Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka (Sri Lanka).

Asia (South-central Asia).

Sinhala, Tamil.

21.2 million (2018 estimate).

Abolitionist de facto.

Sri Lanka’s last execution occurred in 1976.

1976.

Hanging.

Executions can be carried out by hanging.

1,299.

According to the Sri Lankan government, as of December 2018 there were 1,299 prisoners—1,215 men and 84 women—on death row. The death sentences of approximately 426 men and 50 women had been confirmed. Amnesty believes that this figure is likely to be significantly lower than the true number of people on death row.

(This question was last updated on June 3, 2019.).

It is debatable whether there is an official moratorium on executions in Sri Lanka, but Sri Lanka supports a global moratorium on executions and has urged other states to do the same. Upon occasion, the President has deferred the policy of automatic commutations of death sentences, threatening to resume executions, and officials who are involved in the clemency process but lack the authority to determine death penalty policy have announced that they will end the policy of commutations. The reality today is that the latest discussion on whether to lift the longstanding moratorium on executions seems to have begun in 2009. Executions have not occurred in Sri Lanka since 1976.

One source claims that the reason for the longstanding moratorium is that the agreement of the trial judge, Attorney General, Minister of Justice and the President is needed before a death warrant is issued, and if there is no agreement, the sentence is automatically commuted. Contrary to the source’s reading, Article 34 of the Constitution requires only an advisory process in which the President makes the ultimate determination, there is no provision for automatic commutation, and there are 400 or more individuals on death row. In practical terms, the President may be influenced by the opinions of his advisors—and as the previous discussion shows, may rely on their determinations. Given the varied Presidential and administrative stances on the issue of executions over the past ten years, and the consistency of abolitionist de facto policy, it is more reasonable to conclude that reinstituting executions would be a radical departure from a longstanding policy that is favored by a number of the population, and as such the semi-official moratorium may continue until outright abolition.

On February 24, 2011, reports indicated that the state-owned Dinamina newspaper conducted a survey in which 88% of respondents wanted the death penalty to be carried out. The results of the survey were forwarded to the President.

The Constitution provides: “No person shall be punished with death or imprisonment except by order of a competent court, made in accordance with procedure established by law.”

Murder.

“Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death.”

Other Offenses Resulting in Death.

“[If] an innocent person be convicted and executed in consequence of … false evidence, the person who gives such false evidence shall be punished with death.” “If any person commits suicide whoever abets the commission of such suicide shall be punished with death.” Culpable homicide committed with the use of a gun is punishable by death or life imprisonment.

Rape Not Resulting in Death.

Rape committed with the use of a gun is punishable by death or life imprisonment.

Robbery Not Resulting in Death.

Robbery committed with the use of a gun is punishable by death or life imprisonment.

Kidnapping Not Resulting in Death.

Kidnapping or abduction committed with the use of a gun is punishable by death or life imprisonment. This affects offenses of abduction, kidnapping, and human trafficking.

Drug Trafficking Not Resulting in Death.

Under Section 54(A-B) of the Poisons, Opium and Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, anyone who manufactures heroin, cocaine, morphine or opium is liable to a sentence of death or life imprisonment. Under Schedule 3, Parts II and III, trafficking, importing or exporting more than 500 grams of a number of substances is punishable by death or life imprisonment. Additionally, any drug offense under that Ordinance, when committed with the use of a gun, is punishable by death or life imprisonment.

Drug Possession.

Under Schedule 3, Parts II and III of the Poisons, Opium and Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, anyone who possesses more than 500 grams of a number of substances is punishable by death or life imprisonment (but this may be only in relation to trafficking). Additionally, any drug offense under that Ordinance, when committed with the use of a gun, is punishable by death or life imprisonment (again, this may be in relation to trafficking).

Treason.

“Whoever wages war against the Republic, or attempts to wage such war, or abets the waging of such war, shall be punished with death…or imprisonment.” Offenses against the state committed with a gun are punishable by death or life imprisonment.

Military Offenses Not Resulting in Death.

Offenses (of civilians) relating to the armed forces committed with the use of a gun are punishable by death or life imprisonment. Also (regarding civilians), “[w]hoever abets the committing of mutiny by an officer, soldier, sailor, or airman in the Army, Navy, or Air Force of the Republic shall if mutiny be committed in consequence of that abetment, be punished with death or imprisonment…”

Offenses of military personnel in the Army or Air Force in breach of military discipline or duty are punishable by death. Such offenses include cowardice, disregarding warlike orders, mutiny, destruction of military assets, acts calculated to undermine operational success, giving false signals, treachery, giving a parole, watchword or countersign to the enemy, espionage, assisting the enemy, voluntarily serving or aiding the enemy if taken prisoner. Additionally, individuals subject to these military laws are “liable to suffer death” for treason (or murder).

