before the
Courts. They have no money to spend on the cases.
Profession :
Date of Arrest : 2009 May 20
Case Numbers : HC 3/2013, HC 4/2013, and HC 5/2013, all three cases at the Moneragala
High Court, and HC 10/2013, HC 11/2013, HC 12/2013, HC 13/2013, HC 23/2013, HC
24/2013, HC 25/2013, all seven cases at the Hambantota High Court
Charges :
Status of the Cases : Previously, cases had been filed before the Wellawaya Magistrates Court,
the Moneragala Magistrates Court and the Siyambalanduwa Magistrates Court. While he has
been released from some of these cases, remaining cases have been filed before High Courts.
He has been released from HC 3/2013, HC 4/2013, and HC 5/2013, all three cases at the
Moneragala High Court, after the confession made on 2015 May 18 had been rejected. HC
10/2013, HC 11/2013, HC 12/2013, HC 13/2013, HC 23/2013, HC 24/2013, HC 25/2013, all
seven cases at the Hambantota High Court, are all presently being continued on the basis of the
aforementioned/abovementioned confession.
Background : He was a former Member of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, who had
surrendered to the Red Cross Society in Akkareipaththu on 2009 May 20. The Red Cross

Society had handed him over to the Akkareipaththu Police. He had been detained at the
Akkareipaththu Police for three months. He had then been handed over to the Terrorism
Investigation Division. He had been produced before the Aluthkade/Hulftsdorp Magistrates
Court on 2011 February 15 and remanded.
9
Name : Lakshman Cooray
Date of Birth : 1976 May 28
Age : 40
Residing Address : Kottawa
Civil Status : Married
Family Details :
Profession : Superintendent of Police
Date of Arrest : 2009 August 12
Case Numbers : HC 5526/2011 at the Colombo High Court and HC 63/2014 at the Gampaha
High Court
Charge ; In relation to the murder of former Minister Jeyaraj Fernandopulle
Status of the Cases : HC 5526/2011 Released, and HC 63/2014 is scheduled to be taken up
for hearing
Background : He says that he was arrested because Lafeers (a phone seller, arrested on
suspicion of involvement in the killing of Jeyaraj Fernandopulle) phone number was found in
his phone. For both these cases, for a period of nearly five years, instead of being remanded, he
had been produced after being kept in the custody of the Terrorism Investigation Division in
Bussa. He put forward an appeal against this. The Court after accepting that he had been and
was being unlawfully detained during the course of the trial hearing, ordered him to be placed
in remand custody. Both these cases were maintained based on a confession obtained after the
administration of severe torture, cruel and inhuman treatment. The Attorney Generals
Department has come forward to withdraw the case before the Colombo High Court at a time
when the hearing of the case evidence had been concluded and was at a level where the
confession was most probably going to be rejected. His lawyer had objected to this and in the
next hearing of the case in Court, he had been released from the case. If in this case, the
confession was rejected, the case before the Gampaha High Court too could have been
similarly dismissed. He states that there is the suspicion that the reason why the Attorney
Generals Department came forward to withdraw the case was to prepare the confession
document again and to present it to the case before the Gampaha High Court. A fundamental
rights petition has been lodged under 664/2010 against the inflicting of torture, cruel and
inhuman treatment. This has yet to be taken up for hearing.
10
Name : Selvachandran Chandrabose
Date of Birth : 1978 May 28
Age : 37
Residing Address : Chilaw
Civil Status : Single
Family Details : Since around 1993, he had been a very poor youth staying at his aunts
house/home in Chilaw, living by working for hire. During the 1998 2001 period, he had
received treatment at the National Cancer Institute in Maharagama for a cancer in the region of

