Home / News / Urgent Appeals / SRI LANKA: Biased police inquiry into a case of navy sailor who was threaten at gunpoint by Panadura police

SRI LANKA: Biased police inquiry into a case of navy sailor who was threaten at gunpoint by Panadura police

November 23, 2006

URGENT ACTION URGENT ACTION URGENT ACTION URGENT ACTION URGENT ACTION

ASIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION - URGENT APPEALS PROGRAMME

Urgent Appeal

23 November 2006
-------------------------------------
UA-379-2006: SRI LANKA: Biased police inquiry into a case of navy sailor who was threaten at gunpoint by Panadura police

SRI LANKA: Poor quality of police inquiry; gun threats by the police; abuse of power by police; un-rule of law
-------------------------------------

Dear friends,

The Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) has received information that a young navy sailor was harassed and threatened at gunpoint by a sub inspector and other policemen at a police security checkpoint at Modaravila, Panadura, Sri Lanka on 31 October 2006. It is alleged that when the victim protested against such behavior, the SI told him that because he was in uniform he is empowered to do anything he wanted, including sending the victim to prison for one year. We were also informed that Senior Superintendent of Police of Panadura division, who inquired into the victim's complaint, showed complete biased and improper attitude during the inquiry on November 13. In fact, such attitudes on the part of the inquiring officers are a great obstacle to seeking justice and redress to the victims in Sri Lanka as it is the first process in finding the actual facts of the case and collecting evidence that may lead to departmental sanction or prosecution against those responsible.

CASE DETAILS:

At about 5:30pm on 31 October 2006, P.P. Dinesh Gihan, 26-year-old Sri Lankan Navy Sailor who was on temporary leave from the Navy, was riding his bicycle when he passed a police security checkpoint at Modaravila, Panadura, Sri Lanka. Suddenly the policemen at the checkpoint had stopped him but as he had already passed the checkpoint, he stopped a little further away. As he was stepping down from his bicycle, one sub inspector walked up to him and viciously kicked his bike twice. When Mr. Gihan inquired the reason for this behaviour the SI rudely told him it was because he delayed getting off his bike.

The SI then asked Mr. Gihan to show his National ID card. As he did not have it at that time he instead offered his official ID issued by the navy. But the SI was not satisfied and verbally abused him and even attempted to assault him. When Mr. Gihan protested such behavior, the SI simply told him that he (the SI) was in uniform while Mr. Gihan was in civilian dress and therefore he was empowered to do anything he wanted, including sending Mr. Gihan to prison for one year. According to Mr. Gihan, the SI even pulled out a pistol from his waist and threatened him with the gun. The other eight policemen at the checkpoint also pointed their guns at him.

On 1 November 2006, Mr. Gihan lodged a written complaint to various authorities including the Inspector General of Police and the Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP) of Panadura division. In response he was instructed to attend a police inquiry into the incident on 13 November 2006 at 10:00 am at the Panadura-SSP's office. Mr. Gihan arrived in the office in time but was kept waiting until 12:30 pm. He was then informed that the SSP had gone for lunch and asked to return at about 1:30 pm.

Finally the inquiry began at 1:30 pm but as soon as it began, the SSP asked why Mr. Gihan was not present at 10:00 am as requested. Although Mr. Gihan told the SSP that he had in fact been present at 10:00 am, the SSP dismissed the fact. 

According to Mr. Gihan, the SSP's inquiry was not performed in a proper manner and biased towards the accused (the policemen). Mr. Gihan said that the SSP told him that policemen pointing guns at people was a 'normal occurrence (ova samannya deva)' and even said, "After all, you know all about security checks, don't you?" Mr. Gihan appeal that the policemen had pointed their weapons at him not for security reasons but rather to intimidate him. But instead of taking his statement seriously, the SSP then said that crime was increasing in Panadura, implying him that this sort of behaviour is required for crime control.

Mr. Gihan protested the SSP's comment and told him that crime busting was duty of the police, but that policemen had no business threatening and subjecting ordinary civilians to unwarranted harassment. Finally the SSP muttered something about wanting to record the policemen’s statements and ended the inquiry. Mr. Gihan says that the entire conversation with the SSP left him with little faith that he will ever be afforded an impartial and fair hearing from the SSP.

The AHRC wonders about the plight of ordinary citizens who have little choice these days but to be subjected to innumerable 'security checks' at the hands of such errant law enforcement officials, when navy personnel are treated so shabbily.

