Home / News / Urgent Appeals / SRI LANKA: Innocent man and his family members were tortured by police officers at the behest of a third party

SRI LANKA: Innocent man and his family members were tortured by police officers at the behest of a third party

June 22, 2011

ASIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION-URGENT APPEAL PROGRAMME

Urgent Appeal Case: AHRC-UAC-116-2011



22 June 2011
------------------------------------------------------
SRI LANKA: Innocent man and his family members were tortured by police officers at the behest of a third party

ISSUES: denial of justice; torture; impunity; rule of law
------------------------------------------------------

Dear friends,

Mr. George Jayakody (55) of No: 24, Kundalagama, Kundasale, Kandy is a businessman. In 2008 he wanted to sell his land he came to an agreement in the presence of a lawyer. The second party who happened to be the relative of a police officer reneged on the contract and instead of abiding by the law used the power of police. He assaulted the Jayakody's family and caused damage to his house. Jayakody complained to the Manikhinna Police, the ASP, SP and the DIG of the region but none of these authorities have initiated an efficient inquiry. Justice has been denied to Jayakody and his family and this is yet another illustration of the exceptional collapse of the rule of law in Sri Lanka.

CASE NARRATIVE:

According to the information received by the Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) Mr. George Jayakody (55) of No: 24, Kundalagama, Kundasale, Kandy is married and the father of two sons. Mr. Jayakody decided to sell his house and move to Kandy and accordingly advertised that his house was for sale.

On 23 September 2008 Ms. Chandra Kumari Madawala from Galaha came to meet Mr. Jayakody and expressed her interest to buy the house. Then both parties came to an agreement on the purchase of the property. In accordance with the agreement Ms. Chandra paid an advance of Rs. 50,000/= to reserve the house which was valued to be worth Rs. 1.5 Million and promised to pay the balance by the end of the year. However, she failed to fulfill her obligation in accordance with the agreement and requested for a further six months to settle the agreement.

However in June 2009 she informed Mr. Jayakody of her inability to pay the balance and requested that the deposit she had paid earlier be returned. This was strictly in variance with the terms and conditions of the contract. Mr. Jayakody replied that he wanted her to come to the lawyer's office (who wrote the agreement) to have a conversation on the legal issues and settled the matter. Meanwhile Ms. Chadra contacted the officers of the Manikhinna Police Station where her Brother-in-Law was stationed and tried to obtain their assistance to get her deposit back from Mr. Jayakody.

As a result, the Officer-in-Charge (OIC) of the Manikhinna Police Station called Mr. Jayakody and threatened him to return the money immediately. In response Mr. Jayakody explained the terms and conditions of the legal agreement to the OIC.

However, ignoring the legal ramifications of the contract the OIC called Mt. Jayakoday to the police station in September 2009 along with Ms. Chandra and once again threatened him to hand over the money before the 31 December 2009.

Despite being fully correct under the terms of the contract Mr. Jayakoday consulted his lawyer and asked him to inform Ms. Chandra that he would repay the deposit in three installments. This was informed to Ms. Chandra in a letter dated 14 December 2009.

In the meantime the OIC continued to threaten Mr. Jayakoday. On the 31 December 2009 at around 4 pm Chandra came in a van with her Brother-in-Law, police officers from the Manikhinna Police Station, his brother who is an Air Force officer, some family members and about eight unidentified persons believed to be notorious criminals. This gang assaulted Mr. Jayakoday, his wife and their two sons severely with boots & poles and damaged the furniture of the house. They broke the windows and severely damaged the property. The police from the same station arrived at the scene in answer to a call from Mr. Jayakody but, not surprisingly, they did not take any action to initiate an investigation or arrest any suspect.

Mr. Jayakoday's wife was severely injured and three of her fingers were fractured and her spine was injured during the assault. The son Madushan was also severely beaten and was warded at the Kandy Teaching Hospital for 2 days from the 31 December 2009 to 2 January 2010. As Mr. Jayakoday's wife, Pearly, was not able get urgent surgery at the Kandy Teaching Hospital she was transferred to the Peradeniya Teaching Hospital. She eventually underwent an operation for her injuries.

Mr. Jaykody states that as a police officer, the Brother-in-Law of Ms. Chandra assaulting him and his family members in his official capacity this constitutes the crime of torture under the CAT Act, Act No: 22 of 1994.

