|
1.Criminals working in police stations; [1]
2. Precedent-setting Supreme Court judgement [2]
3 June 2002
Minister of Interior
Ministry of Interior
Colombo
SRI LANKA
Fax: 941 387 526
Dear Minister Amaratunga:
Reports of criminals in Sri Lankan police stations
working as police officers
In Sri Lanka, torture and other cruel, inhuman, degrading
treatment or punishment is a serious crime with a mandatory
minimum sentence of imprisonment for seven years through the
prescriptions of Act No 22 of 1994. Yet there are hundreds of
people accused of this crime functioning as police officers of
various ranks. The people against whom declarations regarding the
commission of torture have been made by the Supreme Court of Sri
Lanka itself are very many. Almost every month more people are
added to these lists. However, these people continue to function
as law enforcement officers, ignoring the law of the land
mentioned above, all disciplinary procedures and Sri Lanka's
international obligations as a signatory to several covenants and
conventions.
In just the month of May 2002 itself, we have learned of several
gruesome stories of torture:
The case of Lalith Rajapakse, for example, who suffered brutal
torture at the hands of the police in the Kandana police station
is unbelievable and shocking. He remained unconscious for more
than 15 days after he had been sent to the hospital from the
Kandana police station. His condition has been described as
traumatic encephalitis due to assault. He is recovering very
slowly and will continue to suffer all his life. The more brutal
aspect of this case is that, while this young man was undergoing
such suffering, the officers who allegedly caused these injuries
fabricated and filed three cases against him in the magistrate's
court in Wattala. All of this violence is allowed to happen in a
police station that is supposed to protect the rights of people
and provide security. There are similar stories about the
conditions in France before the French Revolution. A novel about
Sri Lanka by Leonard Woolf, Village in the Jungle, also describes
this type of cruelty, and it is unfortunately continuing into the
21st century as well. In this case though, police officers have
added something new to past episodes: they have obtained an order
to remand the torture victim, who was in an unconscious
condition, without even producing the victim in court! When the
magistrate discovered this situation almost one month later, he
vacated the order as an order that had been illegally obtained.
After all of this, the officers still continue to wear uniforms
and function as police officers!
Lalith Rajapakse's case, however, is not an exception, as is
shown by the case of Gresha de Silva. In this case, the victim
was hung and tortured by several officers in the Habaraduwa
police station. The victim has now lost the use of both hands,
and the medical opinion is that this loss will be permanent.
Then there is the case of W M Ariyathilaka who was killed in the
China Bay police station. The police tried to make it appear
though that the victim had committed suicide. However, the
medical opinion clearly is that the victim had been strangled.
Finger marks were present, and the medical officer recorded
external and internal injuries.
In addition, there is a case from Wariapola, the case of Nandini
Herat, who was sexually abused and tortured in the Wariapola
police station while she was detained at the police station for
more than three days. Her father has lodged a complaint.
These are just a few cases, which tragically indicate that a
state of terror exists in police stations in spite of the
enactment of Act No 22 of 1994.
The illegal acts that several officers attached to the Kandana
police station have done in the case of Lalith Rajapakse
illustrate the wrongs involved in these other cases. These wrongs
are listed below.
1) Police entered a house without a warrant.
2) The police arrested an innocent man.
3) The police used brutal torture, a serious crime under Act No
22 of 1994.
4) The unconscious body of the victim was left in a police cell
without any attempt to take him to a hospital for about 12 hours.
It was only after a local member of Parliament intervened at
about 11 a.m. on April 20 that the unconscious body was taken to
a hospital. Thus, from the night of April 19 to about noon on
April 20, the unconscious body of the victim remained in the
police cell of the Kandana police station unattended.
5) In the hours following the use of torture on the victim, the
police officers fabricated a story to explain the arrest and how
the victim was injured by the use of minimum force. They
fabricated three reports. Two were preliminary reports already
existing in the court, i.e., complaints of two robberies in which
no one has been identified as the perpetrators. The police
introduced the victim as the perpetrator without any evidence at
all to implicate him. (In fact, when contacted by the family of
the victim, the complainant of these two cases has categorically
stated that they do not in way suspect the victim as the one
responsible for their losses.) A third report was a direct
fabrication in the statements of the police officers that the
victim resisted arrest by four police officers and that they thus
used minimum force. They introduced a knife taken from their
police station collection as the knife that the victim tried to
use on the four policemen.
