UPDATE (Sri Lanka): The inefficiencies of the Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka on two torture cases

[Re: Case 1: UA-135-2004: Alleged illegal detention and torture of a man by officers at Kuruwita Police; UA-63-2005: Need for inquiry into police and inquiring officers conduct in investigating a torture victim’s complaint; Case 2: UP-57-2004:  Case of Chamila Bandara; the issue of the Kandy Coordinator and the rights of the people in Kandy for human rights protection UP-66

Dear friends,

The Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) has received updated information on two separate cases, which we wish to bring to your attention. The first case involves torture victim, Ranawaka Arachchige Hemasiri and the appalling treatment he received when lodging a complaint with the Human Rights Commission (HRC) of Sri Lanka. Upon approached the commission to discuss his complaint, which involved custodial torture at the Kuruwita Police Station (see further: UA-135-2004), Mr Hemasiri was received with hostility and contempt by investigating officer, J.M. Faumy, who accused him of fabricating his story. Mr Faumy also strongly criticised a local human rights organisation which assists the victim’s case, saying that they operated on ‘foreign funds’ and that they did not conduct their work according to the law. To date, no action has been taken by the HRC regarding Mr Hemasiri’s complaint. The AHRC recently reported another case of misconduct and ill-treatment by the HRC investigating officer to a torture victim (UA-63-2005).

In the second case, involving the Kandy coordinator of the HRC (who has since been transferred from 1 November 2004), Ms Samaraachichi still awaits answers to the handling of her initial case after a period of one and a half years. Ms Samaraachichi initially lodged a complaint with the Kandy coordinator in 2002 who then, it is believed, informed the alleged offenders of Ms Samaraachichi’s complaint. As a result, Ms Samaraachichi was subjected to threats and intimidation by the alleged offenders and eventually was forced to quit her job. After writing to the HRC to complain about the conduct of the coordinator, Ms Samaraachichi did not receive any response until more than a year later. With no action taken, she again lodged a complaint, but to date, no inquiry has yet been conducted into the coordinators actions.

The Kandy coordinator had notorious reputation of having close collaboration of with police officers who have allegedly committed human rights violations, thereby putting at risk the security of all the complainants. (See further: UP-57-2004, UP-66-2004, AS-45-2004)

We urge you to write to the HRC of Sri Lanka to voice your concern regarding these two cases. Both demonstrate complete negligence on behalf of the HRC to represent those that they are supposed to assist. Please bring each case to the HRC’s attention and demand that they correct these matters.

Urgent Appeals Desk
Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC)
————————————————————————

UPDATED INFORMATION:

CASE 1:

Victim: Ranawaka Arachchige Hemasiri, 40, casual labourer, married with four children
Alleged torture perpetrators: Police Constable Sunil (R 62071) of Kuruwita Police Station; Police Constable attached to same police station (can be identified by victim); Officer in Charge (OIC) of the Kuruwita police station
HRC staff member dealing with this case: J.M. Faumy Francisco

As previously reported by the AHRC (UA-135-2004), the above named victim was illegally arrested and detained by the police officers attached to the Kuruwita Police Station on 19-20 September 2004 allegedly on fabricated charges of possessing 6 bottles of illicit liquor. While in custody he was severely beaten by the alleged perpetrators, then locked up and denied any medical assistance despite his cries of pain. Subsequently he had to be hospitalised and receive medical treatment for about 10 days. The victim also claimed that apart from the police torture and the illegal detention based on fabricated charges, the Ratnapura Magistrate remanded him without even having seen him. Additionally, the victim’s lawyer failed to inform the court about the police torture and furthermore, the lawyer pleaded guilty on behalf of the victim, despite having received no instructions to do so.

Mr. Hemasiri subsequently complained about the injustices perpetrated upon him, inter alia to the Inspector General of Police, the National Police Commission (NPC) and to the Human Rights Commission (HRC) of Sri Lanka. Accordingly he received a telegram to appear before the HRC head office in Colombo for an inquiry – which he could not attend – and then again on 14 March 2005. On this date, when he arrived at the office, he was shown to Room No 4 by the receptionist. The investigating officer immediately demanded to know as to why he did not attend the inquiry on the previous date as notified. He replied that he failed to do so because he was unable to find the HRC office.
According to Mr. Hemasiri, this HRC officer was very angry with him. He first accused Mr. Hemasiri of fabricating being tortured by the police and also queried as to whether there was any evidence in support of his allegations. The victim insisted that he was not lying and said that his wife could support his assertion. But the inquiring officer rebuked him, saying: “this was not enough.”

The investigating officer continued to scold Mr. Hemasiri for complaining to a human rights organisation, who he alleged, was ‘operating on foreign funds’. He also said that unlike them, he worked according to rules and regulations, implying that the organisation was not working according to law. After several minutes of directing insults at the victim and the local human rights organization, the investigating officer abruptly stood up and without even having introduced himself to the victim, walked out. His parting remark to Mr. Hemasiri was that he had already obtained statements from the police officers concerned.

Thus instead of conducting an investigation into the serious allegation of torture made by Mr. Hemasiri, he was once again required to give a new written statement of his complaint. To all intents and purposes this seemed a rather deliberate attempt to unduly prolong investigations as the victim had already forwarded his written complaint to the HRC.

