United Nations experts have told Sri Lanka that the proposed Protection of the State from Terrorism Act must be revised further to bring it into line with international human rights law — while acknowledging that the government has already responded to earlier criticism with what they call a much-improved draft.

The statement was carried by the Daily Mirror on Tuesday morning.

The experts opened by welcoming the proposed repeal of the Prevention of Terrorism Act of 1979, the law the PSTA would replace. That act, they said, “enabled many serious human rights violations, including torture and enforced disappearances, committed before, during and since the horrific 26-year civil war in Sri Lanka, including abuse against minorities, human rights defenders, journalists and civil society.”

They then said the government had presented a much-improved latest draft in response to feedback, but that “some vital concerns remain to be addressed.”

What they want changed

On detention, the experts said detention orders must be subject to prompt and effective judicial control, including the power to test the legality, necessity and proportionality of the detention and to order release. The Independent Review Committee that hears detention appeals, they said, “must be genuinely independent, and its decisions binding.”

Detainees must be guaranteed access to legal counsel, interpretation, independent medical examination, legal aid, family contact and prompt visits by the Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka. Transfers from detention, they added, must be recorded and reported “to prevent enforced disappearances and incommunicado detention.”

On the definition of terrorism, they called for it to be limited to acts intentionally causing death or serious injury, and to exclude mere property damage. Expression-related offences, they said, “must involve a likelihood of causing terrorist violence.”

On powers, they called for the arrest, question and search powers of the armed forces to be abolished outright to prevent abuse, citing the history of military violations. They also want the criteria for proscribing organisations clarified and raised, time limits placed on proscription, and cumulative time limits on restriction orders and on the power to prohibit places.

On procedure, all evidence or statements obtained unlawfully, by torture or ill-treatment, must be excluded from proceedings. Information relating to journalistic sources, legal privilege, professional confidentiality and human rights monitoring must be protected from disclosure.

They further said presidential authority to direct how the law is enforced must be limited, and that the Prevention of Terrorism Act “should not apply transitionally after the PSTA comes into force.”

The sharpest line in the statement concerns immunity: “It is unacceptable that the PSTA would confer immunities on officials for wrongful acts.” The experts closed with the formulation that “countering terrorism is only effective if human rights are respected,” and offered technical assistance to the authorities to improve the bill.

This is a second, separate intervention

This is not the UN statement reported here in late October, and the distinction matters.

In October the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights issued technical comments on an earlier draft — reported by this desk on 22 October alongside a parallel Amnesty International warning, and updated on 30 October when the UN’s set of amendments was put at nine. That October material was carried by The Island on 31 October and by the Daily FT on 30 October.

Tuesday’s statement is a later and distinct intervention: it responds to a newer draft, explicitly credits the government with having improved it, and is issued in the name of UN experts — the independent mandate holders of the Special Procedures system — rather than as office-level commentary. Several of its demands are also new, including the abolition of armed-forces arrest powers, time limits on proscription, and the objection to statutory immunities.

A note on sourcing

This report rests on a single verified source. The text the Daily Mirror carries is the United Nations’ own press release rather than Daily Mirror reporting — it is filed on the paper’s international desk and reproduced in full, and the release itself is published by the OHCHR, dated 9 November. This desk could not fetch the OHCHR page directly, so it is linked here as background rather than cited as a dated source, and the quotations above are taken from the Daily Mirror’s rendering.

Not reported

The Daily Mirror’s version carries an asterisk after “UN experts” but drops the footnote that names them, so the individual special rapporteurs behind the statement cannot be identified from this filing. It does not say which draft of the bill the experts reviewed or when it was shared with them, gives no government response, and does not say whether the offer of technical assistance has been taken up. It also does not say what stage the bill has now reached in Parliament, or whether the Supreme Court petitions filed against it have been determined.