HUMAN RIGHT COMMISSION OF SRI LANKA - Annual report 2020 with the intention of misleading the police, and the case has been dismissed. The Commission recommended the 1st and 6th respondents to pay Rs. 5000/= each as compensation to the victim. Further, the Commission recommended a copy of the recommendation to be sent to the Inspector General of Police (IGP) and the Chairman of the National Police Commission to take suitable disciplinary action against the respondents.  Promotion of a Naval officer (HRC/2314/15) Responding to a complaint that the petitioner has been unfairly and maliciously prevented from being promoted, the Commission found a violation of Articles 12(1) and 14(1)(g) of the Constitution. The Petitioner who at the time of filing his complaint was a naval officer with 30 years of active service experience, alleged that his fundamental rights have been violated as he was not promoted to the post of Commodore at the time of filing his complaint on 02.07.2015 whereas officers who were junior to him in seniority have been awarded promotions to the same vacancy over him. The respondents claimed that although the Petitioner obtained the requisite marks for the promotion in July 2015, it was the practice of the Navy not to award any promotions if an officer had pending litigation before a court of law. Consequently, the Petitioner was not promoted as he was involved in an investigation conducted by the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) relating to a pending case before court. In fact, in February 2015, the petitioner had been participating in a training programme in the United States when he had been made to come back to Sri Lanka mid-programme to obtain his statement regarding the incident and had not been allowed to return to the programme. The respondents claimed that although they have sought the advice of the Attorney General and the CID about the possibility of awarding the Petitioner his promotion, they are yet to receive instructions. The Petitioner denied having any pending litigation against him and further alleged that the respondents’ conduct has also resulted in depriving him of foreign training programmes. During the investigation, it was also revealed that the Petitioner’s name was included in a recommended promotions list of 71 officers dating back to 2009 in recognition of their extraordinary service in the field during the war. The Commission found that the Petitioner’s fundamental rights have been continuously violated from the year 2009. It also found that the Petitioner 54