We refer your our earlier statement ‘SRI LANKA: Do newspapers like the Sunday Times, Daily Mirror and Lankadeepa contribute to the prevalence of endemic torture in Sri Lanka?’ and the dossier of documents available at: http://www.srilankahr.net/pdf/newsreports_onPalithaCase.pdf. Mr. R.S. Wijewardene, the Chairperson of Wijeya Newspapers Ltd has responded to our letter and the AHRC has replied with further clarification.
As we shared the earlier information on this matter we think that it only fair to our readers to share the further correspondence on this issue.
18th December 2006
Mr. Basil Fernando
Executive Director
Asian Human Rights Commission
19th Floor
Go-Up Commercial Building
998 Canton Road
Kowloon
Hong Kong
Dear Mr. Fernando,
I am in receipt of your letter and enclosures of the 17th November 2006.
I am sorry if my reply dated 24th November 2006 appeared dismissive or inconsiderate. That was not my intention.
Newspaper Publishers and the Editors Guild, together with the Free Media Movement set up the Sri Lanka Press Complaints Commission as a self regulatory body to adjudicate on grievances that the public may have against newspapers.
The idea was to provide a swift hearing and an adjudication, by an autonomous body, which would he binding on those companies subscribing to the Sri Lanka Press Complaints Commission. Wijeya Newspapers is so bound. There is no expense involved and a complaint could he made via e-mail to kshama@pccsl.lk
The PCC is mandated to provide a quick resolution on matters placed before it. I hope you would consider making use of its services.
In the meantime may I say that your release dated 5 December contains inaccuracies. It incorrectly names Mr. Anthony David as the writer of what you refer to as a false report on a Supreme Court judgement. Mr. David is the Deputy Editor (News) and is not the author of the report you refer to.
Mr. David could perhaps complain that you have violated his professional integrity, as you have released this statement on your web site.
May I also say that in referring to my letter dated 24th November, you have omitted the second paragraph of my original letter.
Yours sincerely,
Signed
R.S. Wijewardene
The AHRC reply to Mr. Wijewardene
December 20, 2006
Mr. Ranjith Wijewardene
Chairman
Wijaya Newspapers Limited
8 Hamapitiya Cross Road
Colombo 2
Sri Lanka
Dear Mr. Wijewardene,
Thank you for your letter dated 18 December 2006. I wish to take this opportunity of clarifying some matters which arose therein.
With regard to Mr. Anthony David being the author of the relevant article, I wish to disclose to you my source of information as to his being the same. On 29 October, 2006, the very same day the relevant news article was published in the Sunday Times, I spoke to Mr. Anthony David over the telephone. I asked him why his report contained the following statement which was false. The statement read as follows: “Earlier a fundamental rights case was filed against the police officer, but the petition was dismissed.” In reply Mr. David asked me whether that was wrong. I informed him that I had the relevant case (SCFR 211/2004) before me as we spoke and I assured him that it was. When I told him that the Supreme Court had held that the officer concerned has violated article 11 of the Constitution by torturing the victim, Mr. David replied that this is was not true and that I must referring to a different case. Then, when I insisted on what the Supreme Court award was he asked me whether I could send him the Supreme Court document. Shortly afterwards I sent him the document in question by email to the personal address which he gave me.
During the conversation I also asked him whether, when he refers to a case whether he verifies the information beforehand. I also asked him whether he had read the Kalutara High Court judgement. The reason for me asking this was because there were several references to the High Court case, which were also incorrect. Mr. David then told me that he did not have time to do this. My reply to Mr. David was that if I, talking to him from Hong Kong was able to get the documents and check the facts, why was he not able to do so living in Sri Lanka where the trial and case took place. Mr. David did not have any reply to this question other than to ask me again to send him the case document.
I did send the case and also in a letter earlier written to the editor of the Sunday Times dated 29 October, 2006 the AHRC gave details of the inaccuracies in his article. However, in the following week, other than to publish a fresh article stating that the Supreme Court has earlier found the police officer to have violated the victims rights guaranteed under article 11, no apology was made for the incorrect report and nor were the other inaccuracies pointed out to him corrected in any way.
Apart from the above the very title of the news report was ‘Police officer taking case to HRC’. The AHRC pointed out that the United Nations Human Rights Commission is a body that has ceased to exist, and that any reference to it was giving misinformation to the public. However, this inaccuracy was not corrected.
Your reference that Mr. David could perhaps complain that we have violated his professional integrity is baseless because the statement was made only after talking to Mr. David himself and communicating with him through email. Publishing reports without verification of very important facts, and refusal to make corrections after having them pointed out are hardly characteristics of professional integrity.
As for your comment in your letter, ‘false report on a supreme court judgement, kindly read SCFR 211/2004. In our previous correspondence with the editor of the Sunday Times and some further correspondence we gave detailed quotes from the judgement itself. You mentioning of false report shows that you still do not believe that a false report was in fact made in the first place. The matter can easily be checked by the simple means of examining the documents available to the public.
As for your reference to the Sri Lanka Press Complaint Commission, we are of the view that the first obligation to correct inaccuracies, mistakes deliberate or otherwise lies first with the management of the newspapers. Whether we avail ourselves of other remedies or not is our prerogative. Availability of these remedies does not take away from the newspaper management the duty to internally investigate and to take appropriate action.
We are sad to note that your letter reflects that, even to-date, you have not been provided with an accurate report on the matters we have raised.
Our interest in this matter is purely one of public interest. Biased reporting on torture and gross abuses of human rights still remains a major problem despite of the prevalence of endemic torture in the country. Ours is a concern beyond a mere legal issue. We too think it is an obligation of a human rights organisation to bring to the notice of the management of any newspaper when a matter of concern arises and then if we do not get a satisfactory answer to place the matter before the public. On all these matters when all the facts are placed before the public they could decide on the issue. It was for that purpose we made the full dossier available to the public.
You mention that the last paragraph of your letter dated 24 November is not accurate and if you refer to the full dossier which is available in the website you will find your full letter faithfully reproduced. There was hardly anything to gain by omitting the last paragraph of your letter.
Thank you
Yours sincerely,
Signed
Basil Fernando
Executive Director
