Home / News / Urgent Appeals / SRI LANKA: An injured cyclist’s complaint is refused and mishandled after he is knocked down by police officers
 

SRI LANKA: An injured cyclist’s complaint is refused and mishandled after he is knocked down by police officers

June 29, 2010

ASIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION – URGENT APPEALS PROGRAMME

Urgent Appeal Case: AHRC-UAC-094-2010



29 June 2010
------------------------------------------------------
SRI LANKA: An injured cyclist’s complaint is refused and mishandled after he is knocked down by police officers

ISSUES: Police negligence; impunity
------------------------------------------------------

Dear friends,

The Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) has learned that an investigation has not been conducted into the knocking over of a cyclist by police in a vehicle in November. The man was badly injured and lost five teeth in the accident. The incident so far has been mishandled and improperly recorded by all police personnel concerned, leading to fears that an impartial investigation will not take place. Police accountability in the country remains extremely low, as does public confidence in its competence.

CASE NARRATIVE:

According to information received from Balasuriyage Premasiri, a 47-year-old farmer, he was cycling home from a friend’s house on 11 November 2009 at about 7pm when he was knocked down by officers in a three-wheeler vehicle as they tried to ask him for directions. The three-wheeler stopped and the officers briefly alighted, but Premasiri reports that he was unable to speak and the men drove off without offering help. He identified Sub Inspector Thilina of Kataragama Police Station, along with a Constable Sanjeewa and one more officer.

Premasiri’s bicycle was damaged and dented. After being helped by a friend called Champka and his neighbour, Thilina, the victim was taken to Kataragama hospital with his wife shortly after 8pm. On examination he was told that four teeth had been knocked out and that another damaged tooth would need to be removed; he was warded for treatment. On 12 November he reports that he was visited by two officers from the Kataragama police traffic section at around 11am who listened to his report but didn’t record it. On 14 November Premasiri discharged himself from hospital.

He went to Kataragama station to file a complaint on 19 November at around 3pm and asked to speak with Sub Inspector Thilina. An officer, Constable Anthony, reportedly refused to help him and used abusive language, accusing him of having crashed his bicycle while drunk. He reports that he was literally chased out of the station.

When Premasiri returned on 1 December 2009 to try once more, a constable reluctantly recorded the complaint. However he then asked Premasiri to sign it after refusing to read the content to him. He signed the document.

We are told that no apparent investigation has been launched since then and the victim has not been contacted by police or any other authority, though he has lodged a complaint with the Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka and other written complaints were sent to the Inspector General of Police, Assistant Superintendent of Police of the Southern Province, the Senior Superintendent of Police in Hambanthota and the Officer in charge of Katharagama Police Station on 29 April 2010.

Local rights groups are concerned that an efficient investigation will not take place due to the common lack of action taken by police officers in complaints against other police. It should be noted that bullying tactics - many of them illegal - are a common recourse in Sri Lankan police stations, as demonstrated by many AHRC Urgent Appeals, among them recently: A group of officers brutally assault a visitor to Polpithigama police station and A lawyer is ill treated in public by a senior police officer. Please also refer to this month's continuing series of online interviews with women on the prevention of torture across Asia, which deals largely with the relationship between police and civilians.
The difficulties experienced by the victim in filing a complaint must be thoroughly investigated so any officers found to be flouting police procedure are disciplined accordingly. An investigation must also immediately be launched into the accident to allow for the victim - a farmer - to file for compensation.

SUGGESTED ACTION:

Please write to the authorities listed below calling for them to ensure that a thorough, impartial investigation is conducted into this case, and the obstruction of the complaint-making procedure at Kataragama Police Station.