Although Mr. Jayakody made complaints to the Police Station of Manikhinna no action was taken by the police until February 2010. At that time Mr. Jayakoday complained to the Assistant Superintendent of Police (ASP) and the Superintendent of Police (SP) of the Kandy Police Station. Several weeks later he learned that when the senior police officers inquired of the Manikhinna Police on their inaction and disrespect of the law and the Departmental Orders their reply was that the matter was settled.

Then Mr. Jayakody complained to the Deputy Inspector General of Police (DIG) on 3 February 2010 regarding the incident during a 'Dayata Kirula Exhibition' (where a mobile reporting police service was offered). As a result the police officers filed a case in the Magistrate's Court of Panvila. But Mr. Jayakody leaned that even in the court the OIC of the Manikhinna Police had not properly reported the incident and details of the crimes committed by the perpetrators including his own officers. Mr. Jayakody states that the report of the OIC was intended to mislead the court and bring his complaints to an end by the use of judicial process.

Mr. Jayakody and his family feel that the OIC of the Manikhinna Police Station and other police officers acted contrary to the law by violating their fundamental rights. Further these police officers used their public office and official capacities to fulfill the whims and fancies of a private party (Ms. Chandra). Furthermore, Chandra's Brother-in-law used his official powers to suppress the legal proceedings and assault innocent civilians living in his division.

Further, Mr. Jayakody states that the OIC of the Manikhinna Police and the senior police officers ignored their official responsibilities in failing to provide legal redress to a victim of a crime. Instead they worked to protect the wrong doers provided them with impunity. Therefore Mr. Jayakody calls for an independent inquiry into the matter.

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:
The Asian Human Rights Commission has reported innumerable cases of crimes, malpractices of police officers including torturing innocent by the Sri Lankan police which are illegal under international and local law which have taken place at different Police Station in the country over the past few years.

The State of Sri Lanka sign and ratified the CAT on 3 January 1994. Following state obligations Sri Lanka adopted Act number 22 of 1994 the law adopted by the Sri Lankan parliament making torture a crime that can be punishable for minimum seven years and not less than ten years on being proven guilty. The Attorney General of Sri Lanka is suppose to file indictments in the case where credible evidence were found on torturing people by state officers.

SUGGESTED ACTION:
Please send a letter to the authorities listed below expressing your concern about this case and requesting an immediate investigation into the allegations of working in contrary to the law by the public officers and torturing by the police perpetrator, and the prosecution of those proven to be responsible under the criminal law of the country for misusing powers of a state. The officers involved must also be subjected to internal investigations for the breach of the department orders as issued by the police department. Further, please also request the NPC and the IGP to have a special investigation into the malpractices of the police officers for abusing the state officers' powers.

Please note that the AHRC has also written a separate letter to the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment on this regard.

To support this appeal please click here:

SAMPLE LETTER:

Dear ________,

SRI LANKA: Innocent man and his family members were tortured by police officers at the behest of a third party

Name of the victim: Mr. George Jayakody (55) of No: 24, Kundalagama, Kundasale, Kandy
Alleged perpetrator: The OIC and the several officers attached to the Police Station of Manikhinna

Date of incident: 31 December 2009
Place of incident: Manikhinna Police Station

I am writing to express my serious concern over the case of Mr. George Jayakody (55) of No: 24, Kundalagama, Kundasale, Kandy is married and the father of two sons. Mr. Jayakody decided to sell his house and move to Kandy and accordingly advertised that his house was for sale.

On 23 September 2008 Ms. Chandra Kumari Madawala from Galaha came to meet Mr. Jayakody and expressed her interest to buy the house. Then both parties came to an agreement on the purchase of the property. In accordance with the agreement Ms. Chandra paid an advance of Rs. 50,000/= to reserve the house which was valued to be worth Rs. 1.5 Million and promised to pay the balance by the end of the year. However, she failed to fulfill her obligation in accordance with the agreement and requested for a further six months to settle the agreement.

However in June 2009 she informed Mr. Jayakody of her inability to pay the balance and requested that the deposit she had paid earlier be returned. This was strictly in variance with the terms and conditions of the contract. Mr. Jayakody replied that he wanted her to come to the lawyer's office (who wrote the agreement) to have a conversation on the legal issues and settled the matter. Meanwhile Ms. Chadra contacted the officers of the Manikhinna Police Station where her Brother-in-Law was stationed and tried to obtain their assistance to get her deposit back from Mr. Jayakody.

