Chamila Bandara told the Asian Human Rights Commission that the delays in adjudication continue to have adverse consequences. Over the last three years, he has not been able to go home due to fear. He stated, “The people who hurt me are still the people hurting my family and pressuring my family. These people are allowed to interfere because of the delays.” Bandara also commented that when the time comes to give evidence, he is worried that because of the delays he might forget to tell something of vital importance to the case. He is trying to sit for his ‘O level’ and ‘A level’ examinations, however the stress of the cases is negatively impacting his education. His mother also indicated that the delays have allowed her family to be susceptible to interference. She expressed that: “in the last four years, I have changed from one place to another, my children have stayed in another place, we cannot stay together because of this delayed judiciary system.” This is but one of a series of cases that illustrates the impact on victims of delays in the Sri Lankan justice system. Sri Lanka, unlike many other states, has implementing legislation that makes torture a specific crime to be tried by the High Court.14 Yet, chronic delays in investigations have left victims and witnesses vulnerable to threats and harassment, and other deficiencies in the investigation and prosecution of torture cases have rendered the Act largely ineffective. The case of Chamila Bandara also highlights the pernicious effects of delays in the resolution of criminal charges pending against torture survivors. This is a common feature in several countries. These pending charges can relate to crimes to which the individuals confessed under torture, or counter-charges brought by law enforcement personnel as a result of having complained about torture. Counter-charges, in particular are often used as bargaining tools, i.e. officials promise to drop the charges if the torture survivor agrees to give up his or her claims regarding torture. Several UN bodies have expressed concerns about the deleterious impact of delays in the investigation, prosecution and resolution of torture cases in Sri Lanka and have ruled that these constitute a violation of the right to an effective remedy. The UN Committee against Torture, in its concluding observations on Sri Lanka’s state party report of 2005: “expresse[d] its deep concern about continued well-documented allegations of widespread torture and ill-treatment as well as disappearances, mainly committed by the State’s police forces. It is also concerned that such violations by law enforcement officials are not investigated promptly and impartially by the State party’s competent authorities (art. 12). The Committee is concerned about the undue delay of trials, especially trials of people accused of torture.”15 The UN Human Rights Committee, in the case of torture of Rajapakakse v. Sri Lanka:16 “… observes that, as the delay in the author's fundamental rights application to the Supreme Court is dependant upon the determination of the High Court case, 14 CAT Act No.22 of 1994. Conclusions and recommendations of the Committee against Torture: Sri Lanka, UN Doc. CAT/C/LKA/CO/2, 15 December 2002, paras. 12 and 14. 15 16 Rajapakse v. Sri Lanka, para. 9.4. 9