the lungs.
Profession : Labourer
Date of Arrest : 2006 November 27
Case Numbers : HC 2044/2009 at the Vavuniya High Court and HC 7080/2013 at the Colombo
High Court
Charges : Receiving training from the intelligence, providing information, and HC 7080/2013
concerning allegations pertaining to involvement in the bomb attack on former Defence
Secretary Gotabaya Rajapaksa at the Piththala junction
Status of the Cases : HC 2044/2009 Released, and HC 7080/2013 has yet to be taken up for
hearing
Background : On the first charge of receiving training from the intelligence, he was arrested by
the Kantale Police and handed over to the Terrorism Investigation Division. A case was filed
against him for this using a document containing a confession along with his signature obtained
after having beaten him. The Vavuniya High Court releases him from this case as the
confession is rejected. Yet he is detained with regards to investigations into the charge of
alleged involvement in the bomb attack on Gotabaya Rajapaksa at the Piththala junction. The
said bomb attack takes place on 2006 December 01 and during this time period he is under
arrest.
Note
11
Name : Velayudan Waradarajah
Date of Birth : 1975 January 23
Age : 41
Residing Address : Nelliadi, Jaffna
Civil Status :
Family Details : Both his mother and father are deceased. He has two sisters and a brother.
Profession :
Date of Arrest : 2000 January 14
Case Number : HC 891/2002
Charge : In relation to launching a suicide bomb attack on former President Chandrika
Bandaranaike Kumarathunga
Status of the Case : Regarding HC 891/2002, on 2015 September 30, the Court after accepting
that the confession was made voluntarily handed down a sentence of 290 years, to be
completed in one go in 30 years.
Background : The Army arrests him in Vavuniya on the suspicion that he is a Member of the
Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam. In the approximate period of two months during which he
was in the custody of the Army or the Terrorism Investigation Division, he had not even been
questioned with regards to the bomb attack on Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumarathunga. He was
then taken into the custody of the Criminal Investigation Department and after two months
there a brief inquiry is made from him once regarding the said matter. He comes to learn of the
said charge being leveled against him only after the filing of the case in the High Court. The
case is maintained and continued on the basis of a document containing a confession and his
signature obtained after he was severely beaten. He has never before seen the other three
accused parties in the case and neither does he identify them. On the day that Chandrika
Bandaranaike Kumarathunga faces the bomb attack, he was in the Vanni area. It was only a

week after the bomb attack that he came to Vavuniya. This visit to Vavuniya is the first time in
his life that he had come to Vavuniya and until after his arrest he had never before travelled to
anywhere in the country below Vavuniya. The security forces had not notified his home about
his arrest. Five months afterwards, he was shown to the Red Cross Society. It is the Red Cross
Society that notified his household. His father passed away on the same day from a heart
attack.
Note : He is arrested when he is 25. He has spent over 15 years in prison. He has to spend 30
more years in prison serving a prison term of 290 years on a suspended basis. He is suffering
from depression due to the fact that he has completely been robbed of his years of youth.
12
Name : Shakthiwel Illangeshwaran
Date of Birth :
Age :
Residing Address :
Civil Status :
Family Details :
Profession :
Date of Arrest :
Case Number : HC 891/2002
Charge : In relation to launching a suicide bomb attack on former President Chandrika
Bandaranaike Kumarathunga
Status of the Case : He is an accused in the case involving a suicide bomb attack on Chandrika
Bandaranaike Kumarathunga. Because of the lengthy period of time he had already spent in
prison, in 2010, in relation to the said case, he had admitted guilt and is presently serving a
suspended 290 year sentence to be served in 30 years.
13
Name : Ragupathi Sharma
Date of Birth :
Age : About 60
Residing Address :
Civil Status :
Family Details :
Profession : A pusari/aiyyar/member of the clergy at a kovil
Date of Arrest :
Case Number : HC 891/2002
Charge : In relation to launching a suicide bomb attack on former President Chandrika
Bandaranaike Kumarathunga
Status of the Case : The charge sheet has been sent to the Attorney Generals Department for
amendment
Background : He is an accused in the case involving a suicide bomb attack on Chandrika
Bandaranaike Kumarathunga. On 2015 September 30, he was handed a 290 year suspended
sentence to be served in 30 years. He is not and has not been a Member of the Liberation Tigers
of Tamil Eelam.
14

