Home / News / Urgent Appeals / SRI LANKA: A 12-year-old student's nose is fractured by his school teacher
 

SRI LANKA: A 12-year-old student's nose is fractured by his school teacher

March 22, 2006

URGENT ACTION URGENT ACTION URGENT ACTION URGENT ACTION

ASIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION - URGENT APPEALS PROGRAMME

Urgent Appeal

22 March 2006
------------------------------------------------------
UA-100-2006: SRI LANKA: A 12-year-old student’s nose is fractured by his school teacher

SRI LANKA: Torture; CAT Act; delay in justice; threat and intimidation; police misconduct
------------------------------------------------------

Dear friends,

Following in the footsteps of four cases of abuse of students by their teachers in Sri Lanka in recent months, the Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) has now learned of yet another incident of such nature. Saman Iddamalgoda, a teacher at Nitithigala Junior School, first asked 12-year-old Ranjith Kumara to remove his spectacles. When the young student did this, Mr Iddamalgoda then hit him so hard in the back of the head that Ranjith fell forward, slammed his face into a desk, and subsequently fractured his nose. After their son was hospitalised for eleven days and underwent a surgical operation, Ranjith’s parents then filed a complaint. It took the police 12 days to arrest the perpetrator, in which time the family claim he threatened them to withdraw their complaint. It is believed that the perpetrator has a close relationship with several police personnel and this was the reason for the delay in his arrest. This same relationship also raises fears that the police investigation into this case will not be conducted in an impartial or thorough manner and that the perpetrator, who is still currently working as a teacher, will walk free from his crime.

On 19 October 2005, Saman Iddamalgoda ordered 12-year-old Ranjith Kumara to remove the spectacles he was wearing. The teacher then assaulted Ranjith on the back of his head with his clenched fists. So forceful was the blow that Ranjith was thrown forward and slammed his face on the top of his desk. As a result his nose was fractured and he began to bleed profusely. When his fellow classmates brought Ranjith’s plight to the attention of the teacher, he simply ignored the bleeding child. Later he claimed that Ranjith broke his nose after falling.

Later Ranjith was rushed to the Ratnapura Hospital where he was warded for 11 days and also subjected to a surgical operation. Later his family complained that the teacher had attempted to unduly influence them into withdrawing their complaint against him. Ranjith’s brother also complained that he had been receiving death threats regarding the incident.

Yet despite the extreme gravity of this brutal act the police only arrested the perpetrator and produced him in court 12 days after the incident – on October 31. It is believed that this lack of interest on the part of the police is due to the close relationship the perpetrator has with several police personnel. Due to this there is also much doubt as to the efficiency of any police investigation into the incident.

Meanwhile Mr. Iddamalgoda continues to teach at the same school and it is alleged that he has been coercing witnesses in the incident (i.e. Ranjith’s classmates) not to testify against him.

The case filed in the Magistrates Court against the perpetrator is B 1797/05. On 11 February 2006 the police were afforded further time to obtain the Attorney General’s advice which the victim’s parents fear is a deliberate attempt by the police to stall any progress in the case.  

This is yet another inexcusable example of the growing violence being perpetrated against school students by their teachers in Sri Lanka. It is also demonstrates that the arbitrary use of power by authorities has penetrated many different areas of Sri Lankan society. The AHRC has previously reported on several cases in Sri Lanka regarding this matter (See further: UA-093-2006, UA-089-2006, UA-060-2006, UP-033-2006 and UA-173-2005).

Such conduct by a teacher is a clear violation of the Circular issued by the Education Department to all schools on 11 May 2005, which prohibits physical punishment and assault of schoolchildren. Furthermore, as a public officer (or person working in an official capacity), the alleged perpetrator is subject to the provisions of the Convention Against Torture Act No 22 of 1994 (CAT). As such, according to section 2(4) of the CAT Act, if found guilty, the perpetrator’s act on conviction after trial by the High Court is punishable with imprisonment of a mandatory seven years.

SUGGESTED ACTION
Please write to the relevant persons listed below condemning the actions of the perpetrator and concerned authorities regarding this case. Please highlight that physically punishing/assaulting schoolchildren is against the law as per the Circular issued by the Education Department. Please also note that should the teacher be found guilty, as a public officer he must be subject to the provisions of the CAT Act. An immediate investigation must be launched into this matter and if the allegations are found to be true, then the perpetrator must be held accountable for his crimes.

