SRI LANKA: State cannot neglect duty to protect child sold in Kandy

Dear Friends,

The Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) has received information of an 8-year-old boy who was recently kidnapped, sold, and by chance rescued. However, by willfully neglecting their responsibilities, the court, the police, and the Probation Department have returned the boy to the very same vulnerable environment that saw the boy being kidnapped and traded. The life of the child is in peril. However, the Sri Lankan State, which, as per law, is the caretaker of children in Sri Lanka, has chosen to abdicate its responsibility. The case is symptomatic of the vulnerability of children in Sri Lanka, who have, in recent times, been increasingly subject to various forms of cruelty, such as: corporal punishment, exploitation, and physical and sexual abuse.

The AHRC urges the Sri Lankan government to take all measures to implement its obligations under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and its Optional Protocols and to follow its own laws. The future of Sri Lanka is its children, and their dignity and respect must be upheld by the State, which cannot abdicate responsibility.

CASE NARRATIVE:

The Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) has received information about a child having been sold in Katugastota Police Division, Kandy District, Sri Lanka, on 28 March 2015. The mother of the boy, a resident of Ambatenna, Katugastota Police Division, Kandy District, made a complaint to the Katugastota Police Station, stating that her 8-year-old boy was missing. The police officers accepted the complaint but did not commence investigation, despite the mother providing details and information on suspects.

Two days later, on March 28, the police by chance got a tip off, by an informant over the phone, that a child was being sold. The police rushed to the spot, and found a boy with injury marks on his body. The police questioned the boy and from the child learned about his kidnappers. With the child’s help the police were able to apprehend not only the kidnappers, but also the buyer, and were able to recover Rs. 50,000 – the boy’s price that had changed hands. All three persons arrested, were produced before the Acting Magistrate of Kandy, and two of them, both women, were immediately released on personal bail, while the third suspect, a man, was remanded. The child was then handed over to his natural mother.

While it may appear that the balance has been restored while the process of justice takes its course, what the Acting Magistrate has done, along with the police and the Probation Department is place the child right back where it is most vulnerable. It turns out the mother is desperately impoverished, and faces great difficulty in taking care of her four children. Her legal husband is chronically ill and bedridden. In these circumstances, she began cohabiting with another man, leaving her children untended. It turns out her lover is one of the persons accused of having kidnapped and sold the boy.

In the processing of this case, already, various departments of government have failed the boy. Firstly, the police were reluctant to investigate the boy’s disappearance and refused to follow the mother’s leads. It is only by luck that they received a tip-off, and only with the help of the boy were able to apprehend the three suspects. Next, it is the duty of the police to investigate the ground realities and apprise the Magistrate of the same. In this case, the police needed to inform the Magistrate that the woman and man accused of kidnapping the boy reside in the community and that the man is none other than the mother’s lover. This information would help the Magistrate decide on bail and on granting custody of the boy. However, the police have not even provided information that the child has been kidnapped by those who are in the position of being the child’s guardians.

As far as the court goes, it should have been a Magistrate and not an Acting Magistrate hearing the case. Nevertheless, the Acting Magistrate could have asked the Probation Officer to file a report, something that was not done. Going through the motions, the Acting Magistrate simply granted bail to two of the accused, simply on them being women, and handed the child to the mother, without checking whether such actions would keep the child safe.

Police officers had informed the court that when the boy was discovered several injuries were noticed on his body. Yet, neither the police nor the Acting Magistrate sought to ensure medical care was provided to the child. Also, it is the duty of all state officers to direct the child to a Psychiatric Clinic for assessment and treatment, which they failed to do. His mother later admitted the child to the Kandy Teaching Hospital for treatment. A Consultant Judicial Medical Officer has yet to examined the child for judicial purposes.

Handing over the injured child to the mother and relatives who reside in close proximity to the suspects shows the insensitive nature of the system and abdication of responsibility. The child, the prime witness, in addition to other witnesses, has been endangered with the Acting Magistrate granting bail to two of the suspects, without criminal investigation having been conducted.

Lastly, it is the responsibility of the State to ensure the child’s education is not interrupted, which has happened in this case. The court needs to take appropriate measures to protect the child’s right to continue his education. By overlooking all these, the State apparatus has proven itself to be lacking.

The Asian Human Rights Commission requests the State of Sri Lanka to take effective measures to implement its obligations regarding the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and all its Optional Protocols, which it has signed. It is the duty of law enforcement agencies to uphold and implement the rule of law. Protection should be afforded for every child of Sri Lanka.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:

According to Sri Lankan law, the state is the ultimate caretaker of every child in the country. The district court is vested with all powers as the supreme guardian of the child. It is thus the responsibility of law enforcement agencies and their officers to monitor the situation of children and report the situation for appropriate measures to be taken by the Judiciary. Presently, there are several state agencies such as the Probation Department, Social Welfare Department, Women and Child Care Bureau, Police Department and finally the Grama Niladary (village level state officers), all of which are individually and collectively responsible to protect children. However, state officers, despite similar incidents having occurred in different parts of the country in recent times, have ignored demands for the effective protection of children. There have been several incidents of mothers jumping into rivers along with their children, having been unable to bear the suffering of desperate impoverishment.

SUGGESTED ACTION:

Please request the authorities to prosecute those proven to be responsible for misusing and ignoring the powers of the State. All officers involved must be subject to internal investigations for breach of department orders. Request the NPC and the IGP to conduct a special investigation into the malpractices of all the state officers for abuse of power.

Please note that the AHRC has also written a separate letter to the Chairperson, UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, on this regard.

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