6) Several hours after the victim was hospitalised the police
officers took their fabricated reports to an acting magistrate
and told him that a very dangerous criminal had been arrested and
in this way obtained an order to pass the victim to remand
custody without taking the magistrate to see the victim. Had the
acting magistrate been informed that the victim was in an
unconscious condition, he would have wanted to see the victim and
would have recorded the patient's condition. Thus, a number of
serious wrongs were committed:
a) Applied for and obtained an illegal order for detention
on April 20 without producing the suspect before the
magistrate (on May 16, 2002, when the magistrate was made
aware of this fact by lawyers representing the suspect, he
nullified and vacated the order made on April 20);
b) Placed completely false information before the court;
c) Filed three fabricated cases in court;
d) Caused the illegal detention of the suspect from April
20 to May 17, 2002.
7) From April 20 to May 17, several additional reports seeking
further detention were filed.
8) On May 17, 2002, the police continued making fabricated
stories by producing a knife as the one that the suspect tried to
use and which justified the use of minimum force.
9) On the same day, a submission made by the officer in charge
(OIC) of the police station to the magistrate continued providing
completely false information to the court, offering the
fabricated stories as the truth. The information included a false
story about the medical information pertaining to the suspect,
which the OIC claimed was based on discussions with the doctors.
The OIC's facts were the very opposite of what was in the medical
reports submitted to the court, however. The record of the OIC's
statement exists in the case records in the magistrate's court.
10) At no stage did the police officers concerned, including
the OIC, show any remorse for the heinous crime of torture, the
false information provided to the court and the fabrication of
cases.
11) These officers are still continuing to work at the same
police station, and no action has been taken against them. The
actions that should have been taken are:
a) Arrest of the officers for offences under Act No 22 of
1994 and the filing of charges in a high court;
b) A criminal investigation into attempted murder of the
victim;
c) Criminal action for providing false information and
misleading the court to actions that the court itself later
vacated as they had been obtained illegally;
d) An investigation into the fabrication of cases;
e) DISCIPLINARY ACTION ON ALL THESE MATTERS AND THE
SUSPENSION OF THE OFFICERS FROM EMPLOYMENT PENDING THE
FINALISATION OF INQUIRIES.
The strongest evidence exists for taking such actions. This
evidence includes the following:
1) In case reports B/3120/02, B/3060/02 and B3121/02, the
police officers admitted making the arrest;
2) The police admitted the use of force, which police claim to be
minimum force;
3) The police reported to the court that it is from their custody
that the victim was sent to the hospital;
4) The medical report has already been filed in court and
included in the case record indicating the serious condition of
the victim;
5) The magistrate has ordered the original order made on April 20
to be vacated as it has been obtained illegally.
This is in addition to the evidence of the witnesses.
We urge you to make provisions for speedy criminal and
disciplinary inquiries into these cases and to clean the police
force of criminals. The country is clearly facing a breakdown of
law and order. Even in cases where children are kidnapped, people
do not trust the police now to be of any help to them. At the end
of May, the parents of a kidnapped child paid Rs. 2.5 million
[US,294] to kidnappers to save their child instead of relying
on the police. This is no surprise when criminals are allowed to
function as police officers.
It is time to face this fact: if there is to be any change of
this situation, criminal actions under Act No 22 of 1994 and
immediate disciplinary actions are a dire need.
Thank you for urgently considering this important matter.
Yours sincerely,
PARK Jae-man
Programme Coordinator--Urgent Appeals Programme
Asian Human Rights Commission
______________
9 September 2002
Hon. Mr. John Amaratunga
Minister of Interior
Ministry of Interior
Colombo
SRI LANKA
Fax: 941 387 526
Dear Sir,
Re: Judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of
Yogalingam Vijitha
Pursuant to a letter of 3 June 2002, in which it was brought to
your notice that persons who should be tried for serious crimes
are continuing to serve as law enforcement officers, the Asian
Human Rights Commission (AHRC)-a regional non-government
organization working for the promotion and protection of human
rights-would like to draw your attention to the judgement of the
Supreme Court in the case of Yogalingam Vijitha (Application F.R.
No. 186/2001). AHRC considers the decision of the Supreme Court
in this case to be of the utmost importance, as it sets a
precedent in steps towards effective implementation of the
Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading
Treatment or Punishment Act, No. 22 of 1994.