To support this appeal please click here:

------------------------------------------------------

SAMPLE LETTER:

Dear __________,

SRI LANKA: An injured cyclist’s complaint is refused and mishandled after he is knocked down by police officers

Name of victim: Balasuriyage Premasiri, 47, of No.144 Raja Mawatha, Sella Kataragama, Kataragama
Alleged perpetrators: Sub Inspector Thilina, Constable Anthony and Constable Sanjeewa of Kataragama Police Station

Date of incident: 11 November 2009
Place of incident: At the 34th Mile Post in Butthala, Sella Kataragama

I am writing to voice my deep concern regarding the lack of investigation into the knocking over of a cyclist by police in a vehicle in November, despite numerous complaints.

According to information I have received, Balasuriyage Premasiri, a 47-year-old farmer, was cycling home from a friend’s house on 11 November 2009 at about 7pm when he was knocked down by officers in a three-wheeler vehicle as they tried to ask him for directions. The three-wheeler stopped and the officers briefly alighted, but Premasiri reports that he was unable to speak and the men drove off without offering help. He identified Sub Inspector Thilina of Kataragama Police Station, along with a Constable Sanjeewa and one more officer.

Premasiri’s bicycle was damaged and dented. After being helped by a friend called Champka and his neighbour, the victim was taken to Kataragama hospital with his wife shortly after 8pm. On examination he was told that four teeth had been knocked out and that another damaged tooth would need to be removed; he was warded for treatment. On 12 November he reports that he was visited by two officers from the Kataragama police traffic section at around 11am who listened to his report but didn’t record it. On 14 November Premasiri discharged himself from hospital.

He went to Kataragama station to file a complaint on 19 November at around 3pm and asked to speak with Sub Inspector Thilina. An officer, Constable Anthony, reportedly refused to help him and used abusive language, accusing him of having crashed his bicycle while drunk. He reports that he was literally chased out of the station.

When Premasiri returned on 1 December 2009 to try once more, a constable reluctantly recorded the complaint. However he then asked Premasiri to sign it after refusing to read the content to him. He signed the document.

I understand that no apparent investigation has been launched since then, and the victim has not been contacted by police or any other authority although he has lodged a complaint with the Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka. Other written complaints were sent to the Inspector General of Police, Assistant Superintendent of Police of the Southern Province, the Senior Superintendent of Police in Hambanthota and the Officer in charge of Katharagama Police Station on 29 April 2010.

I am concerned that an efficient investigation will not take place due to the common lack of action taken by police officers in complaints against other police. As you are likely aware, bullying tactics - many of them illegal - are a common recourse in Sri Lankan police stations.

The difficulties experienced by the victim in filing his complaint must be thoroughly investigated so any officers found to be flouting police procedure are disciplined accordingly. An investigation must also immediately be launched into the accident to allow for the victim, who is a farmer, to file for compensation.

I look forward to hearing of your action in this case.

Yours sincerely,

----------------

PLEASE SEND YOUR LETTERS TO:

1. Mr. Mahinda Balasuriya
Inspector General of Police
New Secretariat
Colombo 1
SRI LANKA
Fax: +94 11 2 440440 / 327877
E-mail: igp@police.lk

2. Mr. Mohan Peiris
Attorney General
Attorney General's Department
Colombo 12
SRI LANKA
Fax: +94 11 2 436421
E-mail: ag@attorneygeneral.gov.lk

3. Secretary
National Police Commission
3rd Floor, Rotunda Towers
109 Galle Road
Colombo 03
SRI LANKA
Tel: +94 11 2 395310
Fax: +94 11 2 395867
E-mail: npcgen@sltnet.lk or polcom@sltnet.lk

4. Secretary
Human Rights Commission
No. 36, Kynsey Road
Colombo 8
SRI LANKA
Tel: +94 11 2 694 925 / 673 806
Fax: +94 11 2 694 924 / 696 470
E-mail: sechrc@sltnet.lk
--------------------------------

Thank you.

