fundamental rights case challenging the charges against him delayed in the Supreme Court. Nathasha Edirisooriya is still awaiting a decision from the Attorney General’s Department regarding prosecution on charges brought against her. These developments suggest a troubling pattern wherein the dropping of charges against individuals like Razik and Sathkumara points to the potentially vindictive nature of how laws, such as the ICCPR Act, are being wielded by the Government. It indicates a trend where legal mechanisms are used not to uphold justice but rather to suppress free expression, creating a chilling effect within the public sphere. This is coupled with the extension of Sinhala Buddhist dominance extending to the online sphere, where individuals are criminalised prior to the initiation of formal proceedings. This pre-emptive criminalisation is exemplified by Razik’s case, who faced threats online. This extremism seems to extend to the State itself where the use of legislation such as the ICCPR Act is exploited to legitimise the curtailing of freedoms. Such practices raise serious concerns about the erosion of civil liberties and the abuse of power to stifle dissent and curtail fundamental rights. CRITICISMS OF THE USAGE OF SECTION 3 OF THE ICCPR ACT The HRCSL has issued guidelines outlining the scope of Section 3 of the ICCPR Act (HRCSL, 2020). These guidelines emphasise that constitutionally protected expression cannot be prohibited under the ICCPR Act, and therefore, the act of ‘shocking, offending, or disturbing’ individuals based on nationality, race, or religion alone cannot justify prohibition. They advocate for the adoption of the six-part threshold test outlined in the Rabat Plan of Action to determine the parameters of Section 3 of the ICCPR Act (United Nations, 2013). Under this test, the context, speaker, intent, content and form, extent, and potential harm of expression are evaluated. The HRCSL also stresses that the prohibition of advocacy of hatred under Section 3 should only apply if it constitutes intentional incitement to discrimination, hostility, or violence. In Nathasha Edirisooriya’s case, the High Court judge granted bail after applying the threshold test and found that no evidence had been established [that the audience for Edirisooriya’s comic routine] “had engaged in any hostility or violence in relation to the target group or against the target group which is Buddhists” (Fernando, 2023). The judge emphasised the judiciary’s duty to impartially assess cases and not detain individuals solely based on investigators’ requests (Nanayakkara, 2023). The Supreme Court, referencing HRCSL guidelines in the Razik case, stated that the purpose of Section 3 of the ICCPR Act is to enforce Article 20 of the Covenant. Article 20 prohibits propaganda for war and advocacy of national, racial, or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility, or violence. The Supreme Court clarified that Section 3 is aimed at safeguarding citizens from the impacts of war and expressions of hatred, rather than ‘criminalising blasphemy.’ In his article How a human rights law became a tool of repression in Sri Lanka Dr. Gehan Gunetilleke, Attorney-at-Law and Commissioner of the Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka (HRCSL), examines the background and purpose of Article 20 of the Covenant. He notes that after the - 17 -