ASIAN CIVIL SOCIETY FORUM 2002 – The Session on National Human Rights Commissions (December 10, 2002)
National Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka; A Disappointing Institution
The Sri Lankan Commission Has Used Its Powers (Teeth) to Bite the Victims and Not the Perpetrators.
The National Human Rights Commissions (NHRC) built on the basis of the Paris Principles have been held up as a possible solution to the human rights problems existing in a nation. They are expected to be watchdogs, monitors, advocates and promoters of rights.
For this purpose, the commissions are expected to have powers and resources. National laws are supposed to provide the necessary legal mandate, and the national budget is supposed to provide the resources. The NHRC of Sri Lanka has been created by a statute which gives the commission wide powers. The commission has not yet made any public complaint about the inadequacy of their powers or of a lack of resources. However, the performance of the commission is dismal and disappointing, even to those who have been its main promotersthe human rights community. THE COMMISSION HAS USED IT POWERS (TEETH) TO BITE THE VICTIMS AND NOT THE PERPATRATORS.
The commission is well protected by law. For example, it cannot be called as a witness in any court or be sued for matters relating to its official duties. This is a good provision to protect it from perpetrators, who are often powerful and holding positions in law enforcement agencies. However, when such protections are abused to deprive the rights of the victims and to discourage them from pursing their complaints, the victims feel powerless and become confused about where they should turn for justice. Consequently, the victims’ criticisms of the commission are bitter and widespread.
Some of the complaints are outlined below.
1. The commission often violates principles of international and national law in dealing with torture cases by allowing the perpetrators to escape criminal punishment by paying small sums in compensation. Under national law (Act No. 22 of 1994), torture is a crime punishable with a mandatory prison sentence of seven years and a fine, but the commission settles cases after the payment of as little as 1,000 rupees (about US). As a result of such settlements, the victims are prevented from pursuing criminal cases.
2. The victims are often pressured to accept settlements. According to the complaint of a person who was thrown into a river by a police officer with the intent to kill, the victim was told by the commission’s inquiring officers that he really did not have a case and that it is better for him to accept a small payment and end the matter. Because most victims are poor, not educated in legal matters and not represented by lawyers, it is often easy to confuse such victims.
3. The commission takes a soft attitude towards police officers who violate human rights, creating the impression of closer links and collusion between the commission and the offending officers. Many people express doubts about the integrity with which some complaints are handled.
4. The commission in its investigations adopts more of a labour tribunal-like approach, thus providing occasions for delays. Moreover, this approach prevents the commission from doing the preliminary inquiries in the manner of criminal investigators. The commission’s duty is to collect evidence relating to the complaints and provide these to the official bodies which can take appropriate legal action. The victims cannot do these investigations as they do not have access to the police stations, official documents, etc. The commission has such powers but does not use them. The commission’s officers often tell the victims to find their own evidence when it is a simple matter for the commission to question perpetrators and peruse their records.
5. The commission’s officers try to impose standards relating to violations which are not in keeping with human rights norms. The result is the trivialisation of complaints. For example, any act of torture or inhuman treatment which does not cause a serious physical inquiry is rejected.
6. In the case of illegal arrests and detentions, the commission’s responses are slow. Prompt interventions can prevent the abuse of power during arrest and detention. The commission has failed to adopt the principles in the Indian case of Basu vs. West Bengal Government, which laid down rules to prevent illegal arrests and detentions.
7. The commission has not used its powers to study patterns of human rights abuse in the country and make recommendations to the State to correct them.
8. The NHRC of Sri Lanka does not issue an annual report about human rights abuses in the country. It is one of the duties of a human rights commission to make annual reports and make them available to the public.
Because of these deficiencies, the NHRC of Sri Lanka itself is a human rights problem, an additional problem added to many more problems in the country. The opinion of concerned people as well as national, regional and international organisations must be directed towards condemning this commission’s failures and seeking needed changes. Without serious reform of the NHRC, the Paris Principles will be of no use to the people of Sri Lanka.
JANASANSADAYA
NIVEKA
ASIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION
