Home / News / Urgent Appeals / SRI LANKA: Failure by the police to investigate the brutal assault of a Kalavana farmer
 

SRI LANKA: Failure by the police to investigate the brutal assault of a Kalavana farmer

March 16, 2006

URGENT ACTION URGENT ACTION URGENT ACTION URGENT ACTION

ASIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION – URGENT APPEALS PROGRAMME

Urgent Appeal

16 March 2006  
-----------------------------------------
UA-091-2006: SRI LANKA: Failure by the police to investigate the brutal assault of a Kalavana farmer

SRI LANKA: Brutal assault; police inaction; failure to conduct an investigation; collapse of rule of law
-----------------------------------------

Dear friends,

The Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) has received information regarding the brutal assault of a 39-year-old farmer from Pitigala Hill, Kalavana by two policemen from the Kalavana police station on 12 March 2006. The policemen also forced Mr. E. Gnanadasa to sign a written statement, the contents of which he was unaware. Mr. Gnanadasa is currently recovering in the hospital, but the police have failed to record his complaint or take any action in regards to his case.

On 12 March 2006 at around 10:30am, two policemen from the Kalavana police station, dressed in civilian clothing, visited Mr. E. Gnanadasa's home and demanded that he produce a gun. The police officers then hit Mr. Gnanadasa with a torch, and punched and kicked him in front of his wife and two-year-old child. The officers then took Mr. Gnanadasa to the home of his elder brother, Mr. E. Siripala, and began to search the house in the latter's absence. Not satisfied, they took Mr. Gnanadasa back to his house and assaulted him again, shouting, "If you don't give us the gun, at least give us the meat."

Thereafter the police forced Mr. Gnanadasa to sign a written statement, the contents of which he was unaware. The following day, March 13, Mr. Gnanadasa's condition took a turn for the worse and he was rushed to the Kalavana hospital where he was admitted and treated for his injuries. That same day, the victim's brother, Mr. Siripala visited the Assistant Superintendent of Police (ASP) to complain about the incident; however, the ASP refused to investigate the case and instead told him to lodge his complaint with the Kalavana police, the same police who assaulted the victim.

Mr. Gnanadasa continues to remain in the hospital, but to date, the hospital police (from the Kalavana police station) have failed to record his complaint. According to Mr. Siripala, he believes that his brother was attacked because about a month and a half ago Mr. Gnanadasa complained to the police about the proliferating Kasippu business in his village. Mr. Siripala believes that this incident was in revenge for his brother's complaint.

Unfortunately, Mr. Gnanadasa's case is not an isolated one whereby the police fail to document and investigate a complaint. The AHRC has reported several cases related to the refusal of the police to properly enquire into complaints lodged before them (see further: UA-038-2006 and UA-21-2005). This is hardly surprising given that the current procedure for lodging a complaint against the police in Sri Lanka involves reporting the incident to the very same police station where the alleged perpetrators are based. This being the case, complaints are routinely ignored.

SUGGESTED ACTION:
Please write a letter to the concerned authorities listed below and urge them to launch an immediate investigation into this case and take action to prosecute the responsible officers as soon as possible. Additionally, another system of reporting grievances against the police should be implemented so that complainants do not have to report the incident to the same station where the alleged perpetrators are based.

Suggested Letter:

Dear __________________,

SRI LANKA: Failure by the police to investigate the brutal assault of a Kalavana farmer

Name of victim: Mr. E. Gnanadasa, 39-years-old, farmer, married with a two-year-old child, Pingala Hill, Kalavana
Name of alleged perpetrators: Two policemen from the Kalavana police station
Place of incident: Mr. E. Gnanadasa's home in Pingala Hill, Kalavana, as well as Mr. E. Siripala's home in Kalavana
Time and date of incident: 10:30am on 12 March 2006

I am writing to you with deep concern regarding the blatant lack of action by the Kalavana police in regards to the brutal assault of Mr. E. Gnanadasa on 12 March 2006.The victim was brutally assaulted by policemen from the Kalavana police station, who demanded a gun and food from him. The officers also forced Mr. E. Gnanadasa to sign a written statement, the contents of which he was unaware. While Mr. Gnanadasa recovers in hospital the police refuse to record his complaint or take any action in regards to his case.

According to information I have received, on 12 March 2006 at around 10:30am, two policemen from the Kalavana police station, dressed in civilian clothing, visited Mr. E. Gnanadasa's home and demanded that he produce a gun. The police officers then hit Mr. Gnanadasa with a torch, and punched and kicked him in front of his wife and two-year-old child. The officers then took Mr Gnanadasa to the home of his elder brother, Mr. E. Siripala, and began to search the house in the latter's absence. Not satisfied, they took Mr. Gnanadasa back to his house and assaulted him again, shouting, "If you don't give us the gun, at least give us the meat."

Thereafter the police forced Mr. Gnanadasa to sign a written statement, the contents of which he was unaware. The following day, March 13, Mr. Gnanadasa's condition took a turn for the worse and he was rushed to the Kalavana hospital where he was admitted and treated for his injuries. That same day, the victim's brother, Mr. Siripala visited the Assistant Superintendent of Police (ASP) to complain about the incident; however, the ASP refused to investigate the case and instead told him to lodge his complaint with the Kalavana police, the same police who assaulted the victim.

Mr. Gnanadasa continues to remain in hospital, but the hospital police (from the Kalavana police station) have yet to record his complaint. According to Mr. Siripala, he believes that his brother was attacked because about a month and a half ago Mr. Gnanadasa complained to the police about the proliferating Kasippu business in his village. Mr. Siripala believes that this incident was in revenge for his brother's complaint.

I therefore am calling on you to ensure that an investigation is launched immediately into this matter and that charges are accordingly laid. All concerned officers should be held responsible for their actions since civilians should not be attacked for voicing their concerns to the appropriate officials. Moreover, another system of reporting about irresponsible police actions should be developed so that complainants need not report their concerns to the same police station where the alleged perpetrators are based. This will help to ensure that cases such as Mr. Gnanadasa's will not be routinely ignored.

Finally, a review should be lodged into why this and so many other cases in Sri Lanka have been ignored despite all the relevant authorities being aware of them.

I trust that your intervention will be forthcoming in this case.

Yours sincerely,

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

PLEASE SEND YOUR LETTERS TO:

1. Mr. K. C. Kamalasabesan
Attorney General
Attorney General's Department
Colombo 12
SRI LANKA
Fax: +94 11 2 436 421

2. Mr. Chandra Fernando.
Inspector General of Police (IGP)
New Secretariat
Colombo 1
SRI LANKA
Fax: +94 11 2 440440/327877

3. 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: polcom@sltnet.lk

4. Mr. J Thangawelu
DIG Legal
Police Headquarters
Colombo 1
SRI LANKA
Fax: 94 11 2381 394
Email: legaldiv@police.lk 

5. Dr. Radhika Coomaraswamy
Chairperson Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka
No. 36, Kynsey Road
Colombo 8
SRI LANKA
Tel: +94 11 2 694925 / 673806
Fax: +94 11 2 694924 / 696470
E-mail: sechrc@sltnet.lk

6. 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 (this is contact for Secretary to President) 
Email: secretary@presidentsoffice.lk

7. Prof. Manfred Nowak
Special Rapporteur on the Question of Torture
Attn: Mr. Safir Syed
C/o OHCHR-UNOG
1211 Geneva 10
SWITZERLAND
Tel: +41 22 917 9230
Fax: +41 22 917 9016 (general)
E-mail: ssyed@ohchr.org

Thank you.

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

Document Type :
Urgent Appeal Case
Document ID :
UA-091-2006
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.