Sri Lanka
How well is Sri Lanka respecting people's human rights?
Use the tabs below to explore the scores.
Sri Lanka at a glance
Quality of Life
Economic and Social Rights
(2021)
Summary score
81.6%
How well is Sri Lanka doing compared to what is possible at its level of income?
Right to
0
% of income adjusted benchmark achieved
HRMI score
100%
Very bad
Bad
Fair
Good
Safety from the State
Civil and Political Rights
(2023)
Summary score
5.4
How well is Sri Lanka's government respecting each right?
Right to freedom from
0
Score
10
Very bad
Bad
Fair
Good
Empowerment
Civil and Political Rights
(2023)
Summary score
3.4
How well is Sri Lanka's government respecting each right?
Right to
0
Score
10
Very bad
Bad
Fair
Good
Source: HRMI 2024 rightstracker.org
Quality of Life
Sri Lanka scores 81.6% on Quality of Life when scored against the 'Income adjusted' benchmark.
Compared with the other countries in South Asia, Sri Lanka is performing better than average on Quality of Life rights (this comparison is calculated using the 'Income adjusted' benchmark).
To change the performance benchmark or assessment standard, please click on ‘Switch view’ above
Safety from the State
Sri Lanka's Safety from the State score of 5.4 out of 10 suggests that many people are not safe from one or more of the following: arbitrary arrest, torture and ill-treatment, forced disappearance, execution, or extrajudicial killing.
For civil and political rights, we don't have sufficient data across South Asia countries to allow for a regional comparison. However, when compared to the other countries in our sample, Sri Lanka is performing lower than average on the right to be safe from the state.
Empowerment
Sri Lanka's Empowerment score of 3.4 out of 10 suggests that many people are not enjoying their civil liberties and political freedoms (freedom of speech, assembly and association, democratic rights, and religion and belief).
For civil and political rights, we don't have sufficient data across South Asia countries to allow for a regional comparison. However, when compared to the other countries in our sample, Sri Lanka is performing lower than average on empowerment rights.
Quality of Life - overview
(2021)
How well is Sri Lanka doing compared to what is possible at its level of income?
Summary score
0
% of income adjusted benchmark achieved
HRMI score
100%
Right to
Very bad
Bad
Fair
Good
Source: HRMI 2024 rightstracker.org
Quality of Life rights (or 'economic and social rights') include the rights to food, health, education, housing, and work. HRMI gives two scores, measuring against two different benchmarks.
Sri Lanka scores 81.6% on Quality of Life when scored against the 'Income adjusted' benchmark.This score takes into account Sri Lanka's resources and how well it is using them to make sure its people's Quality of Life rights are fulfilled.
This score tells us that Sri Lanka is only doing 81.6% of what should be possible right now with the resources it has. Since anything less than 100% indicates that a country is not meeting its current duty under international human rights law, our assessment is that Sri Lanka has a long way to go to meet its immediate economic and social rights duty.
When measured against the Global best benchmark, comparing Sri Lanka to the best performing countries in the world, Sri Lanka's score is 80.4%, indicating that it has a long way to go to meet current Global best standards for ensuring all people have adequate food, education, healthcare, housing and work.
Compared with the other countries in South Asia, Sri Lanka is performing better than average on Quality of Life rights (this comparison is calculated using the 'Income adjusted' benchmark).
To change the performance benchmark or assessment standard, please click on ‘Switch view’ above
Quality of Life - full details
See more detail on how Sri Lanka performs on the
?Right to
0
% of income adjusted benchmark achieved
HRMI score
100%
Right to
Very bad
Bad
Fair
Good
Source: HRMI 2024 rightstracker.org
By sex
How does Sri Lanka perform by sex for
?By sex
0
% of income adjusted benchmark achieved
HRMI score
100%
Very bad
Bad
Fair
Good
Source: HRMI 2024 rightstracker.org
Over time
How does Sri Lanka perform over time for
?Source: HRMI 2024 rightstracker.org
People at risk
(2023)
Which people in Sri Lanka were identified by human rights experts to be particularly at risk of having their
violated?Interpretation: Larger text = more human rights experts identified this group as being at risk.