Yogalingam Vijitha, a 27-year-old woman, was illegally detained,
and horribly raped and tortured by seven officers of the Negombo
Police led by Reserve SI Wijesekara from 21 to 28 June 2000. The
policemen arrested her on trumped-up charges of being an LTTE
suicide bomber after she refused to become a second wife to a
married man. During the terrible ordeal that followed her arrest,
she was beaten all over her body with a club; hit on the ears;
smothered with a shopping bag containing chilli powder mixed with
petrol; wrapped semi naked in a shopping bag containing chilli
powder and petrol; pinned down on a table while policemen
inserted pins under the nails of all her fingers and toes;
assaulted with a club and wires; trampled with boots; and hung up
and assaulted with a club. When she refused to sign a forced
confession, she had a plantain flower soaked in chilli forced in
and out of her vagina for about 15 minutes, at which point she
lost consciousness. When she came to, she signed the prepared
documents, as she was unable to bear the torture any longer. On
June 28 she was then transferred to the Terrorist Investigation
Division, where she was further assaulted under the direction of
SI Saman Karunaratne. Only on September 21 was she remanded under
Section 7(2) of the Prevention of Terrorism Act at the Negombo
Remand Prison. By that time she was suffering from extreme
physical and psychological stress that left her unable to
function as a normal human being.
On 23 August 2002, the Supreme Court ruled that there had been a
grievous violation of Yogalingam Vijitha's fundamental rights
under Article 13 (1), (2) and Article 11 of the Constitution. In
awarding a sum of Rs. 250,000 in compensation and costs-out of
which Rs. 150,000 is to be paid by the police officers of the
Negombo Police and the balance by the State-the Court noted that
the facts of this case have revealed disturbing features
regarding third degree methods adopted by certain police officers
on suspects held in police custody. Such methods can only be
described as barbaric, savage and inhuman. They are most
revolting and offend one's sense of human decency and dignity
particularly at the present time when every endeavor is being
made to promote and protect human rights.
Most importantly, the Supreme Court for the first time directed
the Attorney General "to consider taking steps under the
Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading
Treatment or Punishment Act, Act No. 22 of 1994, against the
respondents and others who are responsible for acts of torture
perpetrated on the petitioners".
Accordingly, I am writing to you to remind you of the obligation
that your Ministry and the Department of the Police have to
respond to this ground-breaking judgement immediately, and punish
the perpetrators in a manner that the public will be satisfied
that adequate action has been taken to redress such cruelty in
accordance with the decision of the highest court in Sri Lanka.
At this moment in history, hesitancy on you and your ministry's
part will only lead to similar violations of fundamental human
rights and further deterioration of public confidence in the
police and the rule of law. The beneficiaries of neglect to act
firmly on your part will be the criminal elements in the country
and within the police force itself. I urge you to at once:
1. Punish and dismiss the police officers who have perpetrated
this crime;
2. File further criminal charges against the perpetrators, who
abused legal process and power by fabricating charges,
irrespective of whether or not the Attorney General proceeds
against them under Act No. 22 of 1994; and
3. Pay adequate compensation to the victim in acknowledgement of
the State's failure to protect her. The sum ordered by the
Supreme Court is only a symbolic recognition of the State's
responsibility. It must now pay adequate compensation in
accordance with its responsibility as a party to several
international human rights treaties.
It is a disgrace, nationally and internationally, to see that
even after Supreme Court decisions are being handed down in Sri
Lanka no action is being taken against state officers found
guilty of having committed heinous violations of domestic and
international laws. Until the police are rid of criminal
elements, it will be impossible to control crime and to ensure
security for the people of your country. Failure to act will
create further disillusionment in your ministry and the rule of
law in Sri Lanka.
Yours sincerely,
PARK Jae-man
Programme Coordinator--Urgent Appeals Programme
Asian Human Rights Commission
Cc. Hon. Mr. K.C. Kamalasabesan, Attorney General of Sri Lanka
End Notes
1 On 3 June 2002 the Asian Human Rights
Commission sent this letter to the Sri Lankan Minister of
Interior, Mr. John Amaratunga
2 This is a revised version of a letter dated
9 September 2002 by the Asian Human Rights Commission sent to the
Sri Lankan Minister of Interior, Mr. John Amaratunga regarding
the Supreme Court decision on the case of Yogalingam Vijitha.
Posted on 2002-10-03
|
