A/HRC/34/20 created in January 2016, is not yet fully functional. Police structures established under the framework have not been subjected to adequate vetting, and guarantees of their independence are insufficient. The High Commissioner reiterates the need to review and amend the Victims of Crime and Witnesses Act in order to incorporate strong safeguards to ensure that an effective system of protection is available to victims and witnesses, including in the framework of the transitional justice agenda. 45. The drafting process of the framework for new counter-terrorism legislation and the substance of the reform have been criticized by civil society and other stakeholders as a lost opportunity to advance crucial reforms and to build trust. The original objective was to replace the Prevention of Terrorism Act with new legislation that would be compliant with best international practices. The review and repeal of the Prevention of Terrorism Act was one of the commitments made by the Government. This was intended as a robust gesture of reconciliation, given that the Prevention of Terrorism Act had been notoriously used during the conflict to supress dissent and target minority groups. In 2016, a technical committee produced a draft that raised serious concerns with regard to its compatibility with international standards. The draft framework contains an overly broad definition of terrorism, relies heavily on pre-charge executive detention, with little judicial oversight, denies prompt access to legal counsel, admits statements made to the police without the presence of counsel, and allows for lengthy periods of pretrial detention. While the text is currently with the parliamentary sectoral oversight committee on national security, the Government has announced that it will address some of the above-mentioned weaknesses, as identified by OHCHR and other reviewers, including the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism, in order to ensure compliance with international standards. The High Commissioner acknowledges the Government’s willingness to improve the text, and hopes that the new draft will take into account the observations and recommendations made by United Nations human rights mechanisms and OHCHR in November 2016. 46. On 12 August 2016, the Ministry of Justice presented a draft amendment to the Code of Criminal Procedure, purportedly with the intention of ensuring detainees’ access to legal counsel. The amendment, however, envisaged the right to legal counsel only after an initial statement to the police (as under the Prevention of Terrorism Act). This implied a further regression from the current situation, where access to a lawyer may be granted before a statement is given, in– accordance with police rules issued in 2012 under the Police Ordinance that gives lawyers the right to meet their clients in police stations. The amendment was withdrawn after complaints were made by civil society, the Bar Association and the Human Rights Commission. A new draft is reportedly under preparation; in the process, however, a promising reform (codification of the right to counsel upon detention) has been delayed and an important confidence-building opportunity has been lost. 47. In the meantime, the Prevention of Terrorism Act remains in force. According to government information, as at January 2017, the cases still pending under the Act involved 47 persons on remand, nine persons pending indictment after completion of investigations, and 73 with indictments before the high courts. In addition, during the period under review, the Prevention of Terrorism Act continued to be used to make arrests, including of more than 25 individuals in March and April 2016 and 12 in October and November for alleged links to a criminal gang. The special high courts, established in 2014 and 2016 to expedite cases under the Prevention of Terrorism Act, have not managed to clear the backlog. While most detainees under the Act are of Tamil origin, both special high courts are based in mostly Sinhalese areas (in Anuradhapura and, to a lesser extent, Colombo), which have reportedly limited the capacity of Tamil lawyers to assist their clients. A decision, made in December 2016, to move the Colombo Special High Court to the all-Sinhala suburb of Homagama has further exacerbated the problem. Prompt and effective conclusion of the 11