Соответствующая норма
Sri Lanka
Practice Relating to Rule 100. Fair Trial Guarantees
Sri Lanka’s Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act (1979), as amended to 1988, states:
15. (1) Every person who commits an offence under this Act shall be triable without a preliminary inquiry, on an indictment before a Judge of the High Court sitting alone without a jury or before the High Court at Bar by three Judges without a jury, as may be decided by the Chief Justice. The provisions of sections 450 and 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Act, No. 15 of 1979, shall, mutatis mutandis, apply to the trial of offences under this Act by the High Court at Bar and to appeals from judgments, sentences and orders pronounced at any such trial held by the High Court at Bar. …
15A. (1) Where any person is on remand under the provisions of subsection (2) of section 15, or section 19 (a), notwithstanding any other provision of this Act or any other law, the Secretary to the Ministry of the Minister in charge of the subject of Defense may, if he is of [the] opinion that it is necessary or expedient … to do [so], in the interests of national security or public order, make Order, subject to such directions as may be given by the High Court to ensure a fair trial of such person, that such person be kept in the custody of any authority, in such place and subject to such conditions as may be determined by him having regard to such interests. 
Sri Lanka, Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1979, as amended to 1988, Sections 15(1) and 15A(1).
Sri Lanka’s Geneva Conventions Act (2006) reproduces the following provision from the 1949 Geneva Conventions I, II and IV:
In all circumstances, the accused persons shall benefit by safeguards of proper trial and defence, which shall not be less favourable than those provided by Article 105 and those following the Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War of August 12, 1949. 
Sri Lanka, Geneva Conventions Act, 2006, Schedule I: Article 29, Schedule II: Article 50 and Schedule IV: Article 146; see also Schedule III: Article 129.
The grave breach of “wilfully depriving a protected person of the rights of fair and regular trial” is also included as an indictable offence. 
Sri Lanka, Geneva Conventions Act, 2006, Schedule IV: Article 147; see also Schedule III: Article 130.
In 2009, in its combined third and fourth periodic reports to the Committee against Torture, Sri Lanka stated in relation to persons alleged to have committed torture:
Article 7 [of the 1984 Convention against Torture] states that the standard of evidence required for the prosecution and conviction should be non discriminative and each person should be guaranteed of fair treatment at all stages of the proceedings. In Sri Lanka the standard of evidence required for the prosecution is governed by the Evidence Ordinance No. 14 of 1895 and the procedure to be followed in prosecution is laid out in the Code of Criminal Procedure No. 15 of 1979 of Sri Lanka. This legislation applied across the board for all persons, regardless of their nationality, race, religion or gender. This right to equality and equal protection before the law is guaranteed under article 12(1) of the Constitution. Further, the right to a fair trial is also guaranteed under article 13(3) of the Constitution. 
Sri Lanka, Combined third and fourth periodic reports to the Committee against Torture, 23 September 2010, UN Doc. CAT/C/LKA/3-4, submitted 17 August 2009, Annex, § 49.
Sri Lanka’s Emergency Regulations (2005), as amended to 2008, states:
Any person [indicted] before the High Court under these regulations may at any time which shall not extend to more than thirty days before the commencement of such trial, by application in writing to the High Court, request that he be furnished with copies of the statements made by witnesses whom the prosecution intends to call and of the documents to be relied on at the trial, and the Court may direct that copies of all such statements or documents, or of only such statements or documents as the Court in its discretion thinks fit, shall be given to such person. 
Sri Lanka, Emergency Regulations, 2005, as amended to 5 August 2008, Section 62(5).
Sri Lanka’s Geneva Conventions Act (2006) states:
(1) The High Court before which —
(a) any person is brought for trial for an offence under section 2 of this Act; or
(b) a protected prisoner of war is brought up for trial for any offence, shall not proceed with the trial unless —
(i) the accused is represented by Counsel;
(ii) it is proved to the satisfaction of the Court that a period of twenty-one days has elapsed since instructions for the representation of the accused at the trial were first given to the Counsel, and if the Court adjourns the trial for the purpose of enabling the requirements of this subsection to be complied with, then, notwithstanding anything to the contrary in any other written law, the Court may authorize the detention of the accused in such custody as it may think fit for the period of the adjournment.
(2) Where the accused is a protected prisoner of war, in the absence of a Counsel accepted by the accused as representing him, Counsel instructed for the purpose on behalf of the protecting power, shall, without prejudice to the requirements of paragraph (ii) of subsection (1) be regarded for the purposes of that subsection as representing the accused.