Officers in the Navy “shall be punished with death” for traitorous failure to engage the “enemy, pirate or rebel” or face death or other punishments for failures out of cowardice; they are also punishable with death for failing to defend mariner convoys or demanding compensation for protection. Spies (whether members of the Navy or not) are punishable with death or lesser penalties. Offenses of personnel in the Navy in breach of military discipline or duty are punishable by death, including: abandoning one’s post (traitorously or in cowardice), mutiny or incitement thereof, failure to suppress mutiny (traitorously or in cowardice), desertion to the enemy or unlawful arson of noncombatant property. In those cases, traitorous activity “shall be punished with death.” Treasonable offenses (and murder) “shall be punished with death.”

Other Offenses Not Resulting in Death.

Extortion committed with the use of a gun is punishable by death or life imprisonment.

Causing harm with the use of a gun is punishable by death or life imprisonment. Assault or criminal force on a public servant, or of a sexual nature or in committing theft, with the use of a gun, is punishable by death or life imprisonment. Attempting murder or attempting an act that would amount to culpable homicide, with the use of a gun, is punishable by death or life imprisonment.

Human trafficking offenses committed with the use of a gun are punishable by death or life imprisonment.

Comments.

Under the Prevention of Terrorism Act, individuals who are accused of acts of terrorism that could otherwise be tried as death-eligible offenses under the Penal Code or the Firearms Act can be tried instead with reduced process rights (seemingly by judges in the ordinary court system), but do not face the death penalty in this circumstance. If individuals are tried under the Terrorism Act, they will not face the death penalty.

According to penal code the death penalty is mandatory for murder. Some Naval offenses, and possibly Army and Air Force offenses, carry the mandatory death penalty.

Some jurisprudence confirms that the death penalty is mandatory for murder. In Weerawardane v. State (1999), the Court overturned a guilty plea to murder charges, based on the premise that “a conviction for [murder] necessarily entails capital punishment.” Although a trial court can consider statutory mitigating factors that reduce the offender’s culpability – sometimes known as a diminished capacity defense -- it essentially has no discretion to consider mitigating factors at sentencing.

At least one expert does not enumerate Sri Lanka among those countries applying the mandatory death penalty. However, in our survey of jurisprudence we could not find a single case where the offense of murder was not punished with death. In any case where a killing was not punished with death, the charge of murder had been reduced to culpable homicide for statutory mitigating factors such as intoxication, provocation or lack of common murderous intent. This sort of discretion only lessens culpability, and does not operate as mitigation of sentence..

According to the Code of Criminal Procedure, before sentencing a convict to death the court must allow the convict to submit reasons he should not be executed. The judge must then submit to the President a report of the case and an evaluation of whether the sentence of death is appropriate. Additionally, the Constitution provides that the President must forward the report to the Attorney General, who forwards it to the Minister of Justice with his advice, who forwards it to the President with his recommendation. Although this has been described as a process that requires the approval of the judge for a death sentence (which would constitute discretionary sentencing), in fact this is a clemency process in which the judge has absolutely no authority to determine an appropriate sentence less than death.

Murder.

“Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death.”

Military Offenses Not Resulting in Death.

Personnel subject to the law of the Army, Air Force or Navy who commit treason (or murder) “shall be liable to suffer death” or “shall be punished with death.”

Individuals Below Age 18 at Time of Crime.

The Penal Code provides: “Sentence of death shall not be pronounced on or recorded against any person who, in the opinion of the court, is under the age of eighteen years; but, in lieu of that punishment, the court shall sentence such person to be detained during the President’s pleasure.” Sri Lanka is a party to the ICCPR and Convention on the Rights of the Child, which prohibit such executions."

Pregnant Women.

The Penal Code provides: “Sentence of death shall not be pronounced on or recorded against any woman who is found in accordance with the provisions of section 282 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Act, to be pregnant at the time of her conviction; but, in lieu of that punishment, the court shall sentence her to imprisonment of either description for life or for any other term.” Sri Lanka is a party to the ICCPR, which prohibits such executions.

