The Singarasa Judgment: A Crossroads for Human Rights and National Sovereignty

Imagine a world where international human rights treaties, designed to protect individuals, are rendered powerless within a nation’s borders. What happens when a country’s legal system clashes with its international obligations? This is precisely the dilemma at the heart of the Singarasa case, a landmark judgment that continues to shape the discourse on human rights and national sovereignty in Sri Lanka.

Introduction: Setting the Scene

The Singarasa case is a pivotal moment in Sri Lanka’s legal history, raising critical questions about the enforceability of international treaties in domestic courts. At its core, the case revolves around the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), a cornerstone treaty in international human rights law. Sri Lanka ratified the ICCPR in 1980, committing itself to uphold the civil and political rights enshrined in the treaty. However, the Singarasa judgment exposed the limitations of this commitment, sparking debates on the balance between national sovereignty and international obligations.

For context, the ICCPR is a key international treaty adopted by the United Nations in 1966. It guarantees fundamental rights such as the right to life, freedom of speech, and due process. Countries that ratify the ICCPR are expected to align their domestic laws with its provisions. You can read the full text of the ICCPR here. Sri Lanka’s ratification of the ICCPR is documented in the UN Treaties Collection.

Singarasa vs. Attorney General (2013 1 SLR 245)

• Case Number: SC SPL. L.A. 182/99


• Decided on: 2006-09-15


• Before: Sarath N. Silva C.J., Jayasinghe J., Udalagama J., Dissanayake J., Amaratunga J.

The Facts of the Case and Its Legal Journey

The Singarasa case began in the 1990s when Nallaratnam Singarasa, a Sri Lankan citizen, was convicted under the country’s Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA). Singarasa alleged that his confession was obtained under duress, violating his right to a fair trial under the ICCPR. After exhausting domestic legal remedies, he appealed to the UN Human Rights Committee (UNHRC), which found Sri Lanka in violation of its ICCPR obligations.

However, when Singarasa sought to enforce the UNHRC’s decision in Sri Lankan courts, the case took a dramatic turn. The Supreme Court of Sri Lanka was tasked with determining whether the ICCPR could be directly invoked in domestic proceedings. This question struck at the heart of Sri Lanka’s dualist legal system, where international treaties are not automatically enforceable unless incorporated into domestic law.

The Verdict: Breaking Down the Supreme Court’s Ruling

In 2006, the Supreme Court of Sri Lanka delivered its verdict in the Singarasa case. The court ruled that the ICCPR could not be directly enforced in Sri Lanka because it had not been incorporated into domestic law. This decision was rooted in the principle of dualism, a legal doctrine that separates international and domestic law. Under dualism, international treaties require legislative action to become part of a country’s legal framework.

The court also addressed the UNHRC’s findings, stating that while Sri Lanka had ratified the ICCPR, the committee’s decisions were not binding on domestic courts. This ruling effectively limited the enforceability of international human rights treaties in Sri Lanka, raising concerns among human rights advocates.

To understand the concept of dualism in international law, you can read this scholarly article. The UN Human Rights Committee expressed disappointment with the ruling, emphasizing the importance of upholding international obligations. Their response can be found here.

The Ripple Effect: Impact on Human Rights and Sri Lanka’s International Reputation

The Singarasa judgment had far-reaching implications for human rights in Sri Lanka. By limiting the enforceability of the ICCPR, the ruling created a gap between international standards and domestic practice. This gap has been particularly concerning in cases involving counter-terrorism laws, where allegations of human rights violations are common.

Internationally, the judgment drew criticism from human rights organizations and global bodies. Amnesty International and the UNHRC expressed concerns about Sri Lanka’s commitment to human rights. For instance, Amnesty International’s commentary on the case can be accessed here. The ruling also impacted Sri Lanka’s reputation, with some viewing it as a step back in the country’s human rights journey.

Conclusion: The Ongoing Debate

The Singarasa case remains a touchstone in discussions about international law reform in Sri Lanka. It highlights the challenges of reconciling national sovereignty with international obligations, a debate that continues to evolve. Recent rulings and cases, such as those involving the PTA, have been influenced by the principles established in Singarasa. The Singarasa judgment remains a critical reference point in the intersection of human rights and national sovereignty, underscoring the need for ongoing dialogue and reform.

For those interested in ongoing discussions, you can explore this article by Human Rights Watch, which examines the current state of human rights in Sri Lanka.

FAQ

1. What was the Singarasa case about? The Singarasa case challenged the applicability of international treaties, specifically the ICCPR, in Sri Lanka’s legal system. It revolved around human rights and due process. For a full case summary, visit


2. Why is the Singarasa case important? It highlighted the limitations of enforcing international treaties domestically in Sri Lanka and sparked debates on national sovereignty versus international obligations. 


3. What is the ICCPR, and how does it relate to this case? The ICCPR is the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, a treaty Sri Lanka ratified. Singarasa attempted to invoke it in his defense, leading to a debate on its enforceability in domestic courts. Learn more about the ICCPR .


4. What is Sri Lanka’s stance on international treaties? Sri Lanka follows a dualist approach, meaning international treaties are not automatically enforceable unless incorporated into domestic law. For a legal explanation of dualism, refer to


5. How did the Singarasa ruling affect human rights in Sri Lanka? The ruling was seen as limiting the enforceability of international human rights treaties in Sri Lanka, raising concerns among advocates. For commentary, visit or the .

The Singarasa judgment remains a critical reference point in the intersection of human rights and national sovereignty, underscoring the need for ongoing dialogue and reform.

Written By: Rashmi Tharuka 

For an exclusive summary, referenced laws, citations, and key legal arguments, refer to Singarasa vs. Attorney General on AI Pazz.