SRI LANKA: Conspiracy to increase torture at police stations in Sri Lanka

Dear friends,

The Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) is gravely concerned by a strong attempt to increase torture in Sri Lanka. Gerald Perera’s case is one example. Torture victim Gerald Perera, who was going to give evidence before Negombo High Court against several police officers involved in his torture case, was shot on 21 November 2004 but still no one has been arrested. Furthermore, the IGP has issued an internal circular (No. 1796/2004 dated 27 September 2004) trying to restrain Human Rights Commission (HRC) officers from entering into police premises to inspect for the presence of torture victims. The AHRC also became aware of the very extensive campaign against persons fighting eliminate torture with the approval of the Sri Lankan government, which tries to portray the attempt to stop torture as an encouragement to crime.

The series of incidents indicate the beginning of another period of intense state sponsored violence supported by criminal elements.  The AHRC therefore calls for you to write a letter to the Government of Sri Lanka demanding that they investigate this matter thoroughly. Please also urge the IGP to withdraw his circular bearing no. 1796/2004 and to allow human rights officers to access premises where alleged acts of torture take place.

Urgent Appeals Desk
Asian Human Rights Commission 
———————————————-

URGENT APPEALS GENERAL:

There is clear evidence of a strong attempt to increase torture in Sri Lanka. The killing of the torture victim Gerald Perera, who pursued his complaints in the Supreme Court and High Court, is a clear message of determination to use violence against torture victims who complain regarding the police. (See further: UP-76-2004, UP-74-2004 and UA-157-2004) There are many cases where a torture victim has been tortured for the second time as revenge for having made a complaint.  In one instance, there was also an attempted kidnap to force a torture victim to give a statement to say that he was withdrawing his compliant. (See further: UA-122-2004) Though some action is taken when complaints about such cases are made, the predominant attitude is to ignore all complaints and to try to present all attempts to deter the practice of torture as creating an obstacle to the prevention of crime.  Under the pretext of the prevention of crime, the police are encouraged to carry on with torture. There is also a strong campaign carried out by the Sri Lankan government as well as some sections of the media against human rights work relating to torture, saying that such a human rights work affects police work and the criminals benefit.   

This position was initially stated by a Member of the Parliament who is also a lawyer, Mr. Wijedasa Rajapakse. His statement in Parliament was given a lot of media coverage including by the electronic media. This was followed by a very strong Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP) political leader Ratnasiri Wickramanayake, who was a former Prime Minister under the present president. He specifically attacked the National Police Commission (NPC) taking disciplinary actions against police officers involved in torture cases, stating that due to this the police may stop working. 

A number of senior police officers are also engaged in a severe campaign against investigations into torture cases and the work of NGOs regarding torture. One prominent figure is Deputy Inspector General (DIG) Sirisena Herath. He has stated many times that when the accused are questioned they file fundamental rights applications regarding torture and therefore it is not possible for police to investigate crimes. The Police Inspectors’ Union has been strongly campaigning against the attempt to have disciplinary control and particularly about investigations regarding torture. Their position is that the police have not been given enough facilities to investigate crimes and therefore they should be allowed to do it in the local way (meaning that the police should be allowed to use torture). The present Inspector General of Police (IGP) who had earlier (before he became IGP) vociferously spoken against torture seems to be very much under pressure to change his stance and now he speaks of a “balance”, meaning that the campaign against torture should not be pursued so vigorously.

Meanwhile, the IGP has issued an internal circular (No. 1796/2004 dated 27 September 2004) trying to restrain Human Rights Commission (HRC) officers from entering into police premises to search for the presence of torture victims.  This has come as a result of the HRC of Sri Lanka sending its officer to inspect police premises when they receive complaints that a person is being tortured within the premises.  On two occasions the officers who went for inspections were harassed and even assaulted. (See further: AS-36-2004) This circular by the IGP authorizes a strategy to prevent such human rights officers coming for such inspections.  The circular prescribes that the officers who come for such inspections must inform the Assistant Superintendent of Police (ASP) before entering such premises.  Thus, prior warning is given to the officers who engage in torture so that they can remove the person to a safer or secret place before the human rights officers enter.  Some human rights officers have observed that when they inform higher officers in accordance with the terms of this circular, the torture victims are removed to police living quarters or barracks where human rights officers are not allowed to enter.

Paragraph (3) of the said circular says:

“Such authorized persons, before entering places of detention should inform the Senior Supdt of Police of the division or the ASP [Assistant Superintendent of Police] of the district or in the absence of such officer the next most senior officer in the division or of the relevant police station prior to the proposed visit.” 

In many police stations the OICs [Officer In Charge] had taken the view that, according to this circular, the officers authorized by the HRC have to inform the SSP [Sub Superintendent of Police]/ASP of the division even before inspecting the police stations. This has subsequently been rectified by another circular which states that permission is not necessary to look at those being detained in the police stations. 

However, in instances where the officers of the Commission have to inspect barracks and other restricted places, informing the police prior to any surprise visit will negate the purpose of such visits. Many incidents of torture have taken place in police stations with the full knowledge of the senior police officers, either within the premises or in other parts of the building. 

Furthermore, in many areas, police stations are located several miles away from the Divisional SSP/ASP offices. If this circular is to be adhered to the officers of the HRC will not be able to inspect the barracks even if they hear the screams of the victims or see the police battering a person in such restricted places.

When a relative complains to the HRC regarding any assault taking place in the police premises, the HRC officer will be helpless as he will not be permitted to go in to the place where the arrested person is being tortured or confirmed without the permission the SSP of the Division, if it is not police cell. 

Though the HRC has realized the consequences of this circular and is taking action to remedy this situation, it may or may not succeed in bringing adequate pressure to get this circular withdrawn, and the HRC moves rather slowly and ineffectively.

SUGGESTED ACTION:
Please send a letter, fax or an email to the addresses below and express your concern about this matter. Suggested letter is attached below.

To support this case, please click here: SEND APPEAL LETTER