Suggested letter:

Dear ___________,

SRI LANKA: A 12-year-old student’s nose is fractured by his school teacher

Name of victim: D.K Ranjith Kumara (12), a student at Nivithigala Junior School, Nivithigala. (Son of D.K Gunawardena a labourer)
Name of alleged perpetrator: Saman Iddamalgoda, teacher of the Nitithigala Junior School.
Date of incident: 19 October 2005

I write to voice my complete dismay at yet another case in Sri Lanka involving a student being assaulted by their teacher. The occurrence of such a case is becoming far too common and will continue to worsen unless the authorities properly intervene.

According to the information I have received, on 19 October 2005 teacher Saman Iddamalgoda struck the back of his student, 12-year-old Ranjith Kumara’s head with such force that the young boy fell forward, slammed his face into his desk and subsequently fractured his nose. When Ranjith’s fellow classmates informed Mr. Iddamalgoda that Ranjith was bleeding profusely the teacher simply ignored the bleeding child and carried on with his work. Later he claimed that Ranjith broke his nose after falling.

Later Ranjith was rushed to the Ratnapura Hospital where he was warded for 11 days and also underwent surgery. Some time after this his family complained that the teacher had attempted to unduly influence them into withdrawing their complaint against him. Ranjith’s brother also complained that he had been receiving death threats regarding the incident.

Yet despite the extreme gravity of this brutal act the police only arrested the perpetrator and produced him in court 12 days after the incident – on October 31. It is believed that this lack of interest on the part of the police is due to the close relationship the perpetrator has with several police personnel. Due to this there is also much doubt as to the impartiality and efficiency of any police investigation into the incident.

Meanwhile Mr. Iddamalgoda continues to teach at the same school and it is alleged that he has been coercing witnesses in the incident (i.e. Ranjith’s classmates) not to testify against him.

The case filed in the Magistrates Court against the perpetrator is B 1797/05. On 11 February 2006 the police were afforded further time to obtain the Attorney General’s advice which the victim’s parents fear is a deliberate attempt by the police to stall the progress in the case.  

In light of the above, I call on you to intervene in this matter. An immediate investigation must be launched into this case and the perpetrator, if found to have committed the alleged crimes, must be held accountable. Such conduct by a teacher is a clear violation of the Circular issued by the Education Department on 11 May 2005, which prohibits physical punishment and assault of schoolchildren. Furthermore, as a public officer (or person working in an official capacity), the alleged perpetrator must be subject to the provisions of the Convention Against Torture(CAT) Act No 22 of 1994, which calls for a mandatory seven year sentence to those found guilty.

I trust your intervention will be forthcoming in this matter.

Yours sincerely,
-------------------------------------

PLEASE SEND YOUR LETTERS TO:

1. Dr. Hiranthi Wijemanne
National Child Protection Authority
330, Thalawathgoda Road
Madiwella
SRI LANKA
Tel: +94 11 2 778912/13/14
Fax: +94 11 2 778975
E-mail: ncpa@childprotection.gov.lk

2. Minister for Education
Ministry of Education
SRI LANKA
Tel: + 94 11 2 785 617
Fax: + 94 11 2 784 846

3. The Provincial Director of Education
Department of Education
76, Anandakumarasamy Mawatha
Colombo 07
SRI LANKA
Fax no. +94 11 2693894

4. Bo Viktor Nylun
Head of Child Protection
UNICEF Sri Lanka
P.O. Box 143, Colombo
SRI LANKA
Tel: +94 11 2 555 270 (6 lines)
Fax: +94 11 2  551 333
E-mail: colombo@unicef.org 

5. Dr. Radhika Coomaraswamy
Chairperson
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 

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

7. 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

8. Mr. K. C. Kamalasabesan
Attorney General
Attorney General's Department
Colombo 12
SRI LANKA
Fax: +94 11 2 436421

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

10. Mr. Jacob Egbert Doek
Chairperson
Committee on the Rights of the Child
OHCHR-UNOG
8-14 Avenue de la Paix
1211 Geneva 10
SWITZERLAND
Fax: +41 22 917 9022

Thank you.

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

Document Type :
Urgent Appeal Case
Document ID :
UA-100-2006
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.