Home / News / Urgent Appeals / SRI LANKA: Fabricated charges laid against a school teacher by the Saliyawewa Police
 

SRI LANKA: Fabricated charges laid against a school teacher by the Saliyawewa Police

November 30, 2005

URGENT ACTION URGENT ACTION URGENT ACTION URGENT ACTION

ASIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION – URGENT APPEALS PROGRAMME

Urgent Appeal

30 November 2005
------------------------------------------------------
UA-224-2005: SRI LANKA: Fabricated charges laid against a school teacher by the Saliyawewa Police

SRI LANKA: Fabricated charges; police misconduct; threat and intimidation; rule of law
------------------------------------------------------

Dear friends,

The Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) writes to inform you of the alleged fabricated charges of sexual assault laid against a school teacher by the Saliyawewa police. Ms. Pavithra Karunanayake, having worked as a volunteer teacher of English for five years at the Weerapura School in Saliyawewa, was asked to present herself before the local police station on 8 July 2005. Unaware of the reason for this request, Ms. Karunanayake nonetheless went to the station. On arrival, the Office-in-Charge, AM Gunatillake accused her of sexually abusing a young girl; a charge that Ms. Karunanayake vehemently denied. Ignoring Ms. Karunanayake’s pleas, and without a medical examination having been done on the alleged victim, the OIC instead threatened Ms. Karunanayake by stating that he would ensure her dismissal from her school and that she would be sent to prison. After taking an incorrect statement from Ms. Karunanayake, the OIC then ordered her to give 500 rupees, as compensation, to the alleged victim’s mother. He then informed Ms. Karunanayake of the date that she was to appear before court, which as was later discovered, was incorrect. The case is set to be heard in July 2006, despite no evidence having been obtained regarding the alleged charge.

Due to the serious nature of this charge and owing to Ms. Karunanayake’s reputation having already been severely and unfairly tarnished, we call on you to write to the relevant authorities seeking their intervention in this matter. Please write to those authorities listed below requesting an independent investigation to be held into the conduct of the Saliyawewa Police. If it is found that they, particularly the OIC, were negligent in their duty, then full legal and disciplinary action must be taken against them. The investigation should also include an inquiry into the sexual abuse charge itself, and if no evidence can be found to substantiate this charge, then it must be dropped immediately. If Ms. Karunanayake is cleared of this charge, then she should be reinstated in her teaching position without delay.

Urgent Appeals Programme
Asian Human Rights Commission
------------------------------------------------------------

DETAILED INFORMATION:

Name of victim: R.M.M. Pavithra Karunanayake, 26-years-old, single; Occupation – Voluntary English Language School Teacher
Alleged perpetrators: Policemen including the OIC, of the Saliyawewa Police Station
Date of incident: 1 July 2005 and continuing to date
 
Case Details:

Ms. Pavithra Karunanayake began working as a voluntary teacher of English at the Weerapura School in Saliyawewa on 13 January 2000 and has successfully worked in that capacity for the past five years. Then on 8 July 2005 she received a message to visit the Saliyawewa police station in relation to a complaint that had been made against her. Hence, the victim accompanied by her mother and uncle, MG Sirisena, went to the police station.
 
At the station, the Officer-in-Charge (OIC), AM Gunatillake escorted the victim and her mother into a room where they met with the complainant, UD Gunawathi and her 3-year-old child. There the OIC accused the victim of sexually abusing the complainants daughter and scolded her. The victim vehemently denied the charge, but the OIC refused to listen to her and threatened her that he would ensure her dismissal from employment and send her to prison. He also threatened that he would make sure that she will never get married – a grave threat against any unmarried young village woman.  When the victim continued to plead her innocence, the OIC abused her in foul language.
 
A little while later, the OIC demanded that the victim’s statement be recorded. However, when she saw that he had not recorded her statement correctly, she refused to sign it – and incurred the wrath of the OIC who again abused her. Then one PC Wanninayake recorded her statement again. The police OIC also ordered the victim’s uncle to drive the complainant and child to the hospital and told the victim and her family to walk home. However, according to the uncle, the complainant did not go to hospital, but got down from the van a little distance away from the police station. Before leaving, the OIC also illegally ordered the victim to pay the complainant 500 rupees, and rendered helpless before the power of this policeman, the victim reluctantly obliged.
 
According to the victim, neither the police nor the complainant had subjected the child – who it is alleged had been sexually abused – to any medical examination. Instead the victim says that the complainant, Gunawathi is busying herself spreading vicious and false rumours about her within the school. Thus, the victim on July 31 complained about this character assassination to the Saliyawewa police station. However, as a consequence of the complaint the OIC ordered both the victim and the complainant to visit the police station on August 5 on which date, the OIC continued his barrage on the victim and insulted her with degrading language. He also told her to attend court on August 16, but when the victim attended court on that date, she was informed that there was no case instituted against her. She later found out that case no. 8837/05/P charging her with sexual assault had been filed for August 17 on which date the police had obtained a long date viz. in July 2006.
 
