Writing in The Morning, Ambika Satkunanathan, former Human Rights Commissioner of Sri Lankan (HRCSL), explains how most of the recently announced proposed 'reforms' to the notorious Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA) "already exist and are not new."

Last month, Sri Lanka announced a series of amendments to the widely criticised PTA but Satkunanathan highlights that "nearly all human rights deficient provisions in the PTA remain untouched." 

"Most of the supposedly new remedies provided, such as filing a fundamental rights petition challenging detention and informing the Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka (HRCSL) of the arrest, already exist and are not new," she writes.

One of the new provisions to the draconian legislation will reportedly "enable the Magistrate to visit the place of detention to ensure that the suspect is protected."

"Prima facie this appears positive. The reality, however, is different. The provision states that if the Magistrate thinks the person may have been subject to torture the magistrate 'may' refer the person to a Judicial Medical Officer (JMO). Hence, it is not mandatory for the magistrate to refer a person suspected of being tortured to the JMO," Satkunanathan notes. 

Satkunanathan also highlights that the provision does not make it mandatory for the Magistrate to refer the the subject to the Inspector General of Police (IGP) even if the JMO confirms that the individual has been subjected to torture. 

"Nor does the proposed amendment require the tortured person to be transferred to another place of detention or provide safeguards to ensure the person will not be tortured again," she added. 

Satkunanathan goes on to call the government's intention to reform the PTA "appears disingenuous" as it "has taken no action to repeal two other provisions which facilitate torture."

"They are sections 7(3), which allows the police to take the person out of prison to another place for interrogation even after the person has been remanded, and section 15A, which allows the Secretary Defence to decide on a place of detention after the person has been remanded to judicial custody, even following conviction," Satkunanathan adds. 

"The worst forms of torture have been recorded to have taken place when these two provisions were used," Satkunanathan states. 

Another amendment to the act proposes to make provision for granting of bail to persons in remand or in detention. 

"The critical factors to note are that while the current law allows the Magistrate Court to grant bail if the indictment has not been filed, the proposed amendment appears to empower the Court of Appeal to grant bail in such instances. Secondly, the granting of bail is dependent on the indictment not being filed or the trial not beginning after the indictment has been filed. If the trial has begun, the proposed amendment still allows the High Court to remand the person until the conclusion of the trial."

"Therefore, in practice, the proposed amendment is unlikely to change the status quo," she notes. 

Satkunanathan states that any counter terrorism law should allow "access to a judicial hearing on the legality of the detention within no longer than 48 hours of being detained" and "access to legal counsel should include the presence of a lawyer during all interrogations."

"These basic human rights protections are non-negotiable. These basic human rights protections are absent in the proposed amendment," she concludes. 

Read the full piece here.