Source: HRMI 2024 rightstracker.org
When asked to provide more context about who was particularly unlikely to enjoy their right to education in 2023, our respondents mentioned all of the following:
- Everyone, due to low wages, high inflation rates, high interest bank rates, and recently introduced tax systems
- Malaiyaha Tamils
- Plantation workers and residents of former war affected provinces
- Women, especially daughters of single mothers who migrate for work
- Asylum seekers in Sri Lanka lack legal protection due to the country's non-signatory status to the 1951 UN Refugee Convention and its 1967 protocol, resulting in a lack of domestic laws supporting them
Safety from the State - overview
(2023)
How well is Sri Lanka's government respecting each right?
Summary score
0
Score
10
Right to freedom from
Very bad
Bad
Fair
Good
Source: HRMI 2024 rightstracker.org
Sri Lanka's Safety from the State score of 5.4 out of 10 suggests that many people are not safe from one or more of the following: arbitrary arrest, torture and ill-treatment, forced disappearance, execution, or extrajudicial killing.
For civil and political rights, we don't have sufficient data across South Asia countries to allow for a regional comparison. However, when compared to the other countries in our sample, Sri Lanka is performing lower than average on the right to be safe from the state.
Over time
Source: HRMI 2024 rightstracker.org
People at risk
(2023)
Which people in Sri Lanka were identified by human rights experts to be particularly at risk of having their
violated?Interpretation: Larger text = more human rights experts identified this group as being at risk.
Source: HRMI 2024 rightstracker.org
When asked to provide more context about who was especially vulnerable to arbitrary or political arrest and detention by government agents in 2023, our respondents mentioned all of the following:
- All people, due to the government suspecting everyone of being guilty following the Aragalaya protest movement
- Tamils and Muslims, especially Malaiyaha Tamils
- People in the North and East, especially former Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam Cadres, who are suspected of terrorist activity
- Journalists who criticise the government, expose corruption, investigate human rights violations and illegal activity
- Whistleblowers are arrested under anti-terrorism laws
- People participating in anti-government protests are arrested
- People who are linked to the Aragalaya protest movement and associated activists are arrested, and some of them are forced to move to remote areas to avoid being arrested in Colombo
- Members of labour unions, especially those who lead protests and investigate labour rights violations, are constantly monitored by the State
- People protesting against the cost of living crisis, inadequate relief measures, and International Monetary Fund austerity programmes, are arrested and charged following local and international media publicity
- Young people, especially those who took part in the Aragalaya protests and those who are suspected as terrorists
- People suspected of terrorism or political violence face unfair trials and are detained for long periods; in some cases the detention lasts years without charges being brought against them
- State university students and leaders, particularly activists
- Alleged drug users are at risk of arbitrary imprisonment because of Operation Yukthiya, the new anti-drug operation by the Sri Lankan police, Special Task Force, and the Army
- Men risk being falsely accused of crimes such as drug-related offences, contract killings, and violent crimes
- The LGBTQIA+ community, due to criminalisation of same-sex relationships and lack of legal recognition leading to discrimination
- People lacking legal identity due to insufficient documentation, such as birth certificates and national identity card, especially transgender people
- Sex workers working collectively, due to laws like the Brothels Ordinance
- Sex workers face interrogations, arrest, and fines when working
Empowerment - overview
(2023)
How well is Sri Lanka's government respecting each right?
Summary score
0
Score
10
Right to
Very bad
Bad
Fair
Good
Source: HRMI 2024 rightstracker.org
Sri Lanka's Empowerment score of 3.4 out of 10 suggests that many people are not enjoying their civil liberties and political freedoms (freedom of speech, assembly and association, democratic rights, and religion and belief).
For civil and political rights, we don't have sufficient data across South Asia countries to allow for a regional comparison. However, when compared to the other countries in our sample, Sri Lanka is performing lower than average on empowerment rights.
Over time
Source: HRMI 2024 rightstracker.org
People at risk
(2023)
Which people in Sri Lanka were identified by human rights experts to be particularly at risk of having their
violated?Interpretation: Larger text = more human rights experts identified this group as being at risk.
