Reading the descriptions in this report on the torture carried out by the police in many parts of Sri Lanka reminded me that in 1776 Cesare Beccaria regarded torture and the reasoning behind it so ridiculous that he asked, “Ought such an abuse to be tolerated in the eighteenth century?” That in the twenty-first century the same question must still be asked of the government of Sri Lanka is immeasurably shameful.
Despite widespread calls for investigations and numerous complaints both to the National Human Rights Commission and the National Police Commission in Sri Lanka, apparently not one President or Prime Minister of the country has spoken out against the use of torture. Further, no senior government official has initiated any investigations into these well-documented allegations of torture, nor has the promise of proper investigations ever been extended. From all available evidence, it would appear that there is at least implicit acceptance of torture by the government, if not actual support for a policy permitting its use by the police.
The stories in this report, ‘Endemic torture and the collapse of policing in Sri Lanka’ (article 2, February 2004, vol. 3, no. 1) are about innocent people who, though seldom charged with any crime, were beaten and otherwise systematically tortured by the police for hours and often days. Sometimes the innocent victims were tortured and sent on their way without receiving any medical attention, but were given a warning that they should not tell anyone about what had been done to them. How many more persons are so fearful that they accepted the police warning and are still silently suffering? Among those who did report to hospital, some were so severely beaten that upon seeing their medical condition, doctors refused to admit them, sometimes knowing well who the culprits were.
Beccaria in his Essay on Crimes and Punishments notes that even in the eighteenth century, “In the eye of the law, every man is innocent whose crime has not been proved.” He wonders how some persons can believe that pain should be the test of truth, “As if truth resided in the muscles and fibers of a wretch in torture.” He then states the obvious, logical truth—although apparently it has escaped the police in Sri Lanka to this day—that by this method of torture, “The robust will escape and the feeble will be condemned.” In other words, if a person is able to bear the pain inflicted on him, he will resist making a confession, whereas if a person cannot bear the pain, he will probably agree to anything just to stop the torture from continuing. Proper police training should strongly impress on the trainees that beatings and other forms of torture only mask the truth and encourage the victim to agree to anything once his pain threshold has been reached.
Ought such an abuse to be tolerated in the twenty-first century? The answer has to be a resounding NO! It is my hope that the publication of this report in article 2 will contribute in some small way to a change in the behaviour of political leaders, prosecutors and police officers in Sri Lanka. I hope that they too will soon answer the question with a resounding NO. I further hope that this report will lead to some practical steps for judicial reform to stop the practice of torture by the police, and to initiate and implement a policy to prosecute all those who continue to abuse the rights of other human beings in this manner.