The victim says that though he is a poor man, a daily wage earner and semi-literate, his sense of dignity and self-respect is very important to him. He claims that he was greatly offended when the said HRC officer spoke to him in such a degrading and undignified manner. Later on, the complainant discovered that the name of the investigating officer was J.M. Faumy.

It is noteworthy that J.M. Faumy is currently the President of the officers’ union of the HRC. Therefore any investigation into the alleged untoward behaviour of this officer, conducted by any member of the said officers’ union will hold little validity. Thus while urging an immediate investigation into the victim’s allegation, we state that any such investigation should be an independent one conducted by an independent officer, if justice is to be achieved for Mr. Hemasiri.

CASE 2:

Victim: Priya Samaraachchi, 50, Haragama, Gurudeniya; former sub postmistress, sub post office, Peradeniya.
Alleged perpetrators: Mr Niranjan Sumanasekara, a former Kandy area coordinator of the HRC of Sri Lanka

The above named victim recently complained that she has been aggrieved not once, but twice by officers of the HRC of Sri Lanka. She was first aggrieved by the Kandy coordinator of HRC when he violated her confidentiality by allegedly passing on information to persons against whom she had complained. She was secondly aggrieved by the NHRC itself for failing to hold an inquiry and take appropriate action against this officer.

In 2002, the victim feared for the well being of her sister’s children and decided to notify the authorities to safeguard them. She was reluctant to drag her nieces and nephews through the police and courts, so she decided to complain to the HRC office, Kandy.

On 20 October 2002, she met with the coordinator at Kandy HRC office – Mr. Sumanasekara. Upon receiving the case details, Mr. Sumanasekara requested her to give the complaint in writing and promised to hold an inquiry regarding the matter. In it she named and gave details of the people against whom she was complaining as well as the fact that if this matter could not be amicably settled, then she would be forced to take appropriate legal action. Ms. Samaraachchi claimed that the accused were her relatives, and hence fearing retaliation, she told no one about her complaint to the HRC; neither was there anyway the accused could have discovered this fact.

However, according to the victim, within a few days of handing over her complaint to Mr Sumanasekara, she received several threatening telephone calls from the accused parties. In these calls, they threatened, “We know you have complained against us to the HRC. We also know you are thinking of going to court. Don’t you dare go to court for if you do, you will get into deep trouble in the near future”.

On 29 October 2002 Ms. Samaraachchi again wrote to Mr. Sumanasekara urging him to hold a speedy inquiry into her complaint. She stated that there was an urgent need to safeguard the welfare of the children. However, she received no reply from Mr. Sumanasekara or the HRC.

In the meantime she received information that the accused parties were planning to send a petition against her to her superiors at her workplace, making false allegations against her. In panic she once again visited Mr. Sumanasekara. He now replied that he was not empowered to investigate her complaint because it did not come within the purview of the HRC. Infuriated she queried, if such was the case, why he had accepted her complaint and promise to take action, in the first instance.

The complainant continued to face severe repercussions from the accused parties, personally as well as at her workplace.  And she was finally forced to quit her job.

She complains that the HRC Kandy coordinator, Mr. Sumanasekara was negligent in accepting her complaint when in fact he had no authority to inquire into the matter. She says that either he was shockingly unaware of the scope of his duties and powers or – more likely – he knowingly accepted her written complaint for some ulterior and dishonest purpose. She also now firmly believes that it was he who passed on the information – in gross violation of the trust and confidentiality she placed in him, and notwithstanding the fact that such action could have gravely endangered the complainant. She is resolute that otherwise, it was not possible for the accused parties to have discovered the contents of her complaint against them, in such a short span of time.

Ms. Samaraachichi says that she wrote to the HRC in Colombo complaining about the behaviour of their Kandy coordinator. However since her letters went unanswered, she met with the Chairperson, HRC in Colombo. The Chairperson in turn directed her to make a fresh complaint to an HRC officer. This she did on 5 January 2004. However, she claims that she still did not receive any reply from HRC for a period of almost one year. In December 2004 she again visited the HRC office in Colombo. She then discovered that her original complaint against Mr. Sumanasekara was missing from the files. However she says that when she showed her registered post counterfoil, in which she sent the complaint, the written complaint mysteriously reappeared.

Ms. Samaraachchi says that to date – almost one and a half years from her complaint against the behaviour of the HRC Kandy coordinator, to the HRC head office – the HRC has failed to hold any inquiry against the coordinator. She also says that it was only in December 2004 that she even received a reference number to her complaint.

The AHRC is deeply concerned by complete negligence of the HRC of Sri Lanka on these two cases. We urge the HRC to correct these matters as soon as possible. In the first case, the complaint lodged by Mr Hemasiri should be taken seriously and investigated accordingly. Mr Hemasiri should not be threatened or intimidated in any way whatsoever merely for lodging a complaint against police officers he accused of torturing him. It is the duty of the HRC to pursue such cases; not to dismiss them without investigation. In the second case, an immediate response is essentially given that Ms Samaraachichi has already waited far too long to have her inquiry taken seriously. HRC must conduct a proper investigation into both cases and disciplinary action should be taken against any HRC staff members who are found to have failed in their duty to serve the Sri Lankan people.

SUGGESTED ACTION:
Please write to the Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka urging its immediate correction of these matters.

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