Name : Ajith Nishantha Edirisinghe

Date of Birth :
Age : 45
Residing Address : Mirijjawila, Hambantota
Civil Status : Married
Family Details : He has one daughter and three sons
Profession : Fishing
Date of Arrest : 2009 August 07
Case Number : 3736/2012 at the Galle High Court
Charge : Providing lodging/accommodation to a person who provided information for the
attack on the Galle harbour/port
Status of the Case : The case has been taken up for hearing and for four years the case had been
tried on the basis of evidence given by a single person.
Background : There had been a young boy named Yogaraja Mohan working at his father-inlaw, Gunaratne Gajaweeras house/home in Akkareipaththu from 1999 till the latter half of
2001. The youth arrived at his house/home in Hambantota during the latter half of 2001 in
order to do some repair work on a lorry. The youth leaves the said house/home in 2002 and he
and his family knows of no information regarding the said youth since. It was only once he was
arrested by the Terrorism Investigation Division that he and his family came to know that the
youth had been a Member of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam. He is subsequently detained
for 20 months at Bussa and on 2011 April 13, he, his father-in-law and mother-in-law are
produced before the Aluthkade/Hulftsdorp Court and placed in remand prison. On the same
day, the youth to whom they gave lodging/accommodation to and who is said to have provided
information for the attack on the Galle harbour/port is released by the Court. He, his father-inlaw and mother-in-law are even at present under arrest and in custody while the youth they
gave lodging to is on release albeit for an incident they know nothing about. It is said that an
officer of the Terrorism Investigation Division had asked for a ransom of Rs 500,000 from his
brother in order to release him, his father-in-law and mother-in-law. When the ransom was
refused, the said officer is said to have threatened him, saying that By the time he got out, he
would only be able to do so with the aid of a walking stick.
15
Name : Gunaratne Gajaweera
Date of Birth :
Age : 69
Residing Address : Akkareipaththu
Civil Status : Married
Family Details : He has six children. He is suspect, Ajith Nishantha Edirisinghes father-in-law.
Profession :
Date of Arrest : 2009 August 07
Case Number : 3736/2012 at the Galle High Court
Charge : Providing lodging/accommodation to a person who provided information for the
attack on the Galle harbour/port
Status of the Case : The case has been taken up for hearing and for four years the case had been
tried on the basis of evidence given by a single person.

16
Name : Wairamuththu Saroja
Date of Birth :
Age : 64
Residing Address : Akkareipaththu
Civil Status : Married
Family Details : She has six children. She is suspect, Ajith Nishantha Edirisinghes mother-inlaw.
Profession :
Date of Arrest : 2009 August 07
Case Number : 3736/2012 at the Galle High Court
Charge : Providing lodging/accommodation to a person who provided information for the
attack on the Galle harbour/port
Status of the Case : The case has been taken up for hearing and for four years the case had been
tried on the basis of evidence given by a single person.
17
Name : Bandula Gajaweera
Date of Birth :
Age : 43
Residing Address : Akkareipaththu
Civil Status : Married
Family Details : He has three children. Because three male members of this family have been
imprisoned for a long time, financial issues have arisen in the family.
Profession : Driver
Date of Arrest : 2011 September 12
Case Number : 3736/2012 at the Galle High Court
Charge : Providing lodging/accommodation to a person who provided information for the
attack on the Galle harbour/port
Status of the Case : The case has been taken up for hearing and for four years the case had been
tried on the basis of evidence given by a single person.
Background : He is suspect, Ajith Nishantha Edirisinghes brother-in-law. He is the eldest son
of Gunaratne Gajaweera and Wairamuththu Saroja. He is arrested at the Airport on the day he
returned to the country after working as a driver in Iraq. By this time Yogaraja Mohan, the
reason behind all this and to whom they had given lodging to, had been released by Court for
about five months.
Note : It can be seen that in releasing the youth behind the incident and filing suit against those
who gave the youth lodging, the Attorney Generals Department seems to be acting in an
irresponsible manner. These four do not recognize the other accused, Kandaiah Ilango.
Kandaiah Ilango has lost a leg and is disabled. Kandaiah Ilango has 22 charges leveled against
him while two out of the said 22 have been leveled against Ajith Nishantha Edirisinghe and
members of his family. For four years now it has been Kandaiah Ilangos evidence that is being
heard. Will it therefore take 16 years more to hear the evidence of the other four? His parents
who are 69-years-old and 64-years-old are facing enormous hardships in serving prison life for
a long term.
18

