SRI LANKA: Torture, worse than absurd

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE 
AS-164-2006
July 10, 2006 

A Statement by the Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC)

SRI LANKA – Torture, worse than absurd – (this is the beginning of a series of statements which shows both the worst than absurd situation that result in torture and the worse attitudes in dealing with the complaints of torture by the Sri Lankan authorities.  The statements are meant to call for a decisive change in the prevention of torture as well as dealing with the victims and perpetrators.)

Story one

On June 28, a message was received at the Ratnapura Police Station alleging that some unknown persons had made a hoax call to a nearby school in order to create a bomb scare.  The police then received information from the vice principal of the school.  For reasons not yet explained, the police officers arrested 55 year-old M.S.F. Perera and 35 year-old L.G. Munaweera.  The police later produced the two suspects before the court despite their denial of having any knowledge regarding the call.  The Magistrate remanded them and they were then sent to Kuruwita Remand Prison.

Shortly after, the police were able to identify the actual source of the hoax call through investigations assisted by a telephone company.  Thus, the police found that these two persons in remand had nothing to do with the call.  The police made a request to the Magistrate to release the two suspects.  On July 3, the Magistrate immediately ordered the suspects to be brought to court so that they may be released.  However, the prison authorities failed to produce the two men.  Finally, on July 4 they were brought before the court and the Magistrate found that the two men had been seriously injured due to assaults.  M.S.F. Perera could not even walk and was not even conscious enough to answer any questions.  L.G. Munaweera explained to the court that they were tortured.  The Magistrate then ordered them to be hospitalised and they were taken to the National Hospital in Colombo.  On July 6, M.S.F. Perera succumbed to his injuries at the hospital.

On July 10, the newspapers reported that two prison officers had been suspended for torturing the two men.  However, the Prison Commissioner who suspended the two officers tried to play down the responsibility of the Prison Authorities by saying that M.S.F. Perera had died due to kidney failure.

In several cases, such as the case of Gerald Perera, people have suffered kidney failure due to their injuries.  The statement made so far also shows that the two men were assaulted on two consecutive days “on a rotation basis”.

Worse than absurd

Like several cases which have been reported in recent months, the very fact and nature of torture and the way the Prison Commissioner is trying to play down the responsibility is beyond any rational explanation.  As in many cases, the two persons were arrested without sufficient evidence to connect them to the offense.  Without sufficient evidence, they were then sent to remand by the Magistrate (the Magistrate could have provided them bail to ensure their attendance in court and there would be no need for their remand).  In remand, they were assaulted by prison guards (The fact that these persons could have been assaulted by the prison guards shows the lack of discipline within the Remand Prison itself and how vulnerable the prisoners are to such assaults).  The assault went on for two days suggesting that there is no system of noticing such abuse of power and taking prompt action to stop it within the prison system.  Despite the serious injuries, the prisoners were not sent either to the prison hospital nor given any medical treatment suggesting a complete lack of basic human considerations within the remand system.  The persons identified as the culprits have also not been arrested on charges of murder and torture which are both serious offences in the country.  The Prison Commissioner, while suspending the two persons, almost 12 days after the incident is trying to play down the nature of the crime by stating that according to the medical report that the prisoner had died due to kidney failure.

What would have happened within a system that observes at least the minimum rules of the protection of prisoners?

1. In the first place, these persons would not have been arrested or sent into remand without sufficient evidence.
2. The two prisoners would not have been assaulted within the prison.
3. If by some errant officer, some assault was made this would have been noticed by other prison officers and also other prisoners would have made complaints about the matter.  That neither of this happened show that the assault had gone on unabated and that the prisoners are scared to make any complaints.
4. At one stage or another during the two days, someone would have informed the higher authorities and prompt action would have been taken to provide medical treatment either in the prison hospital or outside.  The fact that no other prison officer dared make a complaint of this sort shows that such assaults are a routine part of prison life and that the prison guards accept such conduct as normal.  It also shows that the normal human behaviour of prisoners to help each other in such a critical situation does not exist suggesting that the levels of fear among the prisoners is very high.  This means that they must fear that the same thing will happen to them if they complain.
5. Even after the matter had been revealed there was no prompt action on the part of the Prison Commissioner and others to investigate or take immediate action to restore discipline.  It was only when the death of one prisoner was picked up by the media and became known throughout the country that the Prison Commissioner had taken the minimum action of suspending two guards.  Even the Commissioner tried to distort public outrage by cynically stating that the man had died of kidney failure as if to suggest that the kidney failure was not connected to the assault.
6. Other than the prison officers who allegedly tortured the person, the other officers in charge of the ward going up to various levels leading to the highest officer in charge of Kuruwita Remand Prison, still continue to serve in the system.  There is no accountability to task for allowing a breakdown of discipline to the extent that such torture and murder could have taken place within the prison.  All of these persons should have been suspended from their posts and brought before disciplinary and criminal inquiries for their part that they played by their acts or omissions to make it possible for this to happen.
7. The Prison commissioner has not resigned as would have been required within any system where command responsibility is attached to any value.
8. The police have not yet reported to have carried out a proper inquiry although almost two weeks have passed since the actual incident.  Normally such a grievous crime would have been investigated by a special unit and all culprits should have been arrested by now.  The scene of the crime should have been thoroughly investigated and all the necessary evidence and notes and mappings should be done.  Statements should have been recorded from the prisoners who would have witnessed the incident and they should have been given assurances of protection for making such statements.

