SRI LANKA: A man is shot dead while in the police custody of Sapugaskanda Police

Dear friends,

The Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) has received information that a man was shot dead by police officers while he was in the custody of an officer attached to the Supugaskanda Police Station. He was arrested on the morning of 4 September 2010, brought to distant location and shot dead a few hour of his arrest. The police at no time produced him before a court and his arrest was never reported prior to his death. No proper investigation has been carried out into this case resulting in the denial of justice to the victim and his family which is further evidence of the exceptional collapse of the rule of law in the country. 

CASE NARRATIVE: 

According to the information we received Mr. Suresh Kumar (24) of Galewala, Matale was arrested by police officers attached to the Sapugaskanda Police Station on 4 September 2010 and shot dead by the officers while he was in police custody.

According to the version put forward by the police Suresh was arrested on suspicion of the abduction of a nine-year-old child, Yasas Rasanjana of Makola in Sapugaskanda police division. The child’s abduction happened on the 31 August 2010. Rasanjana is a grade four student at Sapugaskanda Sobhitha Vidyalaya at Sapugaskanda, Makola South. He was kidnapped for a ransom of Rs. 800,000/=. The father of the child made a complaint to the Sapugaskanda Police Station in that regard. Later the child was found after the kidnappers threw him into the Victoria Tank in Thalathu Oya.

Prior to this incident Suresh worked for the child’s father for nearly three years at his home and also in his shop.

Suresh was arrested at Kurunagalle on morning 4 September, by a team of officers, including the Officer-in-Charge (OIC) of the Crimes Branch of Sapugaskanda Police Station. He was then brought to Kadawath by the same team of officers. Some few hours later he was found dead at Mankada Road in Kadawatha with gunshot injuries.

According to the police version of the events, Suresh was brought to a location in Mankada Road in Kadawatha in order to hand over a cache of weapons he had concealed. Despite being in the presence of several police officers at some point he managed to obtain a hand grenade which he attempted to lob in the direction of the police officers. No mention was made of how he was supposed to have survived the explosion.

This scenario, as explained by the police has been used in countless other cases so the question is, the officers must have been aware of the danger Suresh posed. Why then did they not supervise his movements more closely? Why was he not handcuffed securely? According to Departmental Regulations any suspect being taken to a destination outside the confines of a police station must be handcuffed to prevent his escape and ensure his safety and that of the officers.

The OIC of the Crime Branch of the station was present at the time of the incident and shooting. Having reached the rank of OIC this officer alone should have had the experience necessary to ensure to handle the situation. It is a non-transferable duty of the police to ensure the safety of any suspect under their detention.

Suresh was a residence of Kandy in the Central province at the time of his death. It is far distance from the location in the western province where he was gunned down and where police suspected him of hiding weapons. However, given the distance from his home town it is unlikely that Suresh had any knowledge of the place which would have allowed to conceal weapons.

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: 

The Asian Human Rights Commission has reported innumerable cases of arbitrary arrest, detention, torture and extra judicial cases of citizens at the hands of the police which is illegal under international and local law and which have taken place at different police stations in the country over the past few years. The Asian Human Rights Commission has observed that the Sri Lankan police have used torture as an instrument to terrorize innocent persons and harass the public. Further, the country’s police are implementing a policy of eliminating criminals by killing them after arresting them without producing them to the court of law.

The Constitution of Sri Lanka has guaranteed the right freedom from torture. According to Article 11 of the Constitution ‘No person shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment’.

Court of Appeal of Sri Lanka
In the case of Leeda Violet and Others v. Vidanapathirana, OIC, Police Station, Dikwella and others (3 SLR 1994 377), in a Habeas Corpus application in the Court of Appeal of Sri Lanka observed that when there is an established fact that a person was arrested, then it is the duty of the Officer-in-Charge (OIC) to explain the fate of the detainee and what happen to him while in the custody with the relevant entries from the books maintained at the Police Station. 

As per the Silva J,

“In other words, there is no basis whatever for their arrest and custody. The 1st Respondent who admits having visited the place of arrest at the alleged time denies the act of arrest as alleged by the Petitioners. His denial has been disbelieved by the learned Magistrate. Learned Magistrate has correctly observed that if the 1st Respondent visited the place for any official act in connection with any investigation or peace keeping operation, he could have produced the relevant entries from the books maintained at the Police Station. The suggestion of the 1st Respondent appears to be that whatever operation that was carried out by the authorities at the time in question, at Neelwella, was the responsibility of the Army and not of the Police. The shifting of responsibility from the Police to the Army and vice versa, is of little solace or comfort to the Petitioners. Their evidence discloses a harrowing tale where they have seen their sons taken to the Police Station and kept there for several days. For all intents and purposes their sons have disappeared from the face of the earth after 4 days. The denial of arrest and custody, by the 1st Respondent, who is well identified by the witnesses, as a person known to them, has not commended itself to the learned Chief Magistrate. Certainly, that denial does not commend itself, as being worthy of any credit, to this Court. It was in these circumstances that a rule nisi was issued on the 1st Respondent and the Inspector General of Police to disclose any material in their control as to the whereabouts of the corpora. The rule has been answered only by a repetition of the denial which has already been rejected by the learned Chief Magistrate.”

