Home / News / Urgent Appeals / SRI LANKA: Anamaduwa Police illegally arrested, detained and tortured a school-boy and filed fabricated criminal charges

SRI LANKA: Anamaduwa Police illegally arrested, detained and tortured a school-boy and filed fabricated criminal charges

September 1, 2010

ASIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION-URGENT APPEAL PROGRAMME

Urgent Appeal Case: AHRC-UAC-125-2010

 

1 September 2010

------------------------------------------------------
SRI LANKA: Anamaduwa Police illegally arrested, detained and tortured a school-boy and filed fabricated criminal charges

ISSUES: Illegal arrest; arbitrary detention; torture; fabricated charges; impunity; rule of law
------------------------------------------------------

Dear friends,

The Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) has received information that a 17 year old school going child was illegally arrested by the police officers attached to the Anamaduwa Police Station, arbitrarily detained and tortured. Later, the police produced the child before the Magistrate of Puttalam with fabricated charges and remanded. When he was in Negombo remand prison a Prison officer also tortured the child.

CASE NARRATIVE:

According to Koronchilage Anandalal Aruna Rohana of No.41, Sangattikulama, Anamaduwa, the father of Koronchilage Sujith Aruna Shantha, (17), Sujith is a student of Sangattikulama Junior School. Having passed the Ordinary Level Examination he was preparing to sit for the Advance Level Examinations. On 4 June 2010, during the school interval, Sujith had a confrontation with a 10th grade student by the name of Tharidu during which blows were exchanged. Tharidu suffered a scratch on his face and Sujith reported the incident to the principal. The principal had send Sujith home which he reached at about 12.30 in the afternoon. Tharidu's father, Stanley Joseph is a well known businessman in the area.

On the same day at about 3pm, six persons in civilian clothes arrived at Sujith's house saying that they were from the Anamaduwa Police Station. Two of them went to Sujith's room, two others guarded the front door and the remaining two the rear door. The two persons, who went into Sujith's room, brought him out of the house holding him by the neck and put him into a brown coloured vehicle that had been parked near the house. Inside the vehicle there was a uniformed police officer (33619). At that moment four of Stanley Joseph's employees turned up on two motor cycles, and they followed the police vehicle.

On the way to the police station, a constable named Chandratilaka, pushed Sujith to the floor of the vehicle and assaulted him violently. He told Sujith, "I am going to put an end to your thuggery". At the police station Chandratilaka, dragged Sujith, holding him by the neck, and threw him to the floor near the entry sergeant. While taking down the entry, Chandratilaka repeatedly assaulted Sujith.

At about 4.30pm Sujith's father went to the police station to visit Sujith. There he had seen Sujith on the floor while Chandratilake was slapping and assaulting him about the head. Sujith's father demanded to know why Chandratilaka was assaulting his son. Then Chandratilaka had told the father to return to the Police station on the following day.

Thereafter Sujith's father had left the police station following which another police officer named Ratnayake had taken a steel belt from a cupboard and started beating Sujith on the back.

At about 6pm Sujith's father returned to the police station to visit Sujith with a dinner parcel. There he had seen his son inside a police cell.

On that particular night Sujith's father had telephoned the Principal of the school, Mr. Piyasena and had inquired about the incident. The principal had told him that there had been an exchange of blows between Tharidu and Sujith. Also he had told him that he sent Sujith home and Tharidu to the hospital. There the doctors had examined Tharidu and then sent him back to the school where he remained until going home in the afternoon. Tharidu's grandmother had taken him to the Anamaduwa hospital. On 5 June, at 6pm, Sujith's father had gone to the hospital and had seen Tharidu. There he had spoken to Tharidu and had inquired about his condition. Tharidu had told him that he was all right and there was nothing serious.

As Sujith's father was leaving the hospital he met Tharidu's parents. He asked Stanley what action he was going to take regarding the incident. Stanley replied, "We will see to that at the Police Station". Then Tharidu's mother said quite openly, "We got the Police to punch your son properly".

On the same day Sujith's father had inquired from the police as to what they were planning to do. They replied that they would produce Sujith at the Magistrate's Courts at 12.00 noon that day. At 12.30pm Sujith was produced before the acting Magistrate of Puttalam with fabricated charges of assault. There he was remanded and send to the remand prison of Puttalam. Later, Sujith's father had visited Sujith at the Puttalam prison and had given him food and clothes.

On 6 June 2010, when Sujith's father returned to Puttalam Prison, he was told that Sujith had been transferred to the Negombo Prison. He returned to the Anamaduwa Police Station, where he was told that Sujith would be released on bail on 10 June.