The victim insists that the Saliyawewa Police has maliciously and without any evidence in support, filed fabricated charges against her. This has caused serious and irreparable damage to her reputation and future prospects. Not content, the OIC has also filed a fabricated report with the North-West Education Department and as a result, she was suspended from her teaching post. Thus, unable to bear the embarrassment anymore, she complained against the Saliyawewa police station to the National Police Commission, the Inspector General of Police, the DIG-NorthWest and the Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP) at Puttalam. Though the Puttalam SSP, Roshan Fernando obtained a statement from the victim and her mother, to date the victim complains that she has received no respite from him or any other state agency. 
 
The victim further states, and considering the serious nature of the allegations, it was the bounded duty of the police to investigate the matters and subject the child in question to a thorough medical examination. However, to her knowledge the police have seriously neglected their duty. Instead, the OIC is attempting to coerce her into admitting her guilt and is also harassing and intimidating her. The very fact that the police had filed a case against her but obtained a court date for July 2006 indicates the lack of evidence against her. The police then informed her of a wrong court date so she would be prevented from presenting herself in court and bringing these matters before court.

SUGGESTED ACTION:

Please send an appeal letter to the persons below and express your concern about this serious case.

Sample letter:

Dear ______________,

SRI LANKA: Fabricated charges laid against a school teacher by the Saliyawewa Police
Name of victim: R.M.M. Pavithra Karunanayake, 26-years-old, single; Occupation – Voluntary English Language School Teacher
Alleged perpetrators: Policemen including the OIC, of the Saliyawewa Police Station
Date of incident: 1 July 2005 and continuing to date

I write to voice my concern about the alleged fabricated charges of sexual assault laid against a school teacher by the Saliyawewa police. Ms. Pavithra Karunanayake, having worked as a volunteer teacher of English for five years at the Weerapura School in Saliyawewa, was asked to present herself before the local police station on 8 July 2005. Unaware of the reason for this request, Ms. Karunanayake nonetheless went to the station. On arrival, the Office-in-Charge, AM Gunatillake accused her of sexually abusing a young girl; a charge that Ms. Karunanayake vehemently denied. Ignoring Ms. Karunanayake’s pleas, and without a medical examination having been done on the alleged victim, the OIC instead threatened Ms. Karunanayake by stating that he would ensure her dismissal from her school and that she would be sent to prison. After taking an incorrect statement from Ms. Karunanayake, the OIC then ordered her to give 500 rupees, as compensation, to the alleged victim’s mother. He then informed Ms. Karunanayake of the date that she was to appear before court, which as was later discovered, was incorrect. The case is set to be heard in July 2006 (case number 8837/05/P), despite no evidence having been obtained regarding the alleged charge.

Due to the serious nature of this charge and owing to Ms. Karunanayake’s reputation having already been severely and unfairly tarnished, I call on your immediate intervention in this case. I ask that you take steps to ensure that an independent investigation be held into the conduct of the Saliyawewa Police. If it is found that they, particularly the OIC, were negligent in their duty, then full legal and disciplinary action must be taken against them. The investigation should also include an inquiry into the sexual abuse charge itself, and if no evidence can be found to substantiate this charge, then it must be dropped immediately. If Ms. Karunanayake is cleared of this charge, then she should be reinstated in her teaching position without delay.

Ms. Karunanayake has suffered irreparable damage to her reputation and future; she was harassed, threatened and scolded in degrading language by the Saliyawewa OIC; and she was suspended from her employment after the Education Department was informed of her alleged crime. All this based on a seemingly unsubstantiated charge laid by the OIC of the Saliyawewa police. If it is established that OIC Gunatillake did fabricate these charges, then I trust that his conduct will not go unpunished.

I look forward to your intervention in this matter.

Yours sincerely,

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

SEND A LETTER TO:

1. Mr. Mahinda Rajapakse
President of Sri Lanka

Cambridge Place
Colombo 7
SRI LANKA
Fax: +94 11 2 682905 / 575454
E-mail: secpm@sltnet.lk or bradmanw@slt.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. 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 2 694 925 / 673 806
Fax: +94 11 2 694 924 / 696 470
E-mail: sechrc@sltnet.lk 

6. The National Police Commission
c/o Mr. Mahinda Rajapakse
President of Sri Lanka
Cambridge Place
Colombo 7
SRI LANKA
Fax: +94 11 2 682905 / 575454
E-mail: secpm@sltnet.lk or bradmanw@slt.lk

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

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

Thank you.

Urgent Appeals Programme
Asian Human Rights Commission 

Document Type :
Urgent Appeal Case
Document ID :
UA-224-2005
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.