What would be the most likely outcome of this absurd situation?

Very soon the family and public will be told that there is no real evidence to proceed with criminal charges against anyone regarding the torture and murder.  It is also very likely that the two suspended officers will be slowly assimilated back into their jobs with also perhaps back wages for the period of their suspension.  Besides this, the torture and the death of this prisoner will be used as an example for other prisoners so that there will be an absolute psychosis of fear within the prison.

What should happen if there is a basic sense of law and basic respect for human rights?

1. The Inspector General of Police should hand over the inquiries to a competent special unit who should inquire into the entirety of the matter.  That is, torture leading to murder, as well as the aspects of criminal negligence on the part of many layers within the prison system.
2. If there was a proper Human Rights Commission, (which unfortunately does not exist due to the failure of the government in appointing a commission in keeping with the Constitution) it would have by now taken the following actions on this issue: It would have intervened on the very first day that the news of the incident became public.  In fact, there is evidence to show that the family made prompt complaints to the Human Rights Commission.  It could have interviewed all the persons including the other prisoners regarding the incident.  It would have by now reviewed the prison conditions which have made such an incident possible and made its observations on the responsibility of persons at every level in the prison.  And it would have caused an ongoing inquiry into the matter.  Meanwhile, either the chairperson or an authorised spokesperson would have made the Commission concern know to the government as well as to the public.  The HRCSL should have by now taken steps to ensure legal assistance to the victim’s families and also begun an inquiry for payment of compensation.  Even now it is possible to ensure that within the shortest possible time the victim’s families are paid adequate compensation.
3. The Minister for Disaster Management and Human Rights has made a public statement regarding the incident but as the Minister he would not have dealt with the issue by making public statements alone.  Pure propaganda aspects of condemnation has remained very common, which is not followed by any concrete action.  The Minister should have demanded a full report on the issue from the Prison Commissioner delivered to him in the shortest possible time.  In fact already such a report should be in the hands of the Minister.  The Minister should have demanded an explanation of how the incident happened inside the prison what are the rules and regulations that are being breached, what disciplinary action has been taken by the commissioner on all layers of persons who are directly or indirectly responsible for this incident, whether there is a fear psychosis that prevents the prisoners from speaking about the matter and what actions the Prison Commissioner is contemplating taking both at disciplinary level, as well as reinforcing the basic prison regulations and rules that should be operating at all times.  On the issue, the Minister should have requested the resignation of the Prison Commissioner who tried to play down the issue as a death due to kidney failure and not because of torture.
4. The responsibility of the cabinet.  The cabinet should have requested that the Minister for Disaster Management and Human Rights provide a full report on the issue including reports from the Inspector General of Police and the Human Rights Commission and should have indicated to the Minister as to how the government in terms of its own local law and international obligations should handle this issue.
5. The UN agencies in Sri Lanka.  The UN High Commissioner for human rights has a representative in Sri Lanka and the UNDP is also involved in funding various human rights related projects, as well as a legal access programme.  The issue of prison torture leading to death should be treated as a priority issue by these agencies and use their good offices to ensure that the state carries out its obligations on this issue.  It is their obligation to ensure that the UN guidelines on the protection of prisoners and the prevention of torture be kept highlighted all the time.
6. The Bar Association of Sri Lanka and the civil society organisations.  The families of the two victims deserve competent legal advice and representation without cost to themselves.  This should be ensured by the Bar Association which also has a human rights branch.  All aspects of this case should be looked at in terms of legal obligations and proper legal advice which should be provided to the families and all agencies concerned.

It is the duty of civil society organisations to extend as thorough as possible solidarity to the families of the victims.  The families should be made to feel that civil society is outraged by what has happened and that they will extend their fullest support for all aspects of redress on this issue including providing protection for the families to go through this ordeal.  They should also provide whatever assistance available within their means and also demand that the state carries out its obligations.  In particular civil society organisations should demand that the state pay compensation in the shortest possible time to the victim’s families.  They will also keep vigil on this case as long as it takes so that it will not be forgotten and that state neglect is no longer allowed to go on without being seriously challenged.

Overcoming an absurd situation

The state and civil society can make a difference by resolute action in this case and other similar instances of torture which take place at police stations and prisons.  The absence of such action means that this worse than absurd situation will continue and human life and liberties will be trivialized.  What is required is not a barrage of propaganda statements as is happening now; rather, immediate action.  If civil society is resolute they can ensure that such actions will happen.