While Sujith was detained in Negombo Remand Prison, an officer had assaulted Sujith. He told Sujith, "I heard you are a thug in your village. Pradeep of your village told me that you are a thug in your village and told me to treat you with some punches". Pradeep is a supporter of Stanley. Prison Officers had allocated 2813 as his number and sent him to the YO (Young Offender) ward. In the night Sujith had difficulty in breathing and other inmates had applied "Siddalepaya" (herbal ointment) on his chest. On 7 June in the morning, Sujith had gone to the morning parade with help of the other inmates.

Anamaduwa Police has filled a fabricated false charge against Sujith under case No: B.R 205/10 and produced him at the Magistrate' Court of Anamaduwa, where he was released on a personal bail of Rs.10, 000.00. The case will be taken up again on 14 October 2010.

On returning home Sujith felt sick again and was taken to Anamaduwa Hospital at about 5.30 in the evening. After examine Sujith, the Doctors had transferred him to Kurunagala General Hospital at 8pm. in an ambulance where he was warded in ward no 23, bed no.19. He was discharged after four days, on the 14 June.

The victim has complained to the Sri Lanka Human Rights Commission (HRCSL) and has made written complaints to Inspector General of Police (IGP), the National Police Commission (NPC), the OIC Police Station of Anamaduwa, the Attorney General (AG), and National Child Protection Authority (NCPA).

According to the victim the perpetrators, police officer No.33619, Police Constable Chandratilake and Ratnayake are attached to the police station of Anamaduwa and are still serving in the same police station. The victim and his family fear for their lives and seek protection as they seek justice against the perpetrators.

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:

The Asian Human Rights Commission has reported innumerable cases of arbitrarily arrest and detentions 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.

Constitution of Sri Lanka has guaranteed the right freedom from torture. According to the Article 11 of the constitution No person shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Article 12 (1) of the Constitution of Sri Lanka has guaranteed the right to equality for all persons as stated that 'all persons are equal before the law and are entitled to the equal protection of the law'. Further Article 13 (1) has stated that 'No person shall be arrested except according to procedure established by law. Any person arrested shall be informed of the reason for his arrest'.

Furthermore, Sri Lanka has signed and ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). Nevertheless the lack of protection offered to those who are willing to take cases against abusive police officers and the state authorities, means that the law is under-used continues to be employed as a tool by the police to harass people. This not only takes a long-term toll on the victim and his or her family, but on society as a whole, by undermining of civilian respect for the law and encouraging impunity.

The Supreme Court of Sri Lanka
The Supreme Court of Sri Lanka in the case of Kumarasena v. Sub Inspector Shriyantha & Others [SC Application No. 257/93 SC Minutes of 23.05.94] when the police was accused of torturing a young girl, it was clearly stated that:

"The Court in no doubt that the petitioner's case fell on the side of transgression. The petitioner was a young girl who had been arrested without reasonable grounds and detained for about six hours at a police station. During that time, several police officers, accepting the invitation of the officer making the arrest to play with the "toy" he had fetched, touched her body, squeezed her breasts, pinched her buttocks, addressed her as "love bird", questioned her as to whether she wore underwear and invited her to come out with one of them. The Court held that the petitioner had been subjected to degrading treatment."

Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT)
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.

International Convention on Right of the Child (ICRC)
The State of Sri Lanka signed the International Convention on Rights of the Child (ICRC) on 26 Jan 1990 and ratified it on 12 Jul 1991. Further Sri Lanka amended its criminal law of the country several times to complete its pledges to the ICRC committee. The State of Sri Lanka is obliged to the UN to protect and guarantee the rights of the child to all Sri Lankan children.

National Child Protection Authority (NCPA)
The State of Sri Lanka established a NCPA that has special powers to investigate the incidents of child abuse other than department of Police. This institution having a mandate on its own intervention to make any such investigation to child related cases.

According to the National Child Protection Authority Act No. 50 of 1998 the NCPA was established. The major purpose of the NCPA was formulating a national policy on the prevention of child abuse and the protection and treatment of children who are victims of such abuse; for the co-ordination and monitoring of action against all forms of child abuse; and for matters connected therewith or incidental there to.

Further in December 1996 the President of Sri Lanka has appointed a task force on child protection as well.

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 illegal arrest, arbitrary detention, torturing the boy and filling fabricated charges and restrict the right to movement by the police perpetrators, and the prosecution of those proven to be responsible under the criminal law of the country for misusing powers of a state officers and for mis-prosecution. 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 illegally in favor of private parties.

Please also request the Prison authorities of Sri Lanka to have a disciplinary action against the officers involved in torturing the child.

Please note that the Asian Human Rights Commission has already written separate letters to the Special Rapporteur on the Question of Torture of United Nations on this regard.