Supreme Court of Sri Lanka
In the case of Sriyani Silva v. Iddamalgoda, OIC Payagala & Others- (2003) 2 SLR 63, as per Fernando J,

“I hold that Article 11 (read with Article 13(4)) recognizes a right not to be deprived of life-whether by way of punishment or otherwise-and, by necessary implication, a right to life. That right must be interpreted broadly, and the jurisdiction conferred by the Constitution on this Court for the sole purpose of protecting fundamental rights against executive action must be deemed to have conferred all that is reasonably necessary for this Court to protect those rights effectively. (ch. Article 118(b))“

Alarming policy of Sri Lankan police of killing the suspects after arrest instead of allowing the court to try them in accordance with the law.

The AHRC has recorded hundreds of cases where people were tortured and killed after they were arrested by the police. The Presidential commissions of investigation of cases of disappearances by the Sri Lankan governments have officially recorded more than thirty six thousand cases from throughout the country only between 1988 -1991 which exposed the practice of the Sri Lanka Police of arresting innocent persons, detaining, torturing them and then finally killing them. The AHRC has classified this practice of extrajudicial killing by the state authorities as one of the endemic problems in Sri Lanka.

In the recent past the Sri Lankan police have adopted a policy of killing suspects in the name of eliminating organized crime. However, few if any of these cases are investigated by the police. Even the judiciary of the country has not shown an interest in bringing justice in these incidents.

The reported cases clearly show all the necessary legal elements of the systematic and widespread practice of killing innocents after arrest by police officers.

This whole practice happens despite the Departmental Orders of the Sri Lanka police which expressly rules that OICs of the police stations are responsible to protect the detainees after their arrest. The officers are supposed to maintain public records on the health, foods, all the movements and behaviors of detainees.

The Constitution of the country expressly only allow the judiciary to make punishments to those who have found guilty after fair trial. But this practice of killing detainees shows how the police officers torture detainees as punitive action sometime before going to the extent of killing them.

This practice imposes against the poorest of the poor in the country. It necessarily used to harass and terrorize the public to make them silent while many of the fundamental rights and democratic rights guaranteed even by the Constitution of the country were curtail vehemently. One the other hand this shows how the state of Sri Lanka failed to fulfill its state responsibility to international human rights conventions with UN domestically getting implemented. Adopting of policy of killing citizens in the name of combating criminals clearly shows state unwillingness of respecting internationally accepted human rights and norms. The cases in question show the inability of the state law enforcement agencies that they are no longer willing and able to implement the rule of law in the country instead of maintain the law and order of the country. The policy imposed by the Sri Lankan police of killing suspects after get them arrest clearly shows the unwell of law enforcement agencies to prosecute the criminals within rule of law system. Innocent victims who get arrested are in danger in the hand of police officers in Sri Lanka.

Furthermore, Sri Lanka has signed and ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). Nevertheless the lack of protection offered to those who are willing to take cases against abusive police officers and the state authorities, means that the law is under-used continues to be employed as a tool by the police to harass people. This not only takes a long-term toll on the victim and his or her family, but on society as a whole, by the undermining of civilian respect for the law and encouraging impunity.

The Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT) was signed by the State of Sri Lanka and ratified on 3 January 1994. Following state obligations Sri Lanka adopted Act No. 22 of 1994 the law adopted by the Sri Lankan parliament making torture a crime that can be punishable for minimum seven years and not less than ten years on being proven guilty. The Attorney General of Sri Lanka is supposed to file indictments in the case where credible evidence is found on the torturing of people by state officers.

Furthermore, the Asian Human Rights Commission has continuously exposed the way the witness and the victims are getting harassed and on some occasions even killed to suppress the justice. Furthermore we have urged the State of Sri Lanka to adopt a law for the protection of witness protection.

SUGGESTED ACTION: 
Please send a letter to the authorities listed below expressing your concern about this case and requesting an immediate investigation into the allegations extra judicial killings by the police perpetrators, and the prosecution of those proven to be responsible under the criminal law of the country. The officers involved must also be subjected to internal investigations for the breach of the department orders as issued by the police department.

Please note that the Asian Human Rights Commission has already written separate letters to the Special Rapporteur on Extra-judicial, Summary, or Arbitrary Executions on this regard.

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