Home / News / Urgent Appeals / SRI LANKA: Policemen have yet to be charged over the custodial death of a man
 

SRI LANKA: Policemen have yet to be charged over the custodial death of a man

November 30, 2008

ASIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION – URGENT APPEALS PROGRAMME

Urgent Appeal Case: AHRC-UAC-257-2008



30 November 2008
------------------------------------------------------
SRI LANKA: Policemen have yet to be charged over the custodial death of a man

ISSUES: Custodial death; administration of justice
------------------------------------------------------

Dear friends,

The Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) writes to inform you that the policemen responsible for the death of a man while in their custody eight months ago have not been charged, despite recommendation by the court in a death inquest that they should be prosecuted.

CASE DETAILS: (Based on the testimony of the victim's wife)

On 30 March 2008, between 6pm to 6:30pm, the victim, Bolonnage Dinusha Udara Bolonna was taken into police custody by Officer-in-Charge (OIC) Gekiyanage of the Bandaragama Police Station. He was at the Bandaragama Veedagama area when the police took him on charges of allegedly harboring a fire arm.

About seven officers, also including one Chandana Liyanage, took Dinusha Udara in a jeep to the Bandaragama police. At about 7pm to 7:30pm that day, Chandana Liyanage telephoned the house where the victim's wife, Pradeepa Priyangani, was staying informing her to come to the police station. When Pradeepa Priyangani reached the police station at about 8pm, she saw her husband sitting on the floor of the police detention cell. His hands were handcuffed behind his back while one of his legs was cuffed by the door of the cell.

Dinusha Udara then told his wife to look for the house of Sampath. She was told that she would be able to find Sampath once she is also able to locate a person name Anusha. The latter's house was near the Panadura new bridge. He said Sampath had a fire arm and that he should bring it and come. He further stated that he would be produced in court the following morning.

Accordingly Pradeepa Priyangani, she and her child were also taken in a police jeep to the Wadduwa Police Station. The Woman Police Officer (WPC), a police assistant who bears officer No. 84777, had accompanied them together with a police driver. In Sri Lanka, an officer could often be immediately identified by the officer number displayed in their uniform. The jeep they were riding parked at the Wadduwa Police Station for about one hour and later a police constable, who was also inside the jeep, received a phone call instructing him to proceed supposedly to get the firearm.

They first went to the Anusha’s house. The latter also accompanied them at about 11pm in going to the Sampath's house but he was not there at the time. Sampath's mother then took them to another place searching for Sampath. The road heading to it was dark. Sampath’s mother went there with his uncle. The location of the said house was not known. At the time, Pradeepa Priyangani stayed near the jeep with her child.

However, when it took the group too long for them to return, officer No. 8477 had asked Pradeepa Priyangani to follow the group to check what the cause of the delay was. However, on her way she decided to return as she could not proceed because the place was too dark. Sampath, however, came with his mother and his uncle. They then proceeded back to Sampath’s house. After arriving, Sampath went inside their house and was seen carrying a lengthy white box as he emerged which he gave to the police.

Then the police asked Sampath also to come with them. They all went back to Anusha’s house. While they were near the temple they opened the box. Inside the box was a weapon wrapped with cloth. Pradeepa Priyanganis says she does not know what it was, however, the WPC had told her that there was a T-56, a Chinese made firearm; and a Gal katas (Molotov cocktail).

Upon seeing what was inside the box, officer no. 8477 contracted some one by the phone apparently informing the person on the next line that they had found a T-56 and a Gal katas inside the box. They then closed the box as they all proceeded back to the Bandaragama Police Station.

At the Bandsaragama Police Station, the police officers took the box inside. It was about 3am the following day, March 31, when Pradeepa Priyangani requested them to allow her to see her husband, but the police told her that it was not possible for her to see him at that time. She was instead told to return at 7am. Pradeepa Priyangani was then sent to her uncle's house.

