After several years of work, AHRC was forced to arrive at the rather shocking conclusion that there was no real movement against torture in Asia. This situation was due mostly to the human rights organisations themselves being based in the milieu of the affluent classes of society, while torture for the most part is experienced among persons from the poorer classes. There was an emotional alienation among those claiming to help torture victims. Torture was often explained away with comments such as, `Torture is part of the culture,’ `People accept torture as being necessary,’ and `There is no government will to impose prohibitions against torture seriously’. Thus, while some reports were produced and meetings held on torture, no real work was being done with a firm determination to end the practice.
The question then was how to propose and pursue a strategy sharply different to those prevailing at the time. AHRC realised that its partners in work to eliminate torture must be from social classes closer to the milieu to which the victims themselves belong. They would have to be persons who could understand the language and social circumstances of the victims. They would also have to be willing to give a considerable amount of time to the victims. They also had to be willing to provide food, shelter and solidarity to victims, particularly immediately after the experience of torture. And equally important, they had to create self-confidence in the victims and their families, despite the many pressures and harassment directed towards them after they make complaints about torture to the authorities. In short, the type of activists required were those willing to take over many of the burdens that the victims and their families would have had to bear on their own.
At this stage AHRC realised that it would have to test its approach in order to acquire experience. This test was undertaken in Sri Lanka, and after several years of work it can now be claimed that a successful movement to eliminate torture has begun there. In the first years of the work, time was spent trying to build contacts with community-based groups, as opposed to city-based elite groups. In the beginning, the community-based groups did not see the relevance of torture to the type of work they were doing. Some even saw such work as dangerous, as it might bring undesirable consequences onto themselves and their work. It was necessary to convince these persons that AHRC was in a position to help them work to support victims of torture by taking away some of the burdens and risks involved.
The Urgent Appeals system it operates from Hong Kong was explained to them, and they were shown how to collect information and send information without becoming visible at too early a stage. At this point, AHRC took on the entire task of campaigning. As the use of computers was not yet commonplace among groups in Sri Lanka, it was necessary to provide some and also to bring a few persons to Hong Kong, where they were exposed to the use of modern communications. They became more confident that torture cases could be communicated and acted on quite easily. They also saw how much attention was paid to each case arriving at the AHRC office. This was necessary in order to create the confidence and trust of local groups in their partner, as AHRC had given assurances that it would do all it could to help in these cases.
The early cases of torture that came in were soon transmitted to a global email network that at the time numbered over 200,000 recipients, including many organisations with an interest in human rights, and United Nations agencies and representatives, including the Special Rapporteur against torture. The local groups were surprised by the quick results they got through the reports they had sent to AHRC. There were higher levels of intervention into police stations where torture was taking place. As a result, in some cases the torture was stopped while in progress, while in others inquiries against the perpetrators were started. Though the inquiries were very much wanting in quality and commitment, the fact that some action was taken on cases affecting very poor persons created a greater confidence among the local groups. They began to be involved more deeply, and were convinced that it was possible to reduce the risk level both to themselves and the victims. Thus a larger number of cases were reported.
Maximum attention to the reported incidents was obtained through constant press releases, statements and letters to the government, National Human Rights Commission and United Nations agencies from the AHRC office. Locally, several events were organised�Xincluding a demonstration by torture victims themselves. This event caught the imagination of the media to a surprising extent. Both the print and electronic media in Sri Lanka began to publish reports of torture regularly. Thus, instead of a culture of silence, a nationwide discussion on torture began to emerge.
At this point it was necessary to demonstrate the limitations of existing state mechanisms designed to prevent human rights violations, including torture. An extensive campaign was started to critique the lack of a proper investigative mechanism to deal with torture complaints. This criticism was mainly directed towards the country’s prosecution system, under the Attorney General’s Department. AHRC asked why the Attorney General’s Department had not effectively implemented the Convention against Torture (CAT) Act (Act No. 22 of 1994). Although this law was in the statute book, it was not being used at all. To educate people about this campaign, advertisements were put in newspapers describing the CAT Act and demanding that it be implemented. The local activists were also encouraged to learn about the Act and get involved in the campaign.
Criticism was concentrated on the major obstacle to implementation, namely the lack of a proper investigative body. Publication of every torture story was accompanied by a demand for the creation of such a body. After much work, the Attorney General’s Department announced the creation of the Prosecution of Torture Perpetrators Unit. This unit consisted of a number of competent police officers with good records. However, even after the unit was established its work was slow. Pressure had to be kept up to prevent this and similar actions from being mere gestures, and to make them part of a real solution. The Special Rapporteur against torture intervened in cases about which he had received information, and this had a considerable effect on the unit. It has claimed to have filed about fifty cases under the CAT Act, though none of them has to date been concluded. However, the very filing of cases in the courts has created a positive impression on the victims, activists and society in general. Now there is a greater belief that torture is an evil that can be defeated. This psychological change is very important in achieving nationwide consensus on the problem. In fact, the growing confidence of many local persons that this is a solvable problem is the most important achievement of the campaign so far. Now the media attention is constant. Even when local groups organised a public hearing for child torture victims it received a surprising amount of publicity.
