SRI LANKA: Alleged assault of two men by the Meegahatenna police in Kalutara

Dear friends,

The Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) has received information about an alleged assault of two men, who are relatives each other, by one sub inspector of the Meegahatenna police station in Mathugama district, Kalutara division, Sri Lanka on 5 March 2007. The victims say that the concerned SI was under the influence of alcohol when he assaulted them. The alleged reason behind the assault is land dispute. The victims complained to various government authorities including Superintendent of Police in Kalutara division, Inspector General of Police and the Chairperson of the National Police Commission. However, no serious disciplinary or legal action has yet been taken against the concerned Sub Inspector.

CASE DETAILS: (based on the testimony of the victims)

On 4 March 2007, Mr. Jayasingh Archchilage Somadasa, an 80-year-old man residing in Saman, Wele Gewatte, Palawatte, received a paper from the Meegahatenna police station calling him to report to the police station for an inquiry on the next day. The paper was delivered to the house where his relative named Mr. Mallawa Archchige Pradeep had lived. He thought that the inquiry would be related to the complaint that he had made to the police station on 27 September 2006. His complaint had been completely ignored at that time.

On 5 March 2007, Mr. J.A. Somadasa went to the Meegahatenna police station as he was instructed. But once he arrived at the police station, he came to know that the inquiry was not about his complaint on 27 September 2006 but another complaint of the land dispute in which his name was referred as one disputing party. According to the victim, one Sub Inspector Hemapala abused him with foul and filthy language while inquiring about the details of the land dispute. When Mr. J.A. Somadasa said that he gave the disputed land to his nephew M.A. Pradeep, the SI Hemapala shouted at him and told him to bring his nephew.

At that time, Mr. M.A. Pradeep was coincidently presented at the same police station to withdraw a complaint he had made before. When he was leaving the police station, he heard that his uncle Mr. J.A. Somadasa called him from behind. When he turned back, he saw that the SI Hemapala was hitting on his uncle’s chest with a huge book.

Then the SI Hemapala hit M.A. Pradeep on his ear, shoulders and then dragged him by his shirt and pushed him towards a table. Although he repeatedly asked the SI for the reason of his assault, the SI Hemapala simply ignored him and assaulted him again. Mr. M.A. Pradeep was then ordered to sit on a bench nearby. Other people in the police station witnessed the incident. The victims report that the SI Hemapala seemed to be under the influence of alcohol.

Later, the uncle and the nephew lodged their written complaints to various government authorities, including Chairman of the NPC, the IGP, the Assistant Superintendent of Police (Legal), SP of the Kalutara division, demanding disciplinary and legal action against the concerned SI. However, no serious action has yet been taken to investigate the incident and punish the responsible SI.

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:

Torture is being used as the ‘only effective method’ for investigation by Sri Lankan police, who are poorly equipped and trained, although the domestic CAT Act No. 22 of 1994 outlaws torture. This case shows that how easily the police outrange the mandate with his position in order to get information that the police want instead of conducting proper investigation.

In fact, the practice of torture at police stations in Sri Lanka is endemic. In its 2005 Concluding Observations on the state party’s periodic report, the Committee against Torture express its deep concern about “widespread torture, ill treatment and disappearances” mainly committed by the police forces. The Committee also expressed its concern that such violations by law enforcement officials “are not investigated promptly and impartially”. [Concluding Observations of the Committee against Torture; CAT/C/LKA/CO/2]

In terms of domestic mechanisms to prevent and punish the acts of torture, the punishment in the corresponding CAT Act (No 22 of 1994) is a period of seven to ten years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of 10,000 to 50,000 rupees. Besides, Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka has adopted a ‘Zero Tolerance Policy’ against torture and also the NPC has recently created a speedy inquiry mechanism into the alleged crimes committed by the police in accordance with the Rules of Procedure (Public Complaints) 2007. According to the Rules, the NPC should complete the investigation within one month after receiving the complaint.

Despite of these domestic mechanisms, in reality only very few state officers have been convicted with torture under CAT Act for the last 12 years, while torture remains endemic at police stations cross the whole country. This is mainly due to lack of implementation of those mechanisms by the Sri Lankan government. In reality, torture cases are often investigated by the local police who are fellow colleagues of the alleged torture perpetrator(s); the accused officers are seldom subjected to suspension during the investigation. As a result, in many cases, torture victims face further harassment or intimidation by perpetrators when they pursue their cases against them. 
SUGGESTED ACTION:
Please write to the local authorities listed below and demand the prompt and thorough investigation into the alleged torture case and take action against the responsible. Please also urge them to strictly implement the CAT Act. No 22 of 1994 and other domestic provisions preventing and punishing torture. For your information, the AHRC has already reported this case to the U.N. Special Rapporteur on torture for his intervention.

To support this case, please click here: SEND APPEAL LETTER