Sri Lanka

The imposition of an obligation to perform work is not, in principle, prohibited under human rights conventions. However, the Court is required to ascertain whether the penalty provided for by the legislation of the requesting State amounts, in substance—irrespective of its formal designation—to treatment that violates the individual’s fundamental rights. Accordingly, in matters concerning forced labour and “work normally required of a detained person,” it is necessary to examine the consequences of any failure to comply with the obligation to provide compensation, whether the conviction expressly provides for forced labour and, if so, the nature and modalities of such labour, in order to determine whether it falls within the scope of “work normally required of a detained person.”

The Australian authorities requested the extradition of an Australian national residing in Sri Lanka to face charges of fraudulent misappropriation and false pretence in New South Wales. The High Court discharged the requested person after finding that the evidence and exhibits transmitted by Australia had not been duly authenticated, but the Court of Appeal set aside that decision in the exercise of its revisionary jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that extradition proceedings before the High Court are judicial rather than wholly administrative and are therefore subject to revision by the Court of Appeal. It further held that a single composite certificate covering all depositions and exhibits, together with the official seal of the Australian Attorney-General, satisfied the statutory authentication requirements, without any need to certify each document separately; the appeal was dismissed and the case remitted to the High Court.