Dear friends,
The Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) is pleased to inform you that last week an Inspector of Police (IP) and a Police Constable (PC), who were accused of torturing a 25 year-old woman, Angalin Roshana Michael, were sentenced to seven years of rigorous imprisonment. For details of the incident, please refer to our urgent appeal: UA 41/00. From the very day of the victims arrest by the police, the AHRC was involved in the pursuit of this case and provided legal assistance to the victim. As far as we know, this is the third conviction under the CAT Act, Act No. 22 of 1994 in Sri Lanka. We thank all of you for your great support on this case. The AHRC will continue its campaign on the elimination of torture in Sri Lanka.
UPDATED INFORMATION:
The AHRC has learned that last week a former Officer-in-Charge of the Crime Division at Narahenpita police, Inspector of Police (IP) Shelton Saley and Police Constable (PC) Stanley Tissera, who were accused of torturing a 25 year-old woman, Angalin Roshana Michael, were were convicted by Colombo High Court Judge Upali Abeyratne. The two police officers were sentenced to seven years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 10,000/= in lieu of which a further one year of imprisonment would be imposed.
To the knowledge of the AHRC, this is the third conviction under the CAT Act, Act No. 22 of 1994. The Act prescribes a mandatory seven years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 10,000 on conviction of charges under the Act.
While welcoming the convection of the torture perpetrators of this case, the AHRC is deeply concerned that such punishments should have will not be felt when just a few officers are punished for a practice which is endemic and practiced daily in all police stations in Sri Lanka. The law in Sri Lanka treats torture as a crime but still the police hierarchy considers torture a necessary element in the investigation of crime and has not taken any genuine steps to stop the practice of torture. It should be a conscious effort on the part of the Ministry of Justice and Law Reforms, the judiciary and the prosecution branch in the country which is represented by the Attorney General.
BRIEF REMINDER OF THE CASE:
In this case Angalin Roshana complained that she was arrested by the Officer-in-Charge, Crime Division of the Narahenpita police, at about 8:00 pm on December 3, 2000; that she was detained in police custody until she was produced before a magistrate shortly before noon on December 5, 2000, and that she was tortured while in custody.
The police officer had arrested her on the basis of a complaint made by an affluent family where Angalin Roshana used to work as a part time domestic helper. The complainant, who is a lady lawyer sought the help of the Narahenpita police regarding the loss of a gold watch valued at Rs. 500,000/= which she thought the domestic helper had stolen. The IP together with the complainant went to Roshanas house and searched the premises, but were unable to find the watch. The IP thereafter took Roshana to the complainants house where the domestic helper was held for about four hours and was asked to find the watch. As she pleaded innocent the complainant handed her over to the police for interrogation. Roshana gave evidence that she was held at the police station overnight and was beaten severely, threatened and was told to reveal where the gold watch was hidden. Her pleas of innocence went unheard.
Due to the interventions of her family several persons visited her while she was in police custody and legal assistance was provided to her. A lawyer appeared in court when she was produced before the magistrate and promptly informed the court of the torture that had taken place at the police station. On the magistrates order she was examined by a Judicial Medical Officer (JMO) who issued a medical report.
The medical report showed the following injuries to Angalin Roshana. The JMO testified that she had seven contusions: on the left shoulder (4″ X 3″), left upper arm near the arm pit (2″ X 2″), back of the left upper arm (3″ X 1″), right shoulder (3″ X 3″), left buttock (3″ X 1.5″), left buttock extending to the upper left thigh (2.5″ diameter), and right buttock (3″ X 1.5″). Furthermore, The JMO was of the opinion that these injuries had been caused by an assault with blunt object and were around two to four days old, consistent with the assault, complained of by Angalin Roshana. At the trial Roshana herself, and several other persons gave evidence. The police officer also gave evidence, accepting the arrest but denying torture. The trial was protracted and lasted for a period of almost six years. The High Court judge held that the charges were proved beyond reasonable doubt.
The AHRC was involved in the pursuit of this case from the very day of the arrest of Angalin Roshana as her family, through a close associate, was able to inform us of this case. The AHRC was also able to provide legal assistance to her in her application to the Supreme Court as well as in the case before the High Court. In the Supreme Court case, a three bench court, presided over by Justice Mark Fernando, held in June 2002, that the police inspector had violated the rights of the petitioner, Angalin Roshana by torture and illegal detention and ordered compensation of Rs. 100,000/= .
The police then filed charges in the Magistrate’s Court against Angalin Roshana for the theft of the gold watch worth Rs. 500,000/=. However, the case was dismissed as there was no evidence brought against her.
————————
Thank you.
Urgent Appeals Programme
Asian Human Rights Commission (ua@ahrchk.org)