Source: HRMI 2024 rightstracker.org
When asked to provide more context about who was especially vulnerable to restrictions on their rights to assembly and association by the government or its agents in 2023, our respondents mentioned all of the following:
- Minority groups due to legislation like the Anti-Terrorism Bill and the Prevention of Terrorism Act, heightened police presence, and suspicions of religious terrorism
- Tamil communities, especially in the North and East, face restrictions due to anti-terrorism laws and heightened security presence; they are marginalised in public discourse and are often portrayed as instigators of civil unrest
- People in the North and plantation communities are subjected to raids by law enforcement and threats and harassment, especially against activists
- People coming from outside the Tamil community to visit internally displaced Tamil people, such as journalists and human rights activists, are interrogated by the Criminal Investigation Department
- Independent journalists who criticise the government, expose corruption, and monitor religious freedom violations, are restricted by the Online Safety Act; this legislation can censor publications as fake news or anti-government
- Journalists, particularly in the Northern and Eastern provinces, are interrogated
- Human rights advocates, viewed as anti-government or funded by foreign entities, especially those advocating for minority or ethnic groups, fear arrest
- Union leaders protesting new laws that violate labour rights are labelled anti-government and monitored by the state
- Protesters, particularly students, are labelled anti-government, especially those linked with the Aragalaya protest movement
- Women, particularly those who are victims of sexual or gender-based violence
- The LGBTQIA+ community faces legal discrimination, as Sri Lanka criminalises LGBTQIA+ relations
- Internally displaced people, especially those in the North, as well as women and young people who lead justice movements, are questioned by the Criminal Investigation Department when they organise a gathering
- People who work in the public sector
- Sex workers are marginalised and are unable to publicly engage in any activities
Which people are most at risk?
We asked human rights experts to choose from a list of options for which people were particularly at risk of having this right violated. The images below show their answers.
Highlight
in the word clouds below.Quality of Life
People at risk for
Right to education
(2023)
Interpretation: Larger text = more human rights experts identified this group as being at risk.
Source: HRMI 2024 rightstracker.org
People at risk for
Right to food
(2023)
Interpretation: Larger text = more human rights experts identified this group as being at risk.
Source: HRMI 2024 rightstracker.org
People at risk for
Right to health
(2023)
Interpretation: Larger text = more human rights experts identified this group as being at risk.
Source: HRMI 2024 rightstracker.org
People at risk for
Right to housing
(2023)
Interpretation: Larger text = more human rights experts identified this group as being at risk.
Source: HRMI 2024 rightstracker.org
People at risk for
Right to work
(2023)
Interpretation: Larger text = more human rights experts identified this group as being at risk.
Source: HRMI 2024 rightstracker.org
Safety from the State
People at risk for
Right to freedom from arbitrary arrest
(2023)
Interpretation: Larger text = more human rights experts identified this group as being at risk.
Source: HRMI 2024 rightstracker.org
People at risk for
Right to freedom from forced disappearance
(2023)
Interpretation: Larger text = more human rights experts identified this group as being at risk.
Source: HRMI 2024 rightstracker.org
People at risk for
Right to freedom from the death penalty
Expert respondents didn’t select any group of people for this right.
People at risk for
Right to freedom from extrajudicial execution
(2023)
Interpretation: Larger text = more human rights experts identified this group as being at risk.
Source: HRMI 2024 rightstracker.org
People at risk for
Right to freedom from torture and ill-treatment
(2023)
Interpretation: Larger text = more human rights experts identified this group as being at risk.
Source: HRMI 2024 rightstracker.org
Empowerment
People at risk for
Right to assembly and association
(2023)
Interpretation: Larger text = more human rights experts identified this group as being at risk.
Source: HRMI 2024 rightstracker.org
People at risk for
Right to opinion and expression
(2023)
Interpretation: Larger text = more human rights experts identified this group as being at risk.
Source: HRMI 2024 rightstracker.org
People at risk for
Right to participate in government
(2023)
Interpretation: Larger text = more human rights experts identified this group as being at risk.
Source: HRMI 2024 rightstracker.org
People at risk for
Right to freedom of religion and belief
(2023)
Interpretation: Larger text = more human rights experts identified this group as being at risk.
Source: HRMI 2024 rightstracker.org
Behind the numbers
Quality of Life
Under the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights, which China has signed, all countries agree to devote their maximum available resources to making things progressively better for their people in these areas.
HRMI has calculated what China could be achieving at its current level of income. The scores are given as a percentage of that realistic potential achievement. China’s best scores are for the right to health, where it is achieving 98.1% of what we calculate should be possible, and for the right to work (97.2%). For these rights, China is doing nearly as well as it possibly can, given its level of income. China could still afford to make some gains now, but then would need to increase its income to make further improvements.
