Dear Friends,
We have written several updates on Angelina Roshana’s case. We are also aware that many persons have written to the Sri Lankan authorities on this matter, however the Attorney General has not yet taken any action. We urge readers to again write to the authorities on Ms. Roshana’s behalf. The most recent letter by the Asian Human Rights Commission is below. We draw attention especially to the following paragraphs:
“The defendant has invoked the names of powerful persons to support his case. According to the alleged perpetrator’s affidavit filed before the Supreme Court, he claims to be a friend of Mr. Eardly Perera P.C. He further states that the virtual complainant in the initial complaint that led to torture is the daughter of one of the President’s counsel. I believe that you will not be influenced by powerful interests and deny justice to a poor citizen, a young Tamil girl.”
“We are disturbed to learn that one Mrs. Vivika Siriwardene de Silva, a state counsel, also appeared for the first respondent (the alleged perpetrator) on 14 February, when the Fundamental Rights application came before the Supreme Court. On an earlier occasion the Supreme Court was informed by the alleged perpetrator that the Department of the Attorney General would not assist him in this case as the matter was one of torture, and he produced a letter from the Department of the Attorney General to that effect. It is not clear as to how this earlier decision intimated to the highest court in the country appears to have been reversed.”
Your pressure may make a difference, given the circumstances mentioned above.
AHRC LETTER OF 15 FEBRUARY
15 Februrary 2002
Hon. Mr. K.C. Kamalasabesan
Attorney General
Department of the Attorney General
Colombo 12
SRI LANKA
Fax: +941 436 421
Dear Attorney General,
Re: Case of torture of Angelina Roshana – No Action Under Act. No 22 of 1994
We have brought to your notice several times that no case under Act. No 22 of 1994 has been filed against the accused torturer of Angelina Roshana, despite strong medical and other evidence. This is a denial of rights of the victim, particularly her right to be treated equally before the law.
The defendant has invoked the names of powerful persons to support his case. According to the alleged perpetrator’s affidavit filed before the Supreme Court, he claims to be a friend of Mr. Eardly Perera P.C. He further states that the virtual complainant in the initial complaint that led to torture is the daughter of one of the President’s counsel. I believe that you will not be influenced by powerful interests and deny justice to a poor citizen, a young Tamil girl.
We are disturbed to learn that one Mrs. Vivika Siriwardene de Silva, a state counsel, also appeared for the first respondent (the alleged perpetrator) on 14 February, when the Fundamental Rights application came before the Supreme Court. On an earlier occasion the Supreme Court was informed by the alleged perpetrator that the Department of the Attorney General would not assist him in this case as the matter was one of torture, and he produced a letter from the Department of the Attorney General to that effect. It is not clear as to how this earlier decision intimated to the highest court in the country appears to have been reversed.
We once again appeal to you on behalf of the victim and request you to grant her the redress available to her in law by filing criminal action against the perpetrator.
We hope it will not be necessary to raise the matter in the forthcoming United Nations Human Rights Commission sessions in March-April of this year.
Sincerely yours,