(3) If the Court adjourns the trial in pursuance of the provisions of subsection (1) on the ground that the accused is not represented by Counsel, the Court shall direct that a Counsel be assigned to watch over the interests of the accused at future proceedings in connection with the offence. In future proceedings, in the absence of Counsel either accepted by the accused as representing him, or instructed as specified in subsection (2), Counsel assigned in terms of the provisions of this subsection shall without prejudice to the requirements of the provisions of paragraph (ii) of subsection (1), be regarded for the purposes of such subsection as representing the accused.
(4) The manner of assigning a Counsel in pursuance of the provisions of subsection (3) and the fees to be paid to such a Counsel shall be as prescribed. 
Sri Lanka, Geneva Conventions Act, 2006, Section 8.
Sri Lanka’s Emergency Regulations (2005), as amended to 2008, states:
A trial before the High Court under these regulations, including a High Court at Bar, shall be held as speedily as possible and in the manner provided under any other written law for other trials before the High Courts, or the High Court at Bar, as the case may be, without a jury. 
Sri Lanka, Emergency Regulations, 2005, as amended to 5 August 2008, Section 62(6).
Sri Lanka’s Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act (1979), as amended to 1988, states:
18. (1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in any other law[:]
(a) a statement recorded by a Magistrate, or made at an identification parade by a person who is dead or who cannot be found, shall be admissible in evidence notwithstanding that such person is not present or cannot or has not been cross[-]examined; and
(b) any document found in the custody, control or possession of a person accused of any offence under this Act or of an agent or representative of such person may be produced in court as evidence against such person without the maker of such document being called as a witness and the contents of such document shall be evidence of the facts stated therein. 
Sri Lanka, Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1979, as amended to 1988, Sections 18(1).
Sri Lanka’s Code of Criminal Procedure (Special Provisions) Act (2007) states:
6. (1) [Notwithstanding] anything contained in Chapter XV of the Code of Criminal Procedure Act, No. 15 of 1979 [concerning cases which appear not to be triable summarily by the Magistrates’ Court but triable by the High Court], in the course of holding of an inquiry under the aforesaid Chapter, the following provisions shall apply to the taking of statements of persons who know the facts and circumstances of the case.
(3) …
(b) The Magistrate shall not permit any cross[-]examination of the witness by the accused or his pleader, but the Magistrate may put to the witness, any clarification required by the accused or his pleader of any matter arising from the statement made by the wit[ne]ss in the course of the investigation, or any additions or alterations to his original statement if any, and may put to the witness any clarification which the Magistrate himself may require of any such matter. Every clarification so made shall be recorded:
Provided that having considered the nature of the material contained in the statement of a witness made to the police, the prosecution may tender the witness for cross examination by the accused or his pleader. …
(8) … [T]the Magistrate may, for reasons to be recorded and in the case of an expert witness, with the prior sanction of the Attorney-General, summon an expert witness or police officer to be present in Court for examination.
(9) Where an expert witness or a police officer appears in court in response to [a] summons issued on him under subsection (8), the Magistrate shall not permit any cross[-]examination of such expert witness or police officer by the accused or his pleader but may put to such expert witness or police officer, any clarifications that the accused or his pleader may require, of any matter arising from the report of the expert witness or the affidavit of the police officer, as the case may be, or from the examination of such expert witness or police officer, as the case may be, and the Magistrate may himself put to the witness any clarification that he may require of any such matter. Every clarification so made shall be recorded. 
Sri Lanka, Code of Criminal Procedure (Special Provisions) Act , 2007, Article 6(1), (3)(b), (8) and (9).
Sri Lanka’s Prisons Ordinance (1878), as amended to 2005, states:
Whenever any prisoner is required to appear before any court, to give evidence, or for any other purpose, it shall be lawful for such court in its discretion, if it considers the presence of such prisoner necessary for the ends of justice, by an order in writing to direct the Superintendent of the prison, where such prisoner shall be imprisoned, to produce such prisoner before such court, and such Superintendent shall in the absence of good and sufficient cause to the contrary, cause such prisoner to be produced in compliance with such order. 
Sri Lanka, Prisons Ordinance, 1878, as amended to 2005, Article 96.
This article applies to persons deprived of their liberty under Sri Lanka’s Emergency Regulations (2005) pursuant to section 19 of these regulations.
Sri Lanka’s Emergency Regulations (2005), as amended to 2008, states:
62. (1) Notwithstanding any emergency regulation or other written law the [trial], including a trial at bar, for any offence under the emergency regulations, may be held upon indictment by the Attorney-General and thereupon the person charged shall be tried without a preliminary inquiry before the High Court [or] High Court at bar, as the case may [be], without a jury:
(4) The trial of any person before the High Court under this regulation may commence or continue in the absence of such person if the Court is satisfied that he is [evading] arrest or absconding or feigning illness. 
