claimed that the courts by executing the warrant denied them the legitimate expectation they
were afforded under the convention.
The Caribbean Court of Justice held the doctrine of legitimate expectation in this case is rooted
in a number of considerations which are peculiar to the situation in which it has been invoked.
They indicated that even though this legitimate expectation was evident, it is not an opportunity
whereby persons can frivolously apply. The courts indicated that in this case they ought to
balance the desire to give the condemned man an opportunity to secure the commutation of his
sentence, the direct access to international tribunal which the treaty affords him and giving effect
to the State’s interest in avoiding delay even for a limited period in the carrying out of a death
sentence.
In contrast, Nallaratnam Singharasa was convicted on count of 5 charges of mutiny. The High
Court se ntenced him to terms of 10years. The Petitioner appealed the conviction to the court of
appeal and the Supreme Court to which his attempts were futile. He later sought an application to
appeal to Human Rights Commission (HRC). Sri-Lanka acceded to on 11th June, 1980 and 1997
to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (the Covenant) respectively. Both
instruments were adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations.
The HRC was entitled to entertain complaints from individuals who fall within the jurisdiction of
a state that has acceded / ratified the Optional Protocol (OP) to the International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) both of which Sri-Lanka adhered to. The issue however was
whether the Supreme Court of Sri-Lanka was obligated to uphold the decisions of the HRC, in
that they are under the obligation to provide the applicant with an effective and appropriate
remedy, including release or retrial and compensation.
The Supreme Court held the HRC at Geneva does not have judicial power under the constitution
of Sri-Lanka and as a result the petitioner cannot seek to ‘vindicate and enforce’ right through
such medium.
Analysis
The decision of Teoh and Joseph and Boyce were substantially different from Nallaratnam and
Matthew. In Teoh however the issue was whether the treatment of ‘legitimate expectation’ was
30