Intellectually Disabled.

The Code of Criminal Procedure contains some language that could protect intellectually disabled persons who are less able to avail themselves of the safeguard of a fair trial. “If the accused though not insane cannot be made to understand the proceedings the Magistrate's Court or the High Court as the case may be, may proceed with the inquiry or trial, and if such inquiry results in a commitment or if such trial results in a conviction the proceedings shall be forwarded to the Court of Appeal with a report of the circumstances of the case and the Court of Appeal shall pass thereon such order as it thinks fit.” We do not know how this language is, in practice, interpreted and applied."

Mentally Ill.

The Penal Code provides: “Nothing is an offense which is done by a person who, at the time of doing it, by reason of unsoundness of mind, is incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that he is doing what is either wrong of contrary to law.” Intoxication provides a limited defense. The Code of Criminal Procedure mirrors this protection, providing that the Court of Appeal may quash a sentence on the grounds that the trial court should have found the accused insane at the time of his offense. Also, if the accused is determined to be of unsound mind and incapable of making a defense at the Magistrate Court or High Court, then the proceedings are postponed. Finally, individuals who are deemed sane but unable to understand proceedings may receive legal protections.

Comments.

The last known execution occurred in 1976.

We found no significant cases altering the application of the death penalty, but did research a few cases that outline when courts may convict a defendant of a crime less than murder and thus deliver a sentence less than death. The death penalty for a murder conviction is mandatory; hence, courts cannot permit a plea of guilty to murder. This was the case in Weerawardane v. State, in which the accused person pleaded guilty to murder, and therefore, the court rejected that plea because it would otherwise not be able to consider whether excuses (such as provocation, intoxication or lack of shared intent or knowledge) would justify a conviction on lesser charges, including culpable homicide. (The courts in Sri Lanka do not consider mitigation for the offense of murder.)

The long-established case of King v. Banda is of relevance for the few military offenses where an offender is “liable to suffer death.” In King v. Banda, the court held that the word “liable” “can only mean that a convicted party is in peril” of a punishment. In that case, the court was determining whether a statutory provision that an offender was liable to suffer death or life imprisonment meant that imprisonment for a term of years was foreclosed. In subsequent cases, courts have reiterated the principle that “liable” means “exposed to,” and usually should not be connoted in a mandatory fashion. In one recent case, the Supreme Court held that the phrase “liable to suffer death or life imprisonment” placed a mandatory restriction on the Court’s discretion. There, the phrase “liable to suffer death or life imprisonment” was not delivered alone, but as part of a schedule of penalties based on the gravity of the offense. A reasonable explanation of the Court’s decision is that “liable” indicates “exposure” to a maximum penalty in Sri Lanka, even though the legislature can provide context for determining the minimum when a range of exposure is denoted by a statute. It is unclear how this conflicting jurisprudence would apply to interpretation of the Army Act and Air Force Act, which provide for some offenses that the offender “shall be liable to suffer death.”

The Constitution provides: ”The State shall promote international peace, security and co-operation, and the establishment of a just and equitable international economic and social order, and shall endeavor to foster respect for international law and treaty obligations in dealings among nations.”

The Constitution also defines the scope of executive power to be consistent with the actions which an executive may, by international law or custom, be “required or authorized to do.”

In a review of communications received by the Human Rights Committee, we did not find any recent petitions related to application of the death penalty. In the Committee’s 2003 Observations pursuant to periodic self-reporting by Sri Lanka, the Committee did not discuss the application of the death penalty.

In the Human Rights Council’s 2008 Universal Periodic Review of human rights in Sri Lanka, Mexico and Italy commented on the moratorium on the death penalty and inquired about additional information and steps towards complete abolition. These were not enumerated as recommendations of the Council.

Individuals in Sri Lanka are legally guaranteed the right to counsel. The U.S. Department of State reports that indigent individuals facing serious charges are provided with counsel, but does not describe the nature or quality of the counsel received. In 2003, a journal article published in the Sri Lanka Journal of International Law suggested that the legal aid available to indigent defendants (including those facing capital charges) was delivered by inexperienced and sometimes incompetent counsel. We do not know whether the situation has changed since 2003.

There are some organizations that provide legal service but coverage is not equal geographically. For instance Colombo receives most coverage whereas areas like Kilinochchi and Mullaitivu have no service providers operating there.