To support this appeal please click here:

SAMPLE LETTER:

Dear ________,

SRI LANKA: Anamaduwa police illegally arrest, detain and tortured school boy and filed fabricated criminal charges

Name of the Victim: Koronchilage Sujith Aruna Shantha (17) of No.41, Sangattikulama, Anamaduwa.

Names of the alleged perpetrators:
1. Police officer No.33619
2. Police Constable Chandratilake
3. Police Constable Ratnayake 

All are attached to the Anamaduwa police station at the time of the incident

4. Officers of the Negombo Remand Prison

Date of incident: 4 June 2010
Places of incident: Anamaduwa Police Division in Puttalama district in North Western Province and Negombo Remand Prison in the Western Province

I am writing to voice my concern regarding the arbitrary arrest, detention, torture and filling of fabricated charges against a 17 year school going child by the officers attached to the police station of Anamaduwa due to the influence of a private party.

According to the information that I have received, Sujith Aruna Shantha, is a student of Sangattikulama Junior School and is currently preparing for his Advance Level Examinations. On 4 June 2010, Sujith had a confrontation with a 10th year student by the name of Tharidu during which blows were exchanged. Later the principal had send Sujith home which he reached at about 12.30 in the afternoon. Tharidu's father, Stanley Joseph is a well known businessman in the area.

On the same day at about 3pm, Sujith was arrested from his home by plain clothed officers of the Anamaduwa Police Station. He was assaulted on the way to the station and again at the station itself. During the arrest and transfer to the station employees of Stanley Joseph were seen in attendance.

At about 4.30 pm Sujith's father went to the police station to visit Sujith. There he had seen Sujith on the floor while a police officer, Chandratilake was slapping and assaulting him about the head. Sujith's father demanded to know why Chandratilaka was assaulting his son. Then Chandratilaka had told the father to return to the Police station on the following day.

Thereafter Sujith's father had left the police station following which another police officer named Ratnayake had taken a steel belt from a cupboard and started beating Sujith on the back.

Sujith's father later met with Tharidu's parents who told him that, "We got the Police to punch your son properly".

Sujith was produced before the acting Magistrate of Puttalam. There he was remanded and send to the remand prison of Puttalam. Later, Sujith's father had visited Sujith at the Puttalam prison and had given him food and clothes.

On 6 June, when Sujith's father returned to Puttalam Prison, he was told that Sujith had been transferred to the Negombo Prison. He returned to the Anamaduwa Police Station, where he was told that Sujith would be released on bail on 10 June.

While Sujith was detained in Negombo Remand Prison, an officer had assaulted Sujith. He told Sujith, "I heard you are a thug in your village. Pradeep of your village told me that you are a thug in your village and told me to treat you with some punches". Pradeep is a supporter of Stanley. Prison Officers had allocated 2813 as his number and sent him to the YO (Young Offender) ward. In the night Sujith had difficulty in breathing and other inmates had applied "Siddalepaya" (herbal ointment) on his chest. On 7 June in the morning, Sujith had gone to the morning parade with help of the other inmates.

The Anamaduwa Police has filled a fabricated false charge against Sujith under case No: B.R 205/10 and produced him at the Magistrate' Court of Anamaduwa, where he was released on a personal bail of Rs.10, 000.00. The case will be taken up again on 14 October 2010.

On returning home ujith felt sick again and was taken to Anamaduwa Hospital at about 5.30 in the evening. After examine Sujith, the Doctors had transferred him to Kurunagala General Hospital at 8pm. in an ambulance where he was warded in ward no 23, bed no.19. He was discharged after four days, on 14 June.

The victim has complained to the Sri Lanka Human Rights Commission (HRCSL) and has made written complaints to Inspector General of Police (IGP), the National Police Commission (NPC), the OIC Police Station of Anamaduwa, the Attorney General (AG), and National Child Protection Authority (NCPA).

According to the victim the perpetrators, police officer No.33619, Police Constable Chandratilake and Ratnayake are attached to the police station of Anamaduwa and are still serving in the same police station. The victim and his family fear for their lives and seek protection as they seek justice against the perpetrators.

I further request your urgent intervention to ensure that the authorities listed below instigate an immediate investigation into the allegations of illegal arrest, detention, torture the child and filling fabricated charges by the police perpetrators, and the prosecution of those proven to be responsible under the criminal law of the country for misusing powers of a state officers and for wrongful prosecution. The officers involved must also be subjected to internal investigations for the breach of the department orders as issued by the police department. We also request the NPC and the IGP for having special investigation into malpractices of the police officers for abusing the state officers' powers illegally in favor of private parties.

I further request the prison authorities of Sri Lanka to have a disciplinary action against the officers involved in torturing the child.

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-125-2010
Countries :
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.