Visakesa Chandrasekaram's The Use of Confessionary Evidence under the Counter-Terrorism Laws of Sri Lanka is the most comprehensive description and critique of the use and impact of confessions under the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act No. 48 of 1979 (PTA) of Sri Lanka published so far. He describes the PTA as a tool in “a mass prosecution strategy” (p. 9), particularly against Tamils of “lower socioeconomic groups” in the “legal war” against the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Ealam (LTTE) (p. 123). The PTA declares confessions made to an assistant superintendent of police or above to be admissible in the prosecution of a crime. Chandrasekaram's work provides depth, breadth, and texture to the well-established finding that the use of confessions under the PTA violates fundamental principles of criminal law as well as international human rights law. He moves seamlessly in and out of a range of legal subjects, thereby offering the reader a highly synthesized, rich, accessible, and thick account of the subject.

Going beyond the argument that the use of confessions under the PTA is a violation of basic principles in the law of evidence, constitutional guarantees, and human rights law, Chandrasekaram carefully defends the following thesis in his book. In six chapters, he establishes that (1) the confessions under the PTA “derive from institutional fantasies [of the state] of victor at war”; (2) “that they carry fictions rather than factual accounts”; (3) “that they reinforce the myths that tortured suspects tell the truth”; and (4) “that the state, including the judiciary, is in denial about the persecutory practices used within the justice system to determine the ‘truth’ of these confessions” (p. 187, emphasis in original).

Drawing upon critical theory and the scholarship of Agamben, Foucault, Butler, and Spivak, Chandrasekaram adopts a methodological approach that is refreshingly different from the dominant approach to the study of the impact of the PTA in Sri Lanka. He uses a combination of methods rarely used in understanding the impact of law in Sri Lanka in defending his thesis. He brings together a forensic linguistic analysis and narrative analysis of twenty-eight confessions made under the PTA, with interviews and a critical interpretation of existing scholarship on ethno-nationalism and the criminal justice system in Sri Lanka. For the first time, the impact of the use of confessions under the PTA is explained and analyzed through journal entries in the records before the High Court; interviews with lawyers, suspects detained and/or convicted under the PTA, and police officers; and Chandrasekaram's own observations during the trials of PTA suspects in court. This book gives voice particularly to victims of violations of human rights under the PTA by analyzing their individual experiences.

The interdisciplinary methodology and the unique methods of data collection permit Chandrasekaram to offer razor-sharp, carefully reasoned, and convincing insights into the impact of the use of confessions under the PTA. He explains that in Sri Lanka “feudal practices have coexisted with its post-colonial democratic institutions,” thereby paving the way for a “Sinhalese nationalist hegemony” that in turn shapes the counter-hegemony of the LTTE (p. 31). Through a detailed and intriguing account of the practices of the LTTE, Chandrasekaram affirms it to have been “a nationalistic, fascist, chauvinistic, and militaristic agency that lacked a clear revolutionary ideology” (p. 61). He argues that the making of confessions contradicts the high value placed on martyrdom within the LTTE. Against this background, Chandrasekaram questions whether “tigers do confess” (title of chapter 1, p. 9). Using “legal, semantic and semiotic elements” of legal proceedings under the PTA, he suggests that the “confessions were likely fully or partly fabricated” (p. 197). Nevertheless, he argues that the use of confessions allowed the Sri Lankan police “to invent legends that reflected the fictionalised victory of the state over its own enemies” (p. 197). Chandrasekaram's analysis of the use of confessions under the PTA leads him to the conclusion that while it led to several wrongful convictions, it primarily resulted in “thousands of other suspects” being subjected to “long-term detention without bail” (p. 181). When such suspects were acquitted, they received no compensation.

Chandrasekaram's rigorous and systematic analysis draws attention to several other aspects of Sri Lanka's criminal justice system that have hitherto received minimal attention in academic work. These aspects include the lack of resources and training for the police force, prolonged pretrial detention of suspects, the inherent inequalities in the system of criminal prosecution and the adversarial system, and questions of judicial independence and of delays in litigation.

This book is of immediate relevance to the contemporary global debates on the use of law for “counter-terrorism.” A “Counter-Terrorism Bill” (as published in the gazette of September 14, 2018) has been proposed in Sri Lanka to replace the PTA. It will permit the use of confessions made to magistrates and includes several other provisions that arguably reproduce and even strengthen the discretionary and bureaucratic approach to investigation and prosecution of offenses that are deemed “acts of terrorism and offences associated with terrorism.”

Chandrasekaram's work is a timely reminder of the normative impact of such a legal regime and its grave effects on lived experiences of individuals and communities. The Use of Confessionary Evidence under the Counter-Terrorism Laws of Sri Lanka is likely to be equally useful for the academic, policy maker, professional, and activist. It is recommended to those seeking to better understand Sri Lanka's ethnic conflict and the interdisciplinary study of law, as well as those with an interest in “counter-terrorism” laws.