At around 7am, Pradeepa Priyangani went back to the police station to see her husband. The Reserve officer told her to wait until the OIC arrives. Pradeepa Priyangani, however, noticed that her husband was no longer in the police detention cell. She went to the canteen where she waited until 9am. While she was waiting there, she overheard a group of women talking that a person from the Veedagama area had been killed. She approach them asking if they knew whether the person was a man or a woman. They told her they were unaware since no one was allowed to see the body.

Pradeepa Priyangani was later asked by her uncle who came by a three-wheeler to come with him going back to their home. At home, her uncle told her that he has received information that the policemen have killed someone. Later, one of their neighbors came to inform them that the person the policemen have killed was Dinusha Udara.

At 10:30am to 11am of the same day, Pradeepa Priyangani went back to the Bandaragama Police Station requesting them to register a complaint about what she has learned but she was refused. An officer told her that if her husband had done wrong there was no necessity to lodge a complaint. However Pradeepa Priyangani insisted for several times yet the officer did not take her complaint down.

When a crew from a national television channel came to the police station, they too were refused from seeing the dead body of the person. When the relatives of Dinusha Udara return to the police station, they were told to proceed to the Bandaragama Hospital to identify the dead body. They, however, were not allowed to see the body until the Magistrate came at about 2:30pm to 3:30pm. It was only that time that Pradeepa Priyangani and her relatives was able to confirm that the dead body at the Mortuary, whose hands still have hand cuffs on, was her husband.

The Magistrate told Pradeepa Priyangani to come to the Horana Court on 9 April 2008. She requested from the Magistrate that the death inquest should be not conducted by the Bandaragama Police Station. The body was then taken to the Pandura Hospital. The following day, April 1, the death inquest was carried out and the body handed over to relatives. In the death inquest, it was revealed that Dinusha Udara had sustained gun shots to his head and his mouth.

Pradeepa Priyangani alleged that Nimal Karunaratna, OIC of the Wadduwa Police, was responsible for shooting and killing of her husband. Nimal Karunaratna himself stated the he has been requested to help in the case by the Bandaragama Police Station.

The case in relation to this, bearing Case No. 37933/08, was filed before the Horana Magistrates Court. On 15 July 2008, a recommendation has already been made that since it was evident to the court that the victim's death was suspicious, all evidence in connection with the victim's death should be referred to the Attorney General (AG).

However, since the said recommendation was put forward, there has not been any action taken. On 6 November 2008, Pradeepa Priyangani has written to the Attorney General requesting the said office the filing of charges against Nimal Karunaratna and other policemen involved; however, to date the AG has not taken any action so far.

Prior to his death, Dinusha Udara was working in a screen printing shop. He has studied at a Buddhist school in Panadura Sri Sumangala Boys School where he has excelled up to the Advanced Level examination. In those days, during his free time, he usually gives a private tutorial in the subjects of Science and Sinhala language.

SUGGESTED ACTION:
Please write to the Attorney General and other authorities to take immediate action in filing of charges against the policemen involved.

The AHRC has also written to the UN Special Rapporteur on Extra-judicial, Summary, or Arbitrary Executions calling for intervention in this case.

To support this appeal, please click here:

SAMPLE LETTER:

Dear __________,

SRI LANKA: Policemen yet to be charged over the custodial death of a man

Name of victim: Bolonnage Dinusha Udara Bolonna (27); a resident of 157, Veragama, Wadduwa; married with one child; he was employed in screen printing shop.
Name of alleged perpetrators: Officer-in-Charge (OIC) Gekiyanage, Chandana Liyanage, an officer bearing No. 84777, OIC Nimal Karunaratna of the Wadduwa Police Station and other policemen attached to the Bandaragama Police Station
Date when he died: 20 March 2008
Place of incident: Bandaragama Police station

I am writing to voice my deep concern regarding the lack of progress into the prosecution into the custodial death of a man, whose name is mentioned above, while he was in custody of the Bandaragama Police Station.

