A/HRC/44/50/Add.1 85. Although the Prevention of Terrorism Act of Sri Lanka is undergoing a reform process, as mentioned above, the newly proposed draft bill carries with it its own difficulties. Article 3 (b) of the bill, for example, criminalizes wrongfully or unlawfully compelling the Government of Sri Lanka, or any other government, or an international organization, to do or to abstain from doing any act when committing any of the acts referred to in article 3 (2), which include causing serious obstruction or damage to essential services or supplies, and causing serious damage to property, including public or private property. The broad construction of these articles leaves a wide margin to manoeuvre for possible prosecution under the bill, especially with regard to certain acts of civil disobedience, or trade union actions in sectors that are defined as essential services. It is thus not difficult to consider the effect that this could have on the right to freedom of peaceful assembly. 86. The Special Rapporteur notes that during his visit, many interactions were characterized by a deep-seated mistrust of the Government on the part of interlocutors. A combination of discriminatory practices with surveillance, intimidation and overbearing counter-terrorism legislation creates harsh divisions, which in fact themselves undermine national security. Concerns were frequently expressed to him with regard to the discriminatory application of counter-terrorism legislation, in circumstances where the characterization of the offence as terrorism seemed draconian and manifestly disproportionate. The most frequent instances heard by the Special Rapporteur were connected with memorials for those who were killed or disappeared during the armed conflict, and with student union protest movements. D. Impunity 87. Mistrust of the Government and State institutions is exacerbated by a prevailing climate of impunity. Although discussions regarding a transitional justice accountability mechanism have taken place, disputes over, inter alia, the presence of international judges on such a mechanism have paralysed the process. The end result is that few perpetrators have ever been held accountable for atrocities committed during the armed conflict, and faith in the national justice system has been eroded. Indeed, the Special Rapporteur was deeply disappointed to learn that on 18 August 2019, after the completion of his visit, Lieutenant General Shavendra Silva was appointed as the new army chief of Sri Lanka, despite the serious allegations against him with regard to his involvement in the commission of war crimes and other human rights abuses during the conflict. This appointment will serve to undermine faith in the armed forces and reinforce a prevailing climate of impunity for atrocities committed during the war. 88. This lack of accountability is similarly mirrored in the Rathupaswala, Welikada prison and Roshan Chanaka cases mentioned above. All three cases are characterized by long periods of inaction by the administration of justice system, up to eight years in one case. While some movement has been seen recently in bringing these cases to trial, such protracted delays further undermine faith in the system and create poor perceptions of access to justice. In a similar way, police inaction also contributes to this. 89. It is essential that victims of human rights violations, including violations of the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association, feel supported and able to redress these violations in a straightforward and efficient manner. Indeed, the fight against impunity is crucial for the maintenance of a sustainable democracy, of peace and of development. VI. Conclusions and recommendations A. Conclusions 90. While Sri Lanka has made valuable democratic strides in the last five years, a prevailing apprehension exists among civil society, who fear there could be rollbacks on these gains in the future. Sri Lankans fear the dismantling or undermining of 15