Individuals in Sri Lanka are legally guaranteed the right to counsel. The U.S. Department of State reports that indigent individuals facing serious charges are provided with counsel on appeal, but does not describe the nature or quality of the counsel received. In 2003, a journal article published in the Sri Lanka Journal of International Law confirmed that counsel is available on appeal, but suggested that the legal aid available to indigent defendants (including those facing capital charges) was delivered by inexperienced and sometimes incompetent counsel. We do not know whether the situation has changed since 2003.

There are some organizations that provide legal service but coverage is not equal geographically. For instance Colombo receives most coverage whereas areas like Kilinochchi and Mullaitivu have no service providers operating there.

In 2003, a journal article published in the Sri Lanka Journal of International Law suggested that “[t]he free legal aid scheme to poor persons in Sri Lanka is gravely circumscribed.” “Assigned counsel are poorly paid, hence only the junior and inexperienced lawyers appear for them, the result being under-representation.” The article cites an unreported Sri Lankan Court of Appeal case in which the Court considered a case of under-representation for a defendant facing murder charges. The Court observed: “In the circumstances, it would appear that accused appellant, was virtually unrepresented and undefended, therefore doubt arises as to whether the accused appellant in fact had a fair trial.” The author observes that this is not an isolated incident, and states that “[t]he reality in Sri Lanka is that it falls far short of the expected objective of the law under international fair trial norms.” We do not know whether the situation has changed since 2003.

There are some organizations that provide legal service but coverage is not equal geographically. For instance Colombo receives most coverage whereas areas like Kilinochchi and Mullaitivu have no service providers operating there.

One news source reported that the government sometimes denies legal representation to minority groups such as Tamils. We have not been able to confirm this allegation.

It also seems that suspects are sometimes kept in custody for long periods as a result of the legal system’s inefficiency. For instance, one suspect was kept in custody for 10 years before being taken to court once. Lengthy delays prior to trial undermine the defendant’s right to a fair trial and the protection against arbitrary detention.

Even though, by law, court proceedings and other legislation should be available in English, Sinhala, and Tamil, in reality, most court proceedings outside of Jaffna or in the northern parts of the country are conducted in English or Sinhala. Consequently, Tamil-speaking defendants do not all receive fair hearings.

Offenses liable to serious penalties are tried before the High Court. A notice of appeal must be filed with the Court of Appeal within 14 days of the conviction, sentence or order being appealed. Fees are waived for appeals against the sentence of death. Appeals are on questions of law and mixed fact-law only. The decision may be appealed by the defendant, the prosecutor, or a private party aggrieved by the offense. The Court may order a retrial (for the prosecution or defense), set aside the verdict, or alter the conviction or sentence (but may not increase the sentence). The Supreme Court reportedly hears only appeals involving substantial legal issues.

Offenders tried under the Prevention of Terrorism Act are not tried before the High Court with a jury (and do not face the death penalty), but reportedly have an appeals channel.

According to the Code of Criminal Procedure, before sentencing a convict to death the court must allow the convict to submit reasons he should not be executed. The judge must then submit to the President a report of the case and an evaluation of whether the sentence of death is appropriate. Execution cannot be carried out without the President’s warrant. Additionally, the Constitution provides that the President must forward the report to the Attorney General, who forwards it to the Minister of Justice with his advice, who forwards it to the President with his recommendation. The President may commute the sentence, stay the execution or grant a pardon.

The law we found provides for jury trials for murder and rape, and relegates some treasonable offenses to a panel of judges, as well as some terrorism offenses (although the Prevention of Terrorism Act does not permit the death penalty on facts that could, before a jury, be death-eligible). The U.S. Department of State reports that “in criminal cases juries try defendants in public,” except for offenses tried under the PTA.

The Ministry of Justice does not respect the independence of attorneys. In July 2009, the MOJ’s official website described attorneys for newspaper editors suing the Secretary of Defense as “traitors.” Lawyers defending human rights are “sometimes under physical and verbal threats.” Police made death threats against one prominent human rights attorney, whose house was later burned down. In 2008, individuals carried out a grenade attack on the home of a human rights attorney.

“[S]ince 2005, the government has failed to appoint the Constitutional Council, whose function it is to assure the independence of constitutional bodies…” In 2009, the judiciary’s lower levels remained reliant on the executive.

It also seems that suspects are sometimes kept in custody for long periods as a result of the legal system’s inefficiency. For instance, one suspect was kept in custody for 10 years before being taken to court once. Lengthy delays prior to trial undermine the defendant’s right to a fair trial and the protection against arbitrary detention.