The policemen involved had him arrested and taken into the Bandaragama Police Station's custody on charges for allegedly harboring a fire arm at 6pm to 6:30pm on 20 March 2008. However, I have learned though that the firearm was not recovered from him but rather handed over by another person from elsewhere to the policemen; thereby putting serious question into the legality of the nature of charges the victim was being accused of and manner the element of crime had been established. However, police nevertheless took him and subsequently detained him in their custody.

On the evening the firearm was found, the victim's wife, Pradeepa Priyangani, who was herself taken by the policemen as they were looking for the said firearm, requested the policemen to allow her to see her husband at the police detention cell but this was refused. It was in the police's custody that the victim was last known to be still alive. She, however, was told to return the following day. The victim's wife was aware that her husband was all along in police custody.

But when she returned to visit him in the morning of the following day, March 31, she found out that her husband was no longer inside the police detention cell of the Bandaragama Police Station. The police authorities deliberately did not inform her about what had happened to her husband; and given no explanation about the whereabouts of her husband.

However, before leaving the police station, she came across a group of women who were talking about the death of an unidentified person. At the time, she could not immediately determine the identity of the person who died in police custody. She was later asked by her uncle, who had come by a three-wheeler, to return home.

After she arrived at her place, a neighbor informed her about the death of her husband while in police custody. Only at this time did she learn that the unidentified person whom a group of women were discussing to have died was actually her husband. She then went back to the police station and attempted to register a complaint about the information she had received but the police officer refused to record her complaint and told her instead that: if her husband had done wrong there is no necessity to lodge a complaint.

She was only able to confirm her husband's death when she and her relatives had gone to the Bandaragama Hospital where the dead body was kept at a mortuary. However, when they arrived there they were not allowed to see the dead body until the Magistrate came to conduct the death inquest. The victim's body still has its hand cuffs on. He suffered from gun shots to his head and his mouth which apparently could have been done in an execution style.

I am aware that the case, bearing Case No. 37933/08, was already heard before the Horana Magistrates Court. On 15 July 2008, the Magistrate has concluded in a recommendation that the victim's death was suspicious and that all the evidence about the case should be forwarded to the Attorney General (AG) for the prosecution of the policemen involved. However, the AG has so far not taken any action.

On 6 November 2008, Pradeepa Priyangani has also sent letters to the Attorney General requesting the said office to file the charges against the policemen involved, but once again they have not taken any action regarding her request.

I am extremely disturbed to learn of the lack of progress into the prosecution of this case. Thus, I strongly urge you to ensure that the Magistrate's recommendations are given meaning and are acted upon immediately. I also urge the authorities to consider prohibiting the police units involved from investigating the case to ensure the possibility of an impartial investigation.

Yours sincerely,

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

1. Mr. Hemantha Priyasanth Dep
Acting Attorney General
Attorney General's Department
Colombo 12
SRI LANKA
Fax: +94 11 2 436421
E-mail: ag@attorneygeneral.gov.lk

2. Mr. Mahinda Rajapakse
President
Socialist Democratic Republic of Sri Lanka
C/- Office of the President
Temple Trees
150, Galle Road
Colombo 3
SRI LANKA
Fax: +94 11 2472100 / +94 11 2446657
E-mail: secretary@presidentsoffice.lk

3. Mr. Ratnasiri Wickremanayake
Prime Minister
Temple Trees
Galle Road, Colombo 03
SRI LANKA
Tel: +94 11 2 575317-8 or 370 737-8
Fax: +94 11 2 575454

4. Hon. Amarasiri Dodangoda
Minister of Justice
Ministry of Justice and Law Reforms
Superior Courts Complex,
Colombo 12
SRI LANKA
Tel: 94 11 2384837, 2324681, 2392932
Fax: 94 11 2325354 / 2445446

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

6. 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

7. 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

8. Professor Rajiva Wijesinha
Secretary
Ministry of Disaster Management and Human Rights
2, Wijerama Mawatha
Colombo 7
SRI LANKA
Fax: +94 11 268 1982

Thank you.

Urgent Appeals Programme
Asian Human Rights Commission (ua@ahrchk.org)

Document Type :
Urgent Appeal Case
Document ID :
AHRC-UAC-257-2008
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.