Urgent Appeals Programme
Asian Human Rights Commission (ua@ahrc.asia)

Document Type :
Urgent Appeal Case
Document ID :
AHRC-UAC-094-2010
Countries :
Issues :
Document Actions
Share |
Subscribe to our Mailing List
Follow AHRC
Extended Introduction: Urgent Appeals, theory and practice

A need for dialogue

Many people across Asia are frustrated by the widespread lack of respect for human rights in their countries.  Some may be unhappy about the limitations on the freedom of expression or restrictions on privacy, while some are affected by police brutality and military killings.  Many others are frustrated with the absence of rights on labour issues, the environment, gender and the like. 

Yet the expression of this frustration tends to stay firmly in the private sphere.  People complain among friends and family and within their social circles, but often on a low profile basis. This kind of public discourse is not usually an effective measure of the situation in a country because it is so hard to monitor. 

Though the media may cover the issues in a broad manner they rarely broadcast the private fears and anxieties of the average person.  And along with censorship – a common blight in Asia – there is also often a conscious attempt in the media to reflect a positive or at least sober mood at home, where expressions of domestic malcontent are discouraged as unfashionably unpatriotic. Talking about issues like torture is rarely encouraged in the public realm.

There may also be unwritten, possibly unconscious social taboos that stop the public reflection of private grievances.  Where authoritarian control is tight, sophisticated strategies are put into play by equally sophisticated media practices to keep complaints out of the public space, sometimes very subtly.  In other places an inner consensus is influenced by the privileged section of a society, which can control social expression of those less fortunate.  Moral and ethical qualms can also be an obstacle.

In this way, causes for complaint go unaddressed, un-discussed and unresolved and oppression in its many forms, self perpetuates.  For any action to arise out of private frustration, people need ways to get these issues into the public sphere.

Changing society

In the past bridging this gap was a formidable task; it relied on channels of public expression that required money and were therefore controlled by investors.  Printing presses were expensive, which blocked the gate to expression to anyone without money.  Except in times of revolution the media in Asia has tended to serve the well-off and sideline or misrepresent the poor.

Still, thanks to the IT revolution it is now possible to communicate with large audiences at little cost.  In this situation there is a real avenue for taking issues from private to public, regardless of the class or caste of the individual.

Practical action

The AHRC Urgent Appeals system was created to give a voice to those affected by human rights violations, and by doing so, to create a network of support and open avenues for action.  If X’s freedom of expression is denied, if Y is tortured by someone in power or if Z finds his or her labour rights abused, the incident can be swiftly and effectively broadcast and dealt with. The resulting solidarity can lead to action, resolution and change. And as more people understand their rights and follow suit, as the human rights consciousness grows, change happens faster. The Internet has become one of the human rights community’s most powerful tools.   

At the core of the Urgent Appeals Program is the recording of human rights violations at a grass roots level with objectivity, sympathy and competence. Our information is firstly gathered on the ground, close to the victim of the violation, and is then broadcast by a team of advocates, who can apply decades of experience in the field and a working knowledge of the international human rights arena. The flow of information – due to domestic restrictions – often goes from the source and out to the international community via our program, which then builds a pressure for action that steadily makes its way back to the source through his or her own government.   However these cases in bulk create a narrative – and this is most important aspect of our program. As noted by Sri Lankan human rights lawyer and director of the Asian Human Rights Commission, Basil Fernando:

"The urgent appeal introduces narrative as the driving force for social change. This idea was well expressed in the film Amistad, regarding the issue of slavery. The old man in the film, former president and lawyer, states that to resolve this historical problem it is very essential to know the narrative of the people. It was on this basis that a court case is conducted later. The AHRC establishes the narrative of human rights violations through the urgent appeals. If the narrative is right, the organisation will be doing all right."

Patterns start to emerge as violations are documented across the continent, allowing us to take a more authoritative, systemic response, and to pinpoint the systems within each country that are breaking down. This way we are able to discover and explain why and how violations take place, and how they can most effectively be addressed. On this path, larger audiences have opened up to us and become involved: international NGOs and think tanks, national human rights commissions and United Nations bodies.  The program and its coordinators have become a well-used tool for the international media and for human rights education programs. All this helps pave the way for radical reforms to improve, protect and to promote human rights in the region.