Confessions obtained by torture are inadmissible in criminal courts by law. However, defendants must prove that confessions were obtained by torture. These same defendants may spend up to 18 months in prison on administrative order before their cases are heard. Moreover, human rights organizations maintain that obtaining evidence of torture is difficult due to limited people and resources as well as additional corruption, such as threatening doctors responsible for collecting evidence.

Torture is less common when individuals are accused of ordinary offenses, but is widespread for individuals who are being investigated for political offenses. Our initial review of human rights reports by U.N. special rapporteurs corroborated these and other observations.

Bogambara and Welikada Prison – Death row might be in these two locations, where functional gallows for executions exist.

We found no reports documenting conditions on death row specifically. Sri Lanka may not consider death-sentenced prisoners to be held on death row until their appeals are exhausted. Regarding prison conditions in general, they are overcrowded, unhygienic, lack recreational activities, doctors, and privacy. Most were built by the British over a century ago. At the Bogambara prison, about 5-6 prisoners occupy each cell. With insufficient space, each prisoner lies down one by one without mattresses, blanket, or pillow or huddled. The prisons must take all prisoners sent by the court regardless of capacity. Some juveniles were kept with adults, and some pretrial detainees with those convicted. Access to natural light is limited and ventilation is insufficient.

Mark Warren’s resource does not mention any foreign nationals currently under sentence of death in Sri Lanka.

Mark Warren’s resource does not mention any foreign nationals currently under sentence of death in Sri Lanka.

There were 84 women on death row at the end of 2018—50 of these women had their death sentences confirmed.

(This question was last updated on January 18, 2019.).

During our research, we did not find reports that individuals are held under sentence of death for crimes committed as juveniles, and Sri Lanka prohibits the practice.

We found no reports regarding the racial or ethnic composition of death row. It should be noted, however, that the government has been accused of human rights abuses against Tamils. For instance, on July 2, Kimbula Ela, a mostly Tamil neighborhood in Colombo, was sealed off and searched by army, police, and Special Task Force units. Numerous reports indicate that the government engages in arbitrary arrest or unlawful killings. For instance, Hill Tamils specifically are mentioned in the U.S. Department of State 2008 Human Rights Report: Sri Lanka as vulnerable to arbitrary arrest and detention.

No executions have occurred since 1976. However, there are occasionally proposals to resume executions and tighten amnesties in response to rising crime rates, No executions have occurred since 1976. However, there are occasionally proposals to resume executions and tighten amnesties in response to rising crime rates, despite Sri Lanka’s support for a global moratorium on the death penalty.

A recent news report by Colombo Page (10/31/10), states that a Commission evaluating the status of death sentenced prisoners might recommend the commutation of all 400 individuals on death row to life imprisonment.

None.

None.

Decisions of the Court of Appeals and Supreme Court through 2005 are available at http://www.worldlii.org/lk/. Researchers also might consult the government’s consolidated site for the publication of laws and cases at http://www.lawnet.lk/index.php. From time to time NYU’s GlobaLex may have updates on additional legal research tools.

Noel Dias, Legal Assistance and Aid: International Standards Applicable in Sri Lanka, p. 90-91, Sri Lanka J. of Intl. Law, Vol. 15, p. 77, 2003.

David Averbuck, The Sepala Ekanayake Case—Domestic Sri Lankan Law Incorporates International Law, Sri Lanka J. of Intl. Law. Vol. 1, p. 1, 1989.

Among others, we found the ColumboPage online newspaper informative on death penalty issues:http://www.colombopage.com/.

Our best source of information regarding death row demographics was an interview published by the Lanka Journal: Lanka Journal, Death Penalty Under Review-Sri Lanka Prisons Commissioner, http://www.lankajournal.com/2009/08/death-penalty-under-review-sri-lanka-prisons-commissioner/, Aug. 30, 2009.

NYU’s resource was helpful in guiding our legal research: Aquinas V. Tambimuttu, Sri Lanka: Legal Research and Legal System, GlobaLex, http://www.nyulawglobal.org/Globalex/Sri_Lanka.htm, Jan. 2009.

Sri Lanka’s free online database of statutes (and some cases) was instrumental in describing the scope of the law: http://www.lawnet.lk/, as was the World Legal Information Institute: http://www.worldlii.org/lk/.

None.