HUMAN RIGHT COMMISSION OF SRI LANKA - Annual report 2020 and 6th and 9th respondents to pay Rs. 10,000/= as compensation to the 2nd Petitioner. The Commission did not find a violation of Article 13(1) of the Constitution in the procedure followed leading to the arrest of the petitioners by the Anuradhapura police. The arrests had been made consequent to intelligence information received in respect of the two petitioners’ involvement in illegal liquor making and selling. Torture had allegedly been inflicted on the petitioners at the time of arrest. The HRCSL, supported by medical evidence contained in the JMO’s report, found that the injuries found on the two petitioners corroborated with the way in which the petitioners alleged that the injuries were inflicted. Further, the Commission recommended a copy of the recommendation to be sent to the IGP and the Chairman of the National Police Commission to take suitable disciplinary action against the respondents. 3.2.2.  Equality and Non-discrimination (Article 12 of the Constitution) Admission to Grade 1 of a public school (Complaint Nos: HRC/2571/18 and HRC/2572/18) Responding to two complaints by the petitioner against two leading national schools in Colombo on the ground that the petitioner’s child has been unfairly deprived of the opportunity to take part in the Grade 1 admission interviews of these schools, the Commission found a violation of Article 12(1) of the Constitution and recommended the child be awarded the opportunity to face the admission interviews of the said public schools. The petitioner, whose husband is a lieutenant commander of the Navy, has submitted applications to both schools to admit her child to grade 1 under the category of official transfers. Both schools have informed the petitioner in writing that the applications were rejected. She has thereafter appealed against the said decisions of the schools but neither the respondent schools nor the Board of Appeals of the Ministry of Education has responded to her appeal. The respondent schools state that the application in issue was rejected as the documents required as proof of the petitioner’s husband’s transfer in terms of Circular No.24/2018 have not been furnished together 49