相关规则
Sri Lanka
Practice Relating to Rule 100. Fair Trial Guarantees
Section J. Compelling accused persons to testify against themselves or to confess guilt
Sri Lanka’s Convention against Torture Act (1994) states:
A confession otherwise inadmissible in any criminal proceedings shall be admissible in any proceedings instituted under this Act, for the purpose only of proving the fact that such confession was made. 
Sri Lanka, Convention against Torture Act, 1994, Section 5.
Sri Lanka’s Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act (1979), as amended to 1988, states:
16. (1) Notwithstanding the provisions of any other law, where any person is charged with any offence under this Act, any statement made by such person at any time, whether[:]
(a) it amounts to a confession or not;
(b) made orally or reduced to writing;
(c) such person was or was not in custody or presence of a police officer;
(d) made in the course of an investigation or not;
(e) it was or was not wholly or partly in answer to any question, may be proved as against such person if such statement is not irrelevant under section 24 of the Evidence Ordinance:
Provided, however, that no such statement shall be proved as against such person if such statement was made to a police officer below the rank of an Assistant Superintendent.
(2) The burden of proving that any statement referred to in subsection (1) is irrelevant under section 24 of the Evidence Ordinance [which provides that confession evidence in criminal proceedings is inadmissible if it appears by the court to have been the result of an inducement, threat, or promise, with reference to the charge against the accused person, from a person in authority] shall be on the person asserting it to be irrelevant.
(3) Any statement admissible under subsection (1) may be proved as against any other person charged jointly with the person making the statement, if, and only if, such statement is corroborated in material particulars by evidence other than the statements referred to in subsection (1).
17. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in any other law, the provisions of sections 25 [inadmissibility of confessions made to the police], 26 [inadmissibility of confession made in police custody unless made in the immediate presence of a magistrate] and 30 [inadmissibility of a confession of one of several joint accused against the other accused] of the Evidence Ordinance shall have no application in any proceedings under this Act. 
Sri Lanka, Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1979, as amended to 1988, Sections 16 and 17.
Sri Lanka’s Emergency Regulations (2005), as amended to 2008, states:
63. (1) At the trial of any person for an offence under any emergency regulation a statement made [by] such person whether or not it amounts to a confession and whether or not such person was in the custody of a police officer at the time the statement was made and whether or not such statement was made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate may be proved as against such person, if but only if, such statement is not irrelevant under Section 24 of [the] Evidence Ordinance [which provides that confession evidence in criminal proceedings is inadmissible if it appears by the court to have been the result of an inducement, threat, or promise, with reference to the charge against the accused person, from a person in authority].
Provided, however, that no such statement shall be proved against such person if such statement was made to a police officer below the rank of Assistant Superintendent of Police.
(2) In the case of an offence under any emergency regulation a statement made by any person which may be proved under paragraph (1) as against himself may be proved as against any other person jointly charged with such offence, if but only if, such statement is corroborated in material particulars by evidence other than a statement made under regulation 50 of these regulations.
(3) The burden of proving that any statement referred to in paragraph (1) or (2) is irrelevant under section 24 of the Evidence Ordinance shall be on the person asserting it to be irrelevant.
(4) The provisions of sections 25 [inadmissibility of confessions made to the police], 26 [inadmissibility of confession made in police custody unless made in the immediate presence of a magistrate] and 30 [inadmissibility of a confession of one of several joint accused against the other accused] of the Evidence Ordinance shall not apply in the case of any offence under any emergency regulation.
(5) A statement made by any person may be proved under [paragraph] (1) or paragraph (2) notwithstanding the provisions of sub-section (3) of section 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Act, No. 15 of 1979 [which provides that statements made to police officers are admissible (to prove that the person made a different statement at another time) but cannot be used to corroborate the accused’s testimony]. 
Sri Lanka, Emergency Regulations, 2005, as amended to 5 August 2008, Section 63.
In 2010, in its judgment in the Sivalingam case, the Supreme Court of Sri Lanka stated:
With respect to the confession made to the CID [Criminal Investigations Department], the Petitioner contends that following two weeks of torture and interrogation the CID compelled him to sign a statement … [T]he issue arises as to whether it was a voluntary confession …
Notes maintained by the CID dated 30.11.2006 … [indicate that the petitioner was] produced immediately before and after the recording of his confession before a Judicial Medical Officer who recorded no complaint, or observed any injuries. On this date, Assistant Superintendent Wimal Samarasekera, upon examining the Petitioner noted contemporaneously, that the Petitioner had no visible injuries and that all relevant warnings had been issued to the Petitioner in terms of the law. 
Sri Lanka, Supreme Court, Sivalingam case, Judgment, 10 November 2010, pp. 10–11.