Home / News / Urgent Appeals / SRI LANKA: Brave woman exposes the unlawful arrest, detention and torture of a young fisherman

SRI LANKA: Brave woman exposes the unlawful arrest, detention and torture of a young fisherman

March 9, 2007

URGENT ACTION URGENT ACTION URGENT ACTION URGENT ACTION

ASIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION – URGENT APPEALS PROGRAMME

Urgent Appeal

9 March 2007
------------------------------------------------------
UA-076-2007: SRI LANKA: Brave woman exposes the unlawful arrest, detention and torture of a young fisherman

SRI LANKA: Unlawful arrest; illegal detention; torture in police custody; false charges; physical abuse of a pregnant lady; impunity
------------------------------------------------------

Dear friends,

The Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) has received information regarding the unlawful arrest and illegal detention of Mihindukulasuriya Varnapelige Maheshan Manojith Silva, a 20 year-old fisherman who was taken from his home by officers of the Kalutara police on 1 March 2007. No warrant was produced nor was he given any reason for his arrest. After the victim was taken to the Kalutara Police Station, his 18 year-old wife who is also eight months pregnant began a brave search for him in which she herself was allegedly physically abused by an Inspector of Police (IP) named Nimal Karunaratne.

CASE DETAILS:
 
On the morning of the 1 March 2007, two officers from the Special Unit of the Kalutara police went to the house of the victim Mihindukulasuriya Varnapelige Maheshan Manojith Silva. The officers were in civilian clothes and travelling by bicycle. When they detained Mr. Silva, they did not explain the reason for his arrest nor did they produce a warrant.  Mr. Silva was handcuffed and taken to the Kalutara Police Station. 

When the victim's wife Randeniyage Yureshani Damayanthi (18) asked why her husband was being arrested, she was told by one of the officers that if she wanted to know then she needed to go to the Kalutara South Police Station.

Accordingly, she went to the police station and asked Inspector of Police (IP) Udayanga why her husband was arrested.  She was told that her husband was not there and she should go and speak with IP Nimal Karunaratne at the office of the Assistant Superintendent of Police (ASP). When Mrs. Damayanthi went to the ASP's Special Unit office, she discovered that one of the officers who had taken her husband into custody was present.  She asked again about her husband to the officers; however, they claimed that no such person had been brought there.

Mrs. Damayanthi did not give up and she insisted that the officer whom she was talking to was one of the police officers who arrested her husband. The officer then admitted that the victim was at the office and said that she could see her husband but could not speak to him.

The officer then brought her to a dark room where all the windows had been closed. There, she witnessed her husband handcuffed on a chair. She asked why he was brought there; IP Nimal Karunatne responded for him and said that he had stolen three bangles (bracelets). In retorting the remark, Mrs. Damayanthi strongly denied such accusations. However, the officer threatened her that he will arrest her since she was suspected for her involvement in the theft.

After the conversation, Mrs. Damayanthi was violently forced to leave. The officer strongly pushed the 8-month pregnant women by her stomach. The police used such force that it may have jeopardized the health of her soon to be born child. Then when she asked the officer not to beat her husband since he was still recovering from chicken pox, IP Nimal Karunaratne yelled at her with disrespectful language and said that her husband had a mistress.  The IP continued to verbally attack the women and said that her family was disgraceful. 

Later on, Mrs. Damayanthi informed her husband’s parents about the situation. The father of the victim went to the police station to see his son in the afternoon that same day.  However, IP Nimal Karunaratne threatened his life.

The victim's father left the police station and came back with a lawyer who was able to figure out that Mr. Silva was arrested on a charge of theft that had happened in Payagala. The IP Karunaratne said that the victim will be kept at the police station for further inquiry and that he will be handed over to the Payagala police.

The second time Mrs. Damayanthi visited the victim it was already after he was brought to the Payagala Police station. When she arrived at the station, she was not allowed to go inside of the building. When she refused to leave and continued to stay outside the police station she saw IP Nimal Karunaratne.

About an hour later, Mrs. Damayanthi was allowed to see her husband at the police station and heard that the victim was severely beaten by the IP Nimal Karunaratne and was forced to confess to the theft of several items from a house in Payagala. The victim's wife then asked the Officer-in-Charge (OIC) of Payagala about the original complaint made against her husband. She then learned from the OIC that the IP Nimal Karunaratne lodged a complaint accusing her husband of a robbery involving gold jewellery from the daughter of the Assistant Superintendent of Police (ASP) named Camilus. However, when Mrs. Damayanthi visited Camilus to ask about the complaint made against her husband, she soon learned that the family had never made such a complaint. The next day, the victim was produced before the magistrate court and released on remand in the evening.