The work done by local groups has also exposed some very serious problems in the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) in dealing with torture. Extensive information now available indicates that the NHRC has in the past been grossly negligent in dealing with torture. In one shocking case, an area coordinator was found to have a habit of passing complaints made by torture victims to the police perpetrators, thereby endangering the victims’ lives. He was also issuing false reports to protect the perpetrators. Closer examination revealed that the NHRC Investigation Department and other authorities had ignored similar widespread practices for some time. The growing criticism against these practices is now forcing the NHRC to undertake reforms to deal with torture more effectively. Recently the NHRC declared a `zero tolerance of torture’ policy. Local groups have even held demonstrations before the NHRC head office, and engaged in postcard campaigns demanding speedy reforms in this institution. AHRC identified the following defects in the NHRC’s approach to torture cases:
- Advising complainant torture victims to pursue cases in the courts by themselves. As expressed by a senior lawyer, J C Weliamuna, “It takes months and sometimes years before a human rights case has been taken up by the Commission for action. The case being so, the Commission very often informs the victims to take his or her case before the Supreme Court, which put the poor victims in a tight corner against the perpetrators.”
- Lack of investigation into cases where the victim has died in police custody allegedly as a result of torture.
- Not taking action on cases and not explaining the reasons for not taking action.
- Calling for further particulars and then abandoning the inquiry. No follow up on requests for further information and no further action being taken.
- Conducting investigations at police stations. A victim complaining of torture is asked to come back to the same place where he or she has been tortured for further inquiries.
- Intimating to the perpetrators that a complaint has been made against them, and giving the particulars of the victim. This is done without providing any form of witness protection to the victim.
- Conducting inquiries in a manner that forces victims to agree to a settlement. Victims who are already fearful because of the torture suffered are pressured to talk and come to a settlement with the actual perpetrators.
- Stopping of investigations due to interventions on behalf of an alleged perpetrator by affluent or powerful persons.
- Settlement of torture cases by NHRC officers for payment of sums as small as 1000 rupees (US).
- Arriving at settlements on torture cases while the NHRC officers know that there is no way to ensure a payment of sums agreed during such settlements. There is no legal provision through which the NHRC can impose such settlements.
- Settlements are used to justify the withdrawal of complaints. In the complaint file the record shows that the complainant agrees to withdraw the complaint because of a settlement. In some cases where such settlements have been entered, the Prosecution of Torture Perpetrators Unit has conducted further inquiries and filed cases under the CAT Act. However, this has been due to separate complaints made to the Special Rapporteur against torture and others. As far as the NHRC is concerned, these cases are settled. In some instances, NHRC officers have protested against the Prosecution of Torture Perpetrators Unit prosecuting cases that they have settled.
- Losing files on complaints of torture. In some cases, files are reported has having been sent to the head office but never received and therefore are considered missing. Sometimes an area coordinator fails to comply with an order to send documents to the head office.
- Open socialising with alleged police perpetrators and high-ranking police officers, thus creating distrust among the victims and deterring them from making complaints.
- Instances where a police officer has been illegally holding and torturing a person with the knowledge of the NHRC area coordinator. In one case, a human rights activist who called a police station to find out about a victim was mistaken by the police officer for the NHRC area coordinator. The police officer described the way in which he tortured the victim to the activist, believing him to be the area coordinator.
- Instances where an NHRC area coordinator has provided a place for torture to be committed. When one victim sought the assistance of a local organisation working on torture, an activist offered to accompany the victim to the NHRC area office to make a complaint. The victim fearfully rejected the offer, stating that the police had assaulted him inside the vehicle of the NHRC area coordinator.
- Extensive work being done to protect perpetrators through false reports. These include false statements to support the perpetrator’s version of events, and even attempts to get medical reports falsified to favour the perpetrator.
- Forwarding of information received from victims to the perpetrators, and even passing documents received from the victims to the perpetrators.
- Mismanagement of inquiries into allegations against area coordinators such that no conclusion can be arrived at, thereby preventing further action.
- Lack of a proper preliminary inquiring procedure. No procedure exists to take down complaints and gather all available evidence in the first instance. Further, no procedure exists for the examination of documents at police stations and the preparing of reliable dossiers on which further action can be reliably taken.
- Despite numerous `investigations’, to date the lack of a single action that can in any way be called a serious attempt to address an act of torture by a perpetrator as a consequence of an NHRC investigation.
Forcing discussion to get changes in this approach is part of the work undertaken by AHRC’s partners in Sri Lanka.
Another body expected to deal with torture is the National Police Commission (NPC). It has also been brought under public scrutiny and demands have been made for its effective involvement on this issue. AHRC volunteered to prepare a draft Public Complaint Procedure for the NPC. The NPC accepted, and the draft has already been submitted (see Appendix I). Local groups will now campaign for the speedy implementation of this procedure.
There is now a national campaign going on, and many local activists who are very closely linked to the victims willing to give their time and effort for this work. One area where they have to develop more skills is in witness protection and in dealing with the psychological aspects of torture. To date, several victims who have faced harassment after complaining have been removed to places of safety and looked after by solidarity groups. Most of this work is purely voluntary. However, one of the most difficult areas is in getting treatment for trauma. The poor do not generally receive psychological treatment, and it is considered part of their lot to live with psychological problems. Some are even sent to lunatic asylums. It has proven difficult to increase local sensitivities on this issue, and so AHRC and its local partners intend to redouble their efforts in this area in the near future.
Finally, AHRC is now exposing persons from other countries to what is happening in Sri Lanka. In November 2003 a `Folk School’ session lasting for ten days brought victims, local activists and regional human rights groups together to share their experiences. Persons from ten Asian countries participated, and all of them were moved by the experience and expressed wishes to start similar work in their own countries.
