Home / News / Urgent Appeals / SRI LANKA: Torture of a man by the Mitiyagoda police
 

SRI LANKA: Torture of a man by the Mitiyagoda police

March 27, 2006

URGENT ACTION URGENT ACTION URGENT ACTION URGENT ACTION

ASIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION – URGENT APPEALS PROGRAMME

Urgent Appeal

28 March 2006
-------------------------------------------------------
UA-108-2006: SRI LANKA: Torture of a man by the Mitiyagoda police

SRI LANKA: Torture; delay in justice; collapse of rule of law
-------------------------------------------------------

Dear friends,

The Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) has received information regarding the brutal assault of V.M. Duminda Jayawardena by two policemen from the Mitiyagoda police station on 11 March 2006.

On March 11, at around 4p.m, Mr. Jayawardena was returning home when two policemen from the Mitiyagoda police station arrested him. At the time his sister and brother-in-law were also present. On inquiry he was told he was being arrested on suspicion of theft. Mr. Jayawardena was put into a jeep and taken to the Mitiyagoda police station. At the station, he was taken into a room and forced to remove all his clothes. His hands were tied behind his back then he was strung up with rope on a beam across the ceiling and severely assaulted on the soles of his feet, his head and back. The police assaulted him with a wooden club in an attempt to make him confess to the theft. Mr. Jayawardena screamed in pain insisting that he did not steal anything and that he was not aware of any theft. However, the policemen insisted that he had stolen jewellery and continued to inhumanly subject him to torture.

Later he was brought down and water was poured on his body. Despite the fact that his arms were numb and his feet were swollen the police forced him to jump up and down and to walk about. They then allowed him to get dressed and took him back to his house. They searched his house but did not find any incriminating evidence, so they returned him to the station and locked him in a holding cell. It was at this time that he saw Ms. Mala Jayawardena, the person who had accused him of theft. He noticed that Ms. Mala and company remained at the station until around 7pm and that they had brought drinks and cigarettes for the policemen. Mr. Jayawardena complained that although Ms. Jayawardena is related to him, owing to a land dispute, the two families were not on good terms.

The next day (March 12), Mr. Jayawardena was taken to the Batapola Hospital by the same two policemen who tortured him. He said that the police filled in two documents; one of which they handed over to the doctor while the other they took back to the station. He said that though he complained about his pain and the doctor observed his swollen feet, numb arms and his difficulty in walking, he did not receive any medical attention.

Thereafter the police produced him before the Acting Magistrate – who was also a lawyer practicing in courts - at the Magistrate’s private residence. The Magistrate failed to inquire into any details from the victim and simply remanded him instead. He was taken to the Balapitiya remand prison and the next day transferred to the Galle prison. He also said that though his aunt retained a lawyer on behalf of him, the lawyer Sasanka failed to bring his brutal torture at the hands of the police to the attention of the Magistrate.

Mr. Jayawardena has complained that more than two weeks after the incident he is still suffering from the injuries he sustained as a result of the police torture. As a result he is unable to engage in work which has gravely affected his livelihood.

Unfortunately, Mr. Jayawardena is yet another example of the growing violence being perpetrated by policemen in Sri Lanka. The AHRC has previously reported on many cases in Sri Lanka regarding this matter (See further: UA-182-2005, UA-234-2005, UA-009-2006 and UP-040-2006). Such conduct by the police is a clear violation and as a public officer the alleged perpetrators should be subjected to the provision of the Convention Against Torture Act No 22 of 1994 (CAT) which states a minimum seven year sentence for torture conviction.


SUGGESTED ACTION
Please write a letter to the concerned authorities listed below and condem the actions of the alleged perpetrators. Also urge them to take immediate action into this case and prosecute the perpetrators as soon as possible. Please ask them to suspend the concerned officers from their work for the security of the victim while the investigation is going on and to withdraw the false charge against the victim. The victim’s safety should be of the highest priority and protection should be afforded to him if requested. Adequate compensation should also be given to the victim.

Suggested letter:

Dear _________,

SRI LANKA: Torture of a man by the Mitiyagoda police

Name of victim: V.M. Duminda Jayawardena, 24-years-old, married with two children; occupation: labourer; address: Polhunnawa, Ambagas-handiya, Batapola
Name of alleged perpetrators: Two policemen from the Mitiyagoda police station
Date of incident: 11 March 2006

I am writing to you with deep concern regarding the brutal assault of V.M. Duminda Jayawardena by two policemen from the Mitiyagoda police station on 11 March 2006.

According to the information I have received, on March 11, Mr. Jayawardena was returning home when two policemen from the Mitiyagoda police station arrested him. On inquiry he was told he was being arrested on suspicion of theft. Mr. Jayawardena was taken to the Mitiyagoda police station and there he was brutally tortured by the two policemen. Mr. Jayawardena screamed in pain insisting that he did not steal anything and that he was not aware of any theft. However, the policemen insisted that he had stolen jewellery and continued the torture. The policemen then took him back to his house and they searched his house but did not find any incriminating evidence, so they returned him to the station and locked him in a cell.

It was at this time that he saw Ms. Mala Jayawardena, the person who had accused him of theft. He noticed that Ms. Mala had brought drinks and cigarettes for the policemen and remained at the station until around 7pm. Mr. Jayawardena complained that although Ms. Jayawardena is related to him, owing to a land dispute, the two families were not on good terms.

The next day the victim was taken to the Batapola Hospital by the same two policemen who tortured him. He said that the police filled in two documents; one of which they handed over to the doctor while the other they took back to the station. He said that though he complained about his pain and the doctor observed his swollen feet, numb arms and his difficulty in walking, he did not receive any medical attention.

Thereafter the police produced him before the Acting Magistrate – who was also a lawyer practicing in courts - at the Magistrate’s private residence. The Magistrate failed to inquire into any details from the victim and simply remanded him instead. He was taken to the Balapitiya remand prison and the next day transferred to the Galle prison. He also said that though his aunt retained a lawyer on behalf of him, the lawyer Sasanka failed to bring his brutal torture at the hands of the police to the attention of the Magistrate.

Mr. Jayawardena has complained that more than two weeks after the incident he is still suffering from the injuries he sustained as a result of the police torture. Consequently, he is unable to engage in his work which has gravely affected his livelihood.

I therefore am calling on you to intervene in this matter. As a public officer, the alleged perpetrators should be subjected to the provisions of the CAT Act No 22 of 1994 which states a minimum seven year sentence for torture conviction. Also I ask you to take immediate action into this case and prosecute the perpetrators as soon as possible.  I also urge you to suspend the concerned officers from their work – or have them transferred - for the security of the victim while the investigation is going on and to withdraw the false charge against the victim. The victim’s safety should be of the highest priority and protection should be afforded to him if requested. Adequate compensation should also be given to the victim.

Further, I request that the investigation also look into the conduct of the Magistrate, the doctor and Ms. Jayawardena in this case. The investigation should inquiry into why the Magistrate had the victim remanded, yet ignored the visible injuries to him; why the doctor provided the victim no medical attention despite seeing that it was needed; and what role Ms. Hayawardena played in having the victim arrested. If the latter was the result of a personal, family dispute, then legal action must be taken against her.

I trust your intervention will be forthcoming in this matter.

Yours sincerely,

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

PLEASE SEND YOUR LETTERS TO:

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

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

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

4. 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

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-108-2006
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.