by Our Correspondent in Geneva
Sri Lanka has told the United Nations that the investigation leading to the arrest of retired Major General Suresh Sallay, former chief of the State Intelligence Service, originated with a complaint filed by a Catholic priest seeking an investigation into information presented in a Channel 4 documentary about the Easter Sunday terrorist attacks of 21 April 2019. In its response, dated 20 September 2026, the Government maintains that Sallay’s arrest and continued detention are lawful and supported by evidence gathered during an ongoing criminal investigation. However, although the submission repeatedly asserts that the authorities acted on an objective assessment of evidence, it does not identify the specific material underpinning the decision to arrest and detain him.
The response was submitted to the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights two months after four UN human rights mandate holders issued a joint urgent appeal on 20 July 2026 concerning Sallay’s detention, allegations of torture and ill-treatment, access to legal representation and medical treatment, and the risk of further harm. The mandate holders included the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism, the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, the Special Rapporteur on the right to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health, and the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers.
The Government’s submission, transmitted through Sri Lanka’s Permanent Mission in Geneva, sets out its position on the legal basis for the arrest, the safeguards it says were provided during detention, and the medical treatment Sallay received. It also states that allegations concerning his arrest, detention and treatment remain before the courts. The document does not provide a detailed account of the evidence gathered against him or explain how the information that prompted the initial complaint was independently corroborated.
According to the response, the Criminal Investigation Department’s Special Branch initiated an investigation following a complaint filed on 11 October 2024 by a priest identified as the executive director of the Centre for Society and Religion. The complaint requested an investigation into facts revealed by a Channel 4 programme concerning the series of terrorist attacks carried out on Easter Sunday 2019. The Government states that information about the investigation was reported to the Fort Magistrate’s Court under case number B 36882/2024 and that the investigation subsequently proceeded under judicial supervision.
Sallay was arrested on 25 February 2026 and detained under an order issued pursuant to the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA). The Government says the arrest followed an “objective assessment of the evidence gathered” and insists that the decision to detain him was made in accordance with the law. It adds that the investigation concerns a matter of significant public importance and rejects any suggestion that the detention was motivated by political opinions, previous official positions, ethnicity, religion or another impermissible consideration.
“The Government reiterates its commitment to ensuring accountability for the Easter Sunday attacks of 21 April 2019,” the submission states. It says investigations and proceedings must be conducted impartially, independently and in accordance with due process, while recognising the suffering of victims, survivors and their families. It also maintains that “no individual is above the law” and that allegations concerning serious criminal offences must be investigated through lawful procedures, regardless of a person’s current or former position, rank or status.
The response does not, however, detail the specific evidence that led investigators to suspect Sallay of criminal involvement, nor does it set out the evidentiary findings on which the arrest decision was based. Its central position is that the evidence exists and that the investigation remains active, rather than that the evidence should be described in the diplomatic communication. The omission does not itself establish that the authorities lack adequate evidence, but the document provides no independent basis for evaluating the strength of the material cited to justify the detention.
The Government says Sallay’s arrest and detention have been subject to judicial review and supervision. It notes that proceedings concerning the investigation, including allegations of torture, ill-treatment, arbitrary arrest and detention, are before the Colombo Fort Magistrate’s Court and the Court of Appeal. It identifies Sallay’s application as CA/Writ/232/2026, filed against several respondents, including officers connected to the investigation. According to the submission, allegations concerning officers suspected of being implicated in the Easter Sunday attacks are also under consideration by the Court of Appeal. The Government describes these matters as sub judice and says its observations are made with due respect for the ongoing proceedings.
On procedural safeguards, the Government says Sallay was given an opportunity to consult legal counsel after his arrest, taken to his residence and shown to close relatives, including his wife, and informed of the reasons for his arrest. It states that a receipt was issued to his wife, the Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka was notified in writing, and his close relatives were informed of the detention order. He was also produced before a judicial medical officer in Colombo. The Government says the arrest was reported to the Fort Magistrate’s Court and that Sallay was subsequently produced before the court regularly.
The submission rejects the allegation that Sallay was detained incommunicado. It says he was permitted to meet his lawyer every Wednesday and speak by telephone with close relatives, including his wife and mother, every Friday. On Saturdays, he was allowed to meet relatives and receive food, beverages and clothing brought from home. The Government adds that the Fort Magistrate regularly visited the CID detention facility and observed Sallay in his cell. It states that the facility is a legally authorised place of detention subject to regular oversight and inspection by the magistrate and the Human Rights Commission.
“The Government acknowledges the importance of ensuring that deprivation of liberty is accompanied by appropriate procedural safeguards, including access to legal representation, judicial oversight and appropriate medical care,” the response states. It says Sallay has had regular access to legal counsel and has been represented by lawyers in proceedings concerning his arrest and detention. The Government also emphasises that communications with legal counsel remain confidential and, under the law, cannot be used as evidence.
Medical treatment occupies a substantial section of the submission. The Government says Sallay was examined by a judicial medical officer at the time of his arrest and referred to specialists at Colombo National Hospital for ear and dental problems. He was examined again by a judicial medical officer on 29 April 2026. The response says he subsequently received treatment from a dermatologist, a specialist nutritionist and a neurologist, and was referred to an ophthalmologist at the National Eye Hospital. It adds that laboratory tests were conducted through the Medical Research Institute, nutritional supplements and vitamins were provided, and an MRI scan was performed at Colombo National Hospital following a neurological assessment.
The Government further states that Sallay was referred to a doctor at the National Institute of Mental Health in Angoda. During a hunger strike, he received medical monitoring and was admitted to Colombo National Hospital on medical advice. At the time of the response, he was receiving inpatient treatment in the hospital’s Cardiology Unit. The Government says no statement had been recorded from him following his admission and that decisions concerning his medical care would continue to be based on recommendations from medical professionals. Any transfer from hospital to detention, it adds, would take account of his medical condition and medical advice.
On allegations of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, the Government refers to Article 11 of the Sri Lankan Constitution, which prohibits torture and such treatment, and the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment Act No. 22 of 1994. It states that “no such allegation has been substantiated or established to date” and that any allegation supported by credible evidence would be dealt with through the appropriate investigative and judicial mechanisms. It also states that no statement obtained through torture or ill-treatment is admissible as evidence or can be used to justify arrest or continued detention.
The Government says restrictions on family access remain subject to applicable law, security considerations and judicial directions, and promises that any restrictions will be “lawful, necessary and proportionate”. It also acknowledges the UN mandate holders’ concern about possible retaliation or further ill-treatment, particularly if Sallay is transferred from hospital back to custody. Retaliation, intimidation and ill-treatment of detainees, it says, are prohibited, and specific allegations brought to the attention of the authorities will be examined under the law.
The submission also addresses Sri Lanka’s counter-terrorism framework, stating that the Government is committed to ensuring that it complies with constitutional guarantees and international human rights obligations. It says reforms to counter-terrorism legislation are under way and that any new legislation will be considered through the constitutionally prescribed legislative process.
In its concluding observations, the Government maintains that the detention was undertaken under applicable Sri Lankan law in connection with an ongoing criminal investigation. It says the ultimate determination of criminal liability rests with the competent courts following due process and that it will not prejudge the outcome of proceedings. The submission closes by reaffirming Sri Lanka’s commitment to constructive engagement with the UN Human Rights Council’s Special Procedures and assuring the mandate holders that the authorities will continue monitoring Sallay’s medical condition, provide necessary treatment and take appropriate measures to prevent torture, ill-treatment or reprisals.