Of the five quality of life rights we measure, China needs to improve the most in the right to quality education, where it scores 61.4%, which falls in the ‘very bad’ range. Among 17 East Asian countries, this score puts China in the bottom half for quality education, just below Mongolia and Myanmar, and just above Malaysia and Thailand.
Right to Quality Education in East and Southeast Asia
Score
0
% of income adjusted benchmark achieved
HRMI score
100%
China’s other lower score is for the right to housing, where it is currently achieving only 92.3% of what we calculate should be possible at its level of income.
We further break the right to housing down into scores for the right to sanitation and the right to water.
With a GDP per capita of US$12,720 we calculate that China has the resources to ensure all of its people have running water and toilets in their homes.
However, China’s right to sanitation score of 89.5% shows that many people are missing out, even though China could afford to do better. If China efficiently used its available resources, it could achieve a score of 100%, which would mean that 79 million additional people living in China would gain access to basic sanitation in their homes.
If China improved its performance for the right to water from 95.2% to 100%, 51 million more people would have water on their premises.
The good news is that China’s scores for the right to housing have been steadily improving since 2001, when the nation scored 68.6%. The progress from 2020 to 2021 suggests around 23 million people gained access to basic sanitation over that period, and around 15 million people gained access to water in their homes. China’s scores for the right to water are rising more quickly than those for the right to sanitation.
When it comes to the right to food, if China lifted its score to 100%, around 1.9 million more children under five years old would have enough nutritious food to grow well – that would mean all children in China under five would have enough nutritious food to grow well. This is an achievable goal.
With a current score of 96.4%, China has improved a little in respecting people’s right to food over the last 20 years, with its score increasing from 86% in 2000.
On the right to work, China’s score has climbed strongly up to 97.2% in 2020 from 34.6% in 2000, meaning many fewer people have been living in absolute poverty over the last two decades, and bringing it into the 'good' band of scores. Still, the latest score means 28 million Chinese are unnecessarily living in absolute poverty (living on less than $3.65 per day, measured in 2017 PPP$), so significant improvement is still possible and necessary.
China comes in second in the world in ensuring people’s right to health is fulfilled, with a score of 98.1%, when using the low and middle income assessment standard (when using the high income standard, China still comes in fifth in the world, when taking countries' income into account). For countries doing this well with their current level of income, an increase of income will be necessary to make significant further improvements. This is the right where China is most constrained by resources – for all of the other rights we measure, China should already be able to do nearly as well as any country in the world, at its current level of income.
However, for the right to health, expert respondents noted inequities in access to healthcare, including regional differences, and differences in access according to wealth and political influence.
People at risk
While China has room for improvement in all the rights we measure, a further consideration is inequity. There are several groups of people who experts identified as being at higher risk of missing out. These include:
-
People with lower social or economic status
-
People from ethnic minorities, including Tibetans, Uyghurs, Mongolians, and Kazakhs
-
Human rights advocates, protestors, and anyone who criticises the government
-
People living in rural areas, particularly older people, and women
-
Single parent families
-
People who are homeless, including street children and homeless youth
-
Disabled people
-
Detainees
-
People from religious minorities, particularly those practising Christianity, Islam, or Falun Gong, or other unregistered religions
-
Internally displaced people
See the people at risk tab on the Rights Tracker for the full lists. The data also show a strong connection between political activity, especially criticism of the government, and lack of enjoyment of economic and social rights.
Room for improvement
All our Quality of Life scores show that China could make significant improvements to its people’s lives, even without more resources.
If China were using its resources more efficiently to ensure its people’s wellbeing, it could achieve 100% for all the rights we measure. Yet, while its best score is close to that mark — 98.1% on the right to health — its worst score — 61.4% on the right to quality education — is far from that level.
If China better upheld its rights obligations, and achieved a full 100% score on all the rights we measure, we would see millions more Chinese people living lives of dignity, even without income growth. For example, if China reached 100% we would see the following number of extra people benefitting:
-
If China were to operate at its full potential given its current resources, we would expect an additional 1.9 million children under five to grow well and not be stunted.
-
If China were operating at best practice, each year we would expect an extra 33,200 newborn babies to survive until their fifth birthday.
-
If China were to operate at its full potential given its current resources, we would expect an additional 156,000 newborns to be born at a healthy birth weight.
-
If China were reaching its full potential, given its income constraints, an extra 451,000 15-year-olds could eventually reach the age of 60.
