A/HRC/44/50/Add.1 content gives cause for serious concern with regards to the conformity of its provisions to international human rights standards.6 43. Following the terrorist attacks of 21 April 2019, three emergency regulations were adopted by the President (Gazette Nos. 2120/3, 2120/4 and 2120/5), which were extended three times, for a month each time. While recognizing the legitimate need to protect the nation from terrorist attacks, these regulations appeared to further limit the right to peaceful assembly. For example, unauthorized persons could be prevented from entering restricted areas, places or premises if a competent authority was of the opinion that such special precautions should be taken. The holding of public processions or meetings could also be prohibited by the President if he was of the opinion that they were likely to cause a disturbance of public order or promote public dissatisfaction. He commends the eventual repeal of these regulations; however, he remains concerned about the status of those arrested under the regulations and plans to follow up closely on any developments in this regard. B. Specific challenges to the right to freedom of peaceful assembly 44. While the Special Rapporteur notes the considerable efforts undertaken to transform the police force into a well-trained, community-policing force since the end of the war, he noted that the overall approach of the police towards managing peaceful assemblies seems to rest on the negative perception that protests and demonstrations are generally a nuisance and should be prevented, rather than being treated as a fundamental right that is essential to democracy and is inherent to every person. 45. In spite of the legislation and regulations described above, he heard a number of concerning reports of protests that were met with baton charges, water cannons and tear gas, which seemed disproportionate considering the circumstances, in particular with regard to student protests. He also received information on a number of emblematic cases regarding excessive use of force against protesters. 46. With regard to the Rathupaswala case, involving the killing of three protesters on 1 August 2013, the Special Rapporteur received information that four army personnel were recently indicted to stand trial at a trial-at-bar, a form of expedited process. In the Welikada prison case, where 27 persons died, two prison officers and one police inspector were indicted to stand trial in expedited proceedings, in relation to eight such deaths, on 1 August 2019. In the Roshan Chanaka case, involving the death of a free trade zone worker during a protest in 2011, two police officers were indicted to stand trial on 29 July 2019. While deploring the protracted duration of the proceedings, the information received is promising, and he hopes that accountability for the perpetrators and redress for the victims will soon become a reality. He will continue to monitor these cases and hopes to receive updated information from the Government as the proceedings develop. 47. The National Police Commission was established to oversee the conduct of police personnel and ensure public accountability. Unfortunately, issues related to illegal police actions during protests remain invisible in the Commission’s public reporting on complaints received, as it is not specified in which instances misconduct is linked with actions taken during protests. He encourages the Commission to develop a methodology to enable the breakdown of such information, allowing for targeted action to address those practices and complaints. 48. He also heard concerning accounts of groups that were attempting to peacefully assemble and mobilize around common concerns but that were prevented from doing so, or that were met with physical or verbal violence at the hands of individuals without intervention by authorities, despite police or army presence. 6 8 See spcommreports.ohchr.org/TMResultsBase/DownLoadPublicCommunicationFile?gId=24364, for example. The Government’s preliminary comments noted that the Cabinet had agreed to withdrawing the bill and that, in any event, the bill would have lapsed with the dissolution of Parliament.