SRI LANKA: Mahiyangane police arbitrarily arrest an indigenous man after allowing him to be beaten by a priest

Dear friends, 

The Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) has learned that Mahiyangane police officers witnessed the severe beating of a man by a priest and refused to intervene. The act constitutes torture under international law. The victim was then arrested with scant evidence of his crime and his allegations of torture were not addressed by the local magistrate. Rather than arrest the perpetrator, officers are entertaining his complaint against the victim and the investigation into the victim’s complaint has been dropped. The fact that simple police procedures are being so soundly violated suggests a breach in the chain of command in Mahiyangane which must be immediately addressed. 

CASE DETAILS: 

Tennakoon Mudiyanselage Wijeratne, 43, belongs to the Veddha aboriginal community , and this summer he set up a small ice cream stall for a festival at the Mahiyangane Saman Devala, which is part of Mahiyangane Temple. While bathing in the adjacent Mahaveli River on 28 August at about mid-day, Wijeratne reports that he found a piece of wire buried in the sand and thinking it useful he took it with him. However shortly afterwards a grama (village) officer physically stopped him in the crowd, pulled him by his shirt collar and started to question him about the wire. He was taken to a police post near the temple where the officer told two other officers that he had caught ‘the wire thief’. 

One of the police officers fetched the head priest, who allegedly ordered Wijeratne to sit on the floor, took the wire from him and beat him with it for around five minutes. A crowd gathered. The priest reportedly shouted at Wijeratne throughout the beating, accusing him of regularly cutting wire from the temple premises, and the younger priest then reportedly kicked the victim to the ground. Though crowd members had asked the priests to stop, the two officers stood back and watched the beating, while observing that this was the consequence of stealing wire. 

Wijeratne was taken to the Mahiyangane Police station by three-wheeler taxi, where he was kept in a cell. He told the Officer in Charge (OIC) that he had been assaulted and showed the marks on his body but his complaint was not noted. That night Wijeratne reports that he was not given anything to eat. The next morning he was given a small serving of rice and coconut sambol, and his family was called to inform them of his detention. On 29 August at about noon he was produced at the residence of a local magistrate, where his lawyer brought up his abuse by the priest. We are told that magistrate did not take note of the abuse before he granted Wijeratne bail. Since it was a Saturday and a holiday the bail money could not be furnished and Wijeratne was remanded in Badulla prison. 

In the prison Wijeratne told the prison guards that police had refused to take note of his abuse and he was given some medicated cream to rub on his contusions. On 31 August the bail money was furnished, Wijeratne was produced in Mahiyangane Magistrates Court (case BR 853/09) and released, after being told to return to court on 8 September, and then later on 3 November. 

On 10 September we are told that he found it difficult to urinate and he passed blood, after which an Ayurvedic doctor advised him to find treatment in hospital. On 12 September, after filing a complaint about his assault at Mahiyangane Police station (CIB 1 46/120) he checked himself into Mahiyangane Hospital. He informed the doctors of the abuse by the priest; X-rays showed internal contusions but no broken bones. He was discharged on 14 September. 

On 15 September Wijeratne was called to the Mahiyangane police station to make a statement about his complaint, and he took two witnesses with him. A police officer recorded their evidence and asked the two to leave, at which point Wijeratne was told that he would have to personally identify the scene of the crime and was taken back to taken to the police post at the temple. He was made to wait there for three hours, and when the officers returned they simply told him that the head priest had denied the charges. He was asked to go home; no statement was recorded from him nor any other records made. 

The Mahiyangane police appear to have abandoned ordinary criminal procedure, and have instead tailored it to work against the victim; in this case an underprivileged minority member. The victim was denied his right to protection – which constitutes torture under international conventions ratified by Sri Lanka – and officers endorsed illegal vigilante justice instead. He was traumatised by the incident and his extended time in detention lost him vital income from the festival, where he had rented a stall. Even the lack of food given to the victim in police custody goes against police departmental orders (A 20. 7a). In Sri Lanka the officer on reserve duty is responsible for ensuring that those under arrest are properly fed, and must record each meal in the Information Book. 

The fact that all such simple procedures are being easily violated suggests a breach in the chain of command in Mahiyangane, and this must be immediately addressed with disciplinary action. The high priest’s actions must be fully investigated and dealt with according to the law and the magistrate and the medical staff involved must also be reminded of their duty to act when cases of torture are presented before them, to prevent the entrenched impunity that still plagues the Sri Lankan system of justice. 

SUGGESTED ACTION: 

Please write to the local authorities listed below and demand that due disciplinary and if necessary, legal action is taken against the officers and magistrate who condoned torture, and prevented a legitimate investigation of this case. 

Please be informed that the AHRC has also written a separate letter to the UN Special Rapporteur on the Question of Torture and to the UN Independent Expert on Minority Issues. 

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