-
If China used its resources efficiently, an additional 79 million people could have a toilet at home, and an extra 51 million people could have access to water in their homes.
-
If China were operating at its full potential given its current resources, it could lift 28 million people out of absolute poverty.
Safety from the State
China scores 2.6 out of 10 for our overall Safety from the State category, telling us that many people are at risk of arbitrary or political arrest or detention, torture and ill-treatment, forced disappearance, execution, or extrajudicial killing. This is the lowest score in our sample of 30 countries.
China’s worst score in this category is 1.0 out of 10 for freedom from the death penalty, the lowest score among all the countries we measure.
The human rights experts we surveyed said that women who kill their husbands in self-defense due to domestic violence may face the death penalty.
Respondents overwhelmingly agreed that human rights advocates, protesters, and people who criticised the government were at particular risk of rights violations, especially arbitrary arrest and detention, forced disappearance, and torture and ill-treatment. Respondents particularly noted risks to political dissidents, detainees, and participants of the New Citizens Movement.
People who protest or engage in non-violent political activity were at extra risk for all five Safety from the State rights.
Other vulnerable groups include:
-
People from ethnic minorities, including Tibetans, Uyghurs, Mongolians, and Kazakhs
-
Detainees and those accused of crimes
-
People from religious minorities, particularly those practising Falun Gong, Christianity, or Islam
-
Internally displaced people
Among other East and Southeast Asian countries and territories where we measure these rights, China has the lowest scores for all five Safety from the State rights.
Right to Freedom from Arbitrary Arrest and Detention in East and Southeast Asia
Summary score
0
Score
10
Right to Freedom from Forced Disappearance in East and Southeast Asia
Summary score
0
Score
10
Right to Freedom from Death Penalty in East and Southeast Asia
Summary score
0
Score
10
Right to Freedom from Extrajudicial Execution in East and Southeast Asia
Summary score
0
Score
10
Right to Freedom from Torture and Ill-treatment in East and Southeast Asia
Summary score
0
Score
10
Empowerment
The Chinese government limits civil liberties and political freedom, with China scoring a very low 1.9 out of 10 in empowerment rights. This is the second lowest score in our sample of 30 countries.
For the rights to assembly and association, opinion and expression, participation in government, and freedom of religion and belief all of China’s scores fall into the ‘very bad’ range. For all four rights, the human rights experts we surveyed agreed overwhelmingly that ‘all people’ were at risk of violations of these rights.
When it comes to the right to assembly and association, China scores 2.3 out of 10, and human rights experts identified a wide range of people not enjoying their rights, including human rights advocates, protesters, and people criticising or opposing the government, as well as those from ethnic and religious minorities. They also noted that people from religious minorities cannot freely gather, and that even small social gatherings in homes have been broken up by authorities.
China’s score for the right to opinion and expression is a very low 2.4 out of 10, with no improvement over the four years we have measured this right. Respondents noted that press freedom does not exist, and expressing a different opinion from the majority can lead to a range of punishments and reprisals.
China also scores in the ‘very bad’ range for the right to participate in government, with a score of 2.8 out of 10. Respondents noted that political organisations are monitored and under government control, and people who participated in the White Paper Protests are restricted from political participation.
For the right to freedom of religion and belief, China scored 2.5. Respondents noted that the government restricts all religious practices, and is particularly repressive towards people following unregistered minority religions such as Christians, Uyghur Muslims, and people who attend house churches.
Groups that are particularly vulnerable to empowerment rights violations include:
-
Human rights advocates, protesters, and anyone who criticises the government
-
People from ethnic minorities, including Tibetans, Uyghurs, Mongolians, and Kazakhs
-
Detainees and those accused of crimes
-
People from religious minorities, particularly those practising Falun Gong or other unregistered religions, Christianity, or Islam
-
Internally displaced people
Right to Assembly and Association in East and Southeast Asia
Summary score
0
Score
10
Right to Opinion and Expression in East and Southeast Asia
Summary score
0
Score
10
Right to Participate in Government in East and Southeast Asia
Summary score
0
Score
10
Right to freedom of religion and belief in East and Southeast Asia
Summary score
0
Score
10
Country details
Population
22.2m (2022)
GDP/capita
$3,354 (2022)
current US dollars
$12,200 (2022)
2017 PPP dollars