Name : Muttiah Sahadevan

Date of Birth :
Age : 58
Residing Address : Kirulapone, Polhengoda
Civil Status : Married
Family Details : His wife is 57-years-old. Both his children are married. He is 58-years-old and
his eyesight has weakened. Diabetes has been the reason for this. He has had an operation
performed on one eye. He is supposed to have an operation on his other eye. His wife is
working for hire to earn a living. Therefore, they have no money to spend on the case.
Profession : Daily hired labourer in houses/homes
Date of Arrest : 2005 August 13
Case Number :
Charge : Conspiring to assassinate former Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lakshman Kadirgamar
and aiding and abetting such
Status of the Cases : He has been under arrest for a period of 10 years. The case is still being
heard.
Background : He had for some time done work at a house/home down Bullers Road in
Colombo and had also done various jobs in neighbouring houses/homes. He had also worked in
the house/home of someone named Thalesingham and he had started cutting off the branches of
a pihimbiya tree/fern leaf tree which grew in the direction of the balcony of the said
house/home. He had been doing this pruning once in every one and a half months. He had been
arrested because it is stated that Lakshman Kadirgamar had been shot at from this balcony. The
last time he had cut off the branches had been one month prior to the murder of Lakshman
Kadirgamar. This had been on te request of the owner of the said house/home.
19
Name : Shanmugalingam Sooriyakumar
Date of Birth :
Age : 38
Residing Address : Rambukkana
Civil Status : Married
Family Details : He has a 12-years-old daughter. Since the ordeal, his wife has left him. There
is no one to look after his elderly parents.
Profession : Lorry Driver
Date of Arrest : 2006 July 03
Case Number : 2982/2010 at the Kegalle High Court
Charges : Bringing the female bomber who came to assassinate Army Commander General
Sarath Fonseka, providing her with lodging/accommodation, finding her a house on/for rent,
and not divulging information
Status of the Cases : Convicted and sentenced to 35 years imprisonment.
Background : During the ceasefire period of 2002 2004, he had transported goods to Jaffna in
a lorry. During these journeys back and forth, he had befriended a document inspector at a
checkpoint of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam. Through this, he had been able to easily
obtain permission to enter through the checkpoint. Sometime later, the document inspector had
asked him to help the document inspector to travel to Colombo in order prepare the documents
needed/required for one of the document inspectors related sisters to go to Canada. He had

then brought her to his house/home in Rambukkana. From time to time, she had travelled back
and forth, stating that she was getting the relevant documents prepared and in the interim
period, she had become one of his familys friends. One day she had left stating that she was
going to her house/home in Jaffna and had never returned again. He queries that If he had
known that she was a suicide bomber, would he have provided such a person lodging in his
house/home where his child lives?. Two and a half months afterwards, officers from the
Criminal Investigation Department had come and arrested his mother, wife and child on 2006
July 02. On the following day, he had surrendered himself to the Criminal Investigation
Department. His mother, wife and child had been continuously detained. While this was going
on, he had been severely beaten and his signature had been obtained on a document of
confession. Apart from this, even though he could neither read nor write properly, he had in
order to get his mother, wife and child released, signed the papers. Once the case had been
taken up for hearing, the matter had been treated as an urgent matter of the Court and the
hearing had been concluded within one and a half months and the sentence had been delivered.
This was all done based on the confession alleged to have been obtained from him. He also
does not receive correct legal advice. Because the sentences were ordered to be served
separately, he has to serve time for 35 years. Although appeals have been filed, he does not
have money to spend on them