The AHRC condemns this police brutality and deplores the officers involved for arresting a man with no probable cause, evidence or warrant. As it has been recognized by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT), no one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest by the state authority and be tortured under any circumstances. The government of Sri Lanka should and must be held responsible for the violation of such rights as a state party to these international conventions.

Moreover, the AHRC urges the concerned authorities to conduct an immediate investigation into the alleged brutal actions of the Inspector of Police Nimal Karunaratne for his fabrication of charges and torture against the victim who did not commit any of the registered crimes filed against him.

The AHRC is aware of the newly introduced rule regarding the individual complaint against the brutal actions of police authorities including violent assault, torture, arbitrary arrest and detention that has been in effect since January 17 of this year. The victim in this case has already submitted a written complaint to several police authorities including the Chairman of the National Police Commission, the Inspector General Police and the Senior Superintendent of Police Kalutara office. The police authority is obliged to complete the investigation into the reported case of human rights violations (including torture) within thirty days from the receipt of complaint. The AHRC therefore expects the authorities to fulfil their obligation without delay and act in accordance with the new regulations.

SUGGESTED ACTION:

Please write a letter to the offices listed below and demand a full investigation into the unlawful arrest, illegal detention and torture of Mihindukulasuriya Varnapelige Maheshan Manojith Silva without delay. Please also urge them to ensure that all the legal remedies will be provided for the victim and his family.

To support this urgent appeal, please click here:

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

Suggested letter:


Dear __________,


SRI LANKA: Brave woman exposes the unlawful arrest, detention and torture of a young fisherman

Name of the victim: Mihindukulasuriya Varnapelige Maheshan Manojith Silva (20), married, fisherman  
Address of the victim: No. 45, Patrick Peris Mawatha, Katukurunda, Kalutara
Name of the alleged perpetrators: Inspector of Police (IP) Nimal Karunaratne of the ASP Office Kalutara, the Kalutara (South) and Payagala police
Place of the incident: Kalutara South police station and Payagala Police station
Date of incident:  1 March 2007

I am writing to voice my deep concern regarding the unlawful arrest, illegal detention and torture of Mihindukulasuriya Varnapelige Maheshan Manojith Silva, a 20 year-old fisherman who was taken from his home by officers of the Kalutara police on 1 March 2007. The victim was arrested without being shown an arrest warrant or given any reasons why he was being held by the police. When the victim was taken to the Kalutara Police Station his 18 year-old wife named Randeniyage Yureshani Damayanthi who is also eight months pregnant began a brave search to find him.  Mrs. Damayanthi was also allegedly physically abused by the Inspector of Police (IP) Nimal Karunaratne.

According to the information I received, on the morning of March 1, two officers from the Special Unit of the Kalutara police went to the house of the victim Mihindukulasuriya Varnapelige Maheshan Manojith Silva. The officers were in civilian clothes and travelling by bicycle. When they detained Mr. Silva, they did not explain the reason for his arrest nor did they produce a warrant.  Mr. Silva was handcuffed and taken to the Kalutara Police Station. 

I have heard that when the victim's wife asked why her husband was being arrested, she was told by one of the officers that if she wanted to know then she needed to go to the Kalutara South Police Station.

Accordingly, she went to the police station and asked Inspector of Police (IP) Udayanga why her husband was arrested.  She was told that her husband was not there and she should go and speak with IP Nimal Karunaratne at the office of the Assistant Superintendent of Police (ASP). When Mrs. Damayanthi went to the ASP's Special Unit office, she discovered that one of the officers who had taken her husband into custody was present.  She asked again about her husband to the officers; however, they claimed that no such person had been brought there.

I am proud to say Mrs. Damayanthi did not give up and she insisted that the officer whom she was talking to was one of the police officers who arrested her husband. The officer then admitted that the victim was at the office and said that she could see her husband but could not speak to him.

The officer then brought her to a dark room where all the windows had been closed. There, she witnessed her husband handcuffed on a chair. She asked why he was brought there, IP Nimal Karunatne responded for him and said that he had stolen three bangles (bracelets). In retorting the remark, Mrs. Damayanthi strongly denied such accusations. However, the officer threatened her that he will arrest her since she was suspected for her involvement in the theft.

