Sri Lanka’s Constitution (1978) does not recognize socio economic rights to health and education as fundamental rights that can be enforced through the court procedures provided by the Constitution. Health is not even referred to in the Chapter of the Constitution on Directive Principles (or Guidelines) of State Policy. However Article 12 on the right to equality and non-discrimination has been interpreted to recognize the right to education. Similar litigation has not clarified the legal position, or interpreted this right to equality with reference to health. The ICCPR Act (S. 6) recognizes a right to access basic services, which would include health, and gives a remedy in the form of an action in the High Court to enforce the right (S.7). This appears to have passed unnoticed in the legal community. The Constitution does not recognize a right to privacy. The 19th Amendment to the Constitution now recognizes a right to information in Art 14 A (1). This right can be claimed against State authorities or private authorities linked to the State. In setting out the restrictions to access, Art 14 A (2) refers to “privacy.” It may therefore be argued before courts that a right to privacy is now a legal right on the basis of this provision, and the law on civil wrongs (delict) that recognizes a right to privacy. This gap should be addressed in constitutional reform. Constitutional jurisprudence has developed the concept of State inaction in preventing violations of Non-State actors, as part of the State obligation to implement Fundamental Rights. However there is limited jurisprudence on this aspect in cases litigated in the Supreme Court on violation of the right to freedom from torture and inhuman degrading treatment by private non-State actors. No case has been filed for instance on the basis of State inaction in preventing domestic violence, recognizing as the CEDAW Committee has done, that GBV in the form of domestic violence is torture and or a serious violation of the right to equality and non-discrimination (AT v Hungary Communication No 2/2003). This gap too must be addressed in Constitutional reform. Responsible Authorities : Ministry of Justice, Attorney General’s Department, Ministry of Health, Family Health Bureau. D. International Law The 19th Amendment was a missed opportunity to clarify the legal position on ratification of international treaties. More seriously the Singarasa Case which is embedded in the doctrine of dualism or the application of dual and distinct regime of international law and domestic law has not been reviewed by the Supreme Court. Sri Lanka has reported regularly both to the CEDAW Committee and the Human Rights Committee. The Concluding Observations/Comments of both Committees in the last periodic reviews of 2011 and 2017 highlight the gaps referred to in laws and procedures that impact on GBV and Human Rights (See Annex). In particular the Singarasa Case and its impact on Optional Protocol rights was mentioned by the Human Rights Committee, as well as failure to have an independent National Commission on Women. These Concluding Observations/Comments could have influenced the Constitution reform processes relating to the 19th Amendment, but they did not have any impact. Responsible Agencies : Ministry of Justice, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Attorney General’s Department. COMPENDIUM ON LAW, GENDER BASED VIOLENCE AND REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS 55