As a result, the Officer-in-Charge (OIC) of the Manikhinna Police Station called Mr. Jayakody and threatened him to return the money immediately. In response Mr. Jayakody explained the terms and conditions of the legal agreement to the OIC.

However, ignoring the legal ramifications of the contract the OIC called Mt. Jayakoday to the police station in September 2009 along with Ms. Chandra and once again threatened him to hand over the money before the 31 December 2009.

Despite being fully correct under the terms of the contract Mr. Jayakoday consulted his lawyer and asked him to inform Ms. Chandra that he would repay the deposit in three installments. This was informed to Ms. Chandra in a letter dated 14 December 2009.

In the meantime the OIC continued to threaten Mr. Jayakoday. On the 31 December 2009 at around 4 pm Chandra came in a van with her Brother-in-Law, police officers from the Manikhinna Police Station, his brother who is an Air Force officer, some family members and about eight unidentified persons believed to be notorious criminals. This gang assaulted Mr. Jayakoday, his wife and their two sons severely with boots & poles and damaged the furniture of the house. They broke the windows and severely damaged the property. The police from the same station arrived at the scene in answer to a call from Mr. Jayakody but, not surprisingly, they did not take any action to initiate an investigation or arrest any suspect.

Mr. Jayakoday's wife was severely injured and three of her fingers were fractured and her spine was injured during the assault. The son Madushan was also severely beaten and was warded at the Kandy Teaching Hospital for 2 days from the 31 December 2009 to 2 January 2010. As Mr. Jayakoday's wife, Pearly, was not able get urgent surgery at the Kandy Teaching Hospital she was transferred to the Peradeniya Teaching Hospital. She eventually underwent an operation for her injuries.

Mr. Jaykody states that as a police officer, the Brother-in-Law of Ms. Chandra assaulting him and his family members in his official capacity this constitutes the crime of torture under the CAT Act, Act No: 22 of 1994.

Although Mr. Jayakody made complaints to the Police Station of Manikhinna no action was taken by the police until February 2010. At that time Mr. Jayakoday complained to the Assistant Superintendent of Police (ASP) and the Superintendent of Police (SP) of the Kandy Police Station. Several weeks later he learned that when the senior police officers inquired of the Manikhinna Police on their inaction and disrespect of the law and the Departmental Orders their reply was that the matter was settled.

Then Mr. Jayakody complained to the Deputy Inspector General of Police (DIG) on 3 February 2010 regarding the incident during a 'Dayata Kirula Exhibition' (where a mobile reporting police service was offered). As a result the police officers filed a case in the Magistrate's Court of Panvila. But Mr. Jayakody leaned that even in the court the OIC of the Manikhinna Police had not properly reported the incident and details of the crimes committed by the perpetrators including his own officers. Mr. Jayakody states that the report of the OIC was intended to mislead the court and bring his complaints to an end by the use of judicial process.

Mr. Jayakody and his family feel that the OIC of the Manikhinna Police Station and other police officers acted contrary to the law by violating their fundamental rights. Further these police officers used their public office and official capacities to fulfill the whims and fancies of a private party (Ms. Chandra). Furthermore, Chandra's Brother-in-law used his official powers to suppress the legal proceedings and assault innocent civilians living in his division.

Further, Mr. Jayakody states that the OIC of the Manikhinna Police and the senior police officers ignored their official responsibilities in failing to provide legal redress to a victim of a crime. Instead they worked to protect the wrong doers provided them with impunity. Therefore Mr. Jayakody calls for an independent inquiry into the matter.

I request your urgent intervention to ensure that the authorities listed below instigate an immediate investigation into the allegations of torture by the police perpetrators, and the prosecution of those proven to be responsible under the criminal law of the country for misusing powers of state officers. The officers involved must also be subjected to internal investigations for the breach of the department orders as issued by the police department.

Yours sincerely,

---------------------
PLEASE SEND YOUR LETTERS TO:

1. Mr. N.K. Illangakoon
Acting 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
Sri Lanka Human Rights Commission
No. 108
Barnes Place
Colombo 07
SRI LANKA
Tel: +9411 2694925, +9411 2685980, +9411 2685981
Fax: +9411 2694924 (General) +94112696470 (Chairman)
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-116-2011
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.