I know that after the conversation, Mrs. Damayanthi was violently forced to leave. The officer strongly pushed the 8-month pregnant women by her stomach. The police used such force that it may have jeopardized the health of her soon to be born child. Then when she asked the officer not to beat her husband since he was still recovering from chicken pox, IP Nimal Karunaratne yelled at her with disrespectful language and said that her husband had a mistress. The IP continued to verbally attack the women and said that her family was disgraceful. 

I heard that later on, Mrs. Damayanthi informed her husband’s parents about the situation. The father of the victim went to the police station to see his son in the afternoon that same day.  However, IP Nimal Karunaratne threatened his life in response.

The victim's father left the police station and came back with a lawyer who was able to figure out that Mr. Silva was arrested on a charge of theft that had happened in Payagala. The IP Karunaratne said that the victim will be kept at the police station for further inquiry and that he will be handed over to the Payagala police.

I also know that the second time Mrs. Damayanthi went to the police station it was after he was brought to the Payagala Police station. When she arrived at the station, she was not allowed to go inside of the building. When she refused to leave and continued to stay outside the police station she saw IP Nimal Karunaratne.

About an hour later, Mrs. Damayanthi was allowed to see her husband at the police station and heard that the victim was severely beaten by the IP Nimal Karunaratne and was forced to confess to the theft of several items from a house in Payagala. The victim's wife then asked the Officer-in-Charge (OIC) of Payagala about the original complaint made against her husband. She then learned from the OIC that the IP Nimal Karunaratne lodged a complaint accusing her husband of a robbery involving gold jewellery from the daughter of the Assistant Superintendent of Police (ASP) named Camilus. However, when Mrs. Damayanthi visited Camilus to ask about the complaint made against her husband, she soon learned that the family had never made such a complaint. The next day, the victim was produced before the magistrate court and released on remand in the evening.

I am very concerned about this situation since it involves the police officers committing crimes of arbitrary arrest, detention and torture of an innocent civilian. As it has been recognized by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT), no one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest by the state authority and be tortured under any circumstances. The government of Sri Lanka should and must be held responsible for the violation of such rights as a state party to these international conventions.

Moreover, I urge the concerned authorities to conduct an immediate investigation into the alleged brutal actions of the Inspector of Police Nimal Karunaratne for his fabrication of charges and torture against the victim who did not commit any of the registered crimes filed against him.

I am also aware that the newly introduced rule regarding the individual complaint against the brutal actions of police authorities including violent assaults, torture, arbitrary arrest and detention has been in effect since January 17 of this year. As far as I know, the victim of this case had already submitted a written complaint to several police authorities including the Chairman of the National Police Commission, the Inspector General Police and the Senior Superintendent of Police Kalutara office. The police authority is obliged to complete the investigation into the reported case of human rights violations (including torture) within thirty days from the receipt of complaint. The AHRC therefore expects the authorities to fulfil their obligation without delay and in accordance with the new regulations.

This is yet another instance of unlawful arrest, illegal detention, torture and the fabrication of charges by the Sri Lankan police. I urge the Inspector General of Police, National Police Commission and the Attorney General to investigate these serious allegations and if it is found that the police officers concerned have in fact acted outside the law, action must be taken against them.

I look forward to your urgent action in this case.


Yours sincerely,


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

PLEASE SEND COPIES TO:

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

2. Mr. K. C. Kamalasabesan
Attorney General
Attorney General's Department
Colombo 12
SRI LANKA
Fax: +94 11 2 436421
Email: attorney@sri.lanka.net

3. Mr. Neville Piyadigama
Chairperson
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

4. Secretary
Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka
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

5. Regional Office
National Police Commission
Head Office
3 rd Floor Rotunda Towers
No. 109 Galle Road
Colombo 3
SRI LANKA
Tel: +94 11 2395 971

6. Prof. Manfred Nowak
Special Rapporteur on the Question of Torture
Attn: Safir Syed
c/o OHCHR-UNOG
1211 Geneva 10
SWITZERLAND
Tel: +41 22 917 9230
Fax: +41 22 917 9016 (ATTN: SPECIAL RAPPORTEUR TORTURE)

Thank you.

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

Document Type :
Urgent Appeal Case
Document ID :
UA-076-2007
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.