Sri Lanka, Emergency Regulations, 2005, as amended to 5 August 2008, Sections 62(1) and (4).
Sri Lanka’s Code of Criminal Procedure (Special Provisions) Act (2007) states:
(11) (a) Where the accused—
(i) is absconding or has left the island; or
(ii) is unable to attend or remain in court by reason of illness and has consented either to the commencement or continuance of the inquiry in his absence, such inquiry may commence or continue without any prejudice to him; or
(iii) by reason of his conduct in court is obstructing or impeding the progress of the inquiry, the Magistrate may, if satisfied of these facts, commence and proceed or continue with the inquiry in the absence of the accused.
(b) An attorney-at-Law may appear for such absent accused.
(c) The inquiry shall proceed as far as is practicable in accordance with the provisions of this Act except that the provisions of section 416 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Act, No. 15 of 1979 [regarding the Court’s power where an accused has absconded to examine and record depositions of prosecution witnesses to be used in a trial upon arrest of the accused] shall not apply to the depositions recorded where there is a trial on indictment in the High Court, whether the accused is present in the High Court or not. 
Sri Lanka, Code of Criminal Procedure (Special Provisions) Act, 2007, Article 6(11).
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.
Sri Lanka’s Geneva Conventions Act (2006) states:
The High Court may, where it is satisfied that the presence of the public or any other person specified by Court, as the case may be, would be contrary to the interests of justice or would not be in the public interest, order the exclusion from any sitting of the Court, the public or any person specified by the Court. 
Sri Lanka, Geneva Conventions Act, 2006, Section 4(4).
Sri Lanka’s Geneva Conventions Act (2006) states:
(1) Where a protected prisoner of war or a protected internee has been sentenced to imprisonment for a period exceeding two years, the time within which notice of appeal must be given shall, notwithstanding anything in any other law, be deemed to commence on the day on which he receives notice given, —
(a) in the case of a prisoner of war of a Commonwealth country, by an officer of the armed forces of his country; and
(b) in the case of an internee, by or on behalf of the Superintendent of the Prison in which he is confined, to the effect that the protecting power has been notified of his conviction and sentence and for such further time as would have been the time allowed if the conviction or sentence had taken place or been pronounced on that day.
(2) Where after an appeal against the conviction or sentence by a Court of a protected prisoner of war or a protected internee has been determined, the sentence remains unchanged or has become a sentence of imprisonment for a term exceeding two years, any time allowed in relation to a further appeal in respect of the conviction or sentence as confirmed or varied upon the previous appeal shall be deemed to continue to run until the day on which the convicted person receives a notice given by a person referred to in subsection (1), as the case may require, that the protecting power has been notified of the decision of the Court upon the previous appeal, and for such further time as would have been within the time allowed if that decision had been pronounced on that day.
(3) Upon the application of the provisions of subsection (1) in relation to a convicted person, then, unless the Court otherwise orders, the order of Court relating to the restitution of property or the payment of compensation to an aggrieved person shall not take effect, and any provision of law relating to the re-vesting of property on conviction shall not take effect in relation to the conviction, while an appeal by the convicted person against his conviction or sentence is possible without the extension of time other than the extension provided by subsection (2).
(4) The provisions of subsections (1), (2) and (3) shall not apply in relation to an appeal against a conviction or sentence, or against the decision of a Court upon a previous appeal, if at the time of the conviction or sentence or of the decision of the court upon the previous appeal, as the case may be, there is no protecting power. 
Sri Lanka, Geneva Conventions Act, 2006, Section 9.
Sri Lanka’s Prisons Ordinance (1878), as amended to 2005, states:
PART X
OFFENCES IN RELATION TO PRISONS
87. (1) Any jailer or subordinate prison officer charged with ill-treating a prisoner, … may be dealt with in accordance with the regulations for the time being in force relating to the dismissal or other punishment of public officers,
(2) Every jailer or subordinate prison officer, who ill-treats a prisoner[,] … shall be guilty of an offence and may, where he is not in the discretion of the Commissioner-General [dealt] with under subsection (1), be prosecuted in the Magistrate’s Court …
(3) No person shall be punished both under subsection (1) and under subsection (2) for the same offence. 
Sri Lanka, Prisons Ordinance, 1878, as amended to 2005, Articles 87.
This article applies to persons deprived of their liberty under Sri Lanka’s Emergency Regulations (2005) pursuant to section 19 of these regulations.