The AHRC is also deeply concerned by improper and biased manner of the police inquiry into this case. When a citizen lodges a complaint to the police, the inquiry is the first process in finding the actual facts of the case and collecting evidence that may lead to departmental sanction or prosecution against those responsible. Improper police inquiries are also one of primary reasons for the failure of conviction of the accused in court cases. Therefore if it is not performed in a proper manner, it becomes a great obstacle in rendering justice and redress to the victims.

Unfortunately, such improper and biased police inquiries are a common feature in Sri Lanka. The AHRC has constantly raised its concern on this matter through several urgent appeals that it has issued. Some of those cases are as follows:

UP-206-2006: SRI LANKA: Improper and biased manner of police inquiry into a torture case
UP-197-2006: SRI LANKA: Police investigation of a severe torture case drags on with no transparency
UA-338-2006: SRI LANKA: A torture victim is threatened by police to withdraw his complaint
UP-142-2006: SRI LANKA: Court hearing of a torture case postponed 22 times due to deliberate inaction by the police
UA-187-2006: SRI LANKA: Failure of the police to investigate mysterious death of 23-year-old


SUGGESTED ACTION:
Please write to the relevant authorities listed below and urge them to ensure proper and impartial investigation into this case so that the alleged perpetrators can be punished by law.

To support this appeal, please click: 

Sample letter:

Dear _________,

SRI LANKA: Biased police inquiry into a case of navy sailor who was threaten with gun by Panadura police

Name of victim: P.P. Dinesh Gihan of Station Road, Panadura; aged 26; Sailor in the Sri Lankan Navy by occupation (currently serving at the'‘Sunny Village' Navy camp in Mannar)
Alleged perpetrators: A sub inspector (SI) and eight policemen attached to the Panadura police (at the time manning the police security checkpoint in Modaravila, Panadura)
Date of incident: 31 October 2006
Place of incident: the police security checkpoint in Modaravila, Panadura

I am deeply concerned by the harassment and threats at gunpoint against a young navy sailor by the officers of the Pandadura police mentioned above at a police security checkpoint at Modaravila, Panadura, Sri Lanka on 31 October 2006.

According to the information I have received, at about 5:30pm on 31 October 2006, the victim P.P. Dinesh Gihan, who was on temporary leave from the Navy, was stopped by the police when he was passing the said police security checkpoint riding his bicycle. I was informed that one sub inspector showed vicious behaviour toward the victim because he delayed getting off his bike. I was also informed that the SI further verbally abused the victim and even attempted to assault him when the victim showed his official ID issued by the navy instead of his National ID card.

I am disturbed to learn that when the victim protested such behavior, the SI simply said that he was in uniform and therefore he was empowered to do anything he wanted including sending the victim to prison for one year. I was shocked that the SI even pulled out a pistol from his waist and threatened the victim with the gun. The other eight policemen at the checkpoint also pointed their guns at him.

I am further extremely disappointed by the biased and improper police inquiry into the victim's complaint that was conducted at the office of the Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP) of Panadura division on 13 November 2006. I am so annoyed to learn that instead of inquiring the important fact of the incident, the said SSP allegedly told the victim that policemen pointing guns at people was a 'normal occurrence (ova samannya deva)' and even attempted to undermine the victim's complaint saying that such police behavior is due to increasing crime rate in Panadura, which implied that this sort of behaviour is required for crime control. I was informed that the victim lost his faith that he will ever be afforded an impartial and fair hearing from the SSP.

I am well aware that such improper and biased police inquiry is common feature in Sri Lanka. I am also worried that it becomes a great obstacle to render justice and redress to the victims as it is the first process to find actual fact of the case and collect evidence that may lead to departmental sanction or prosecution against those responsible. I also wonder about the plight of ordinary citizens who have little choice these days but to be subjected to innumerable 'security checks' at the hands of such errant law enforcement officials, when a navy personnel was treated so shabbily.

I therefore strongly urge you to inquire about this matter and take necessary action to make those responsible held accountable for their illegal acts. I also urge you to ensure an impartial inquiry into this incident. The concerned SSP who showed biased manner towards the police responsible should be replaced with another investigating officer capable enough to perform impartial and thorough inquiry. I also request you to put your efforts to prevent similar occurrences in the future. Or else if would not be long before the ordinary people of the country not only lose complete faith in the police force but also in the 'security' activities of the law enforcement agencies.

Sincerely yours,


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

SEND YOUR LETTERS TO:

1. Mr. Victor Perera
Inspector General of Police
New Secretariat
Colombo 1
SRI LANKA
Fax: +94 11 2 440440/327877
E-mail: igp@police.lk

2. Secretary
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: npcgen@sltnet.lk

3. Mr. K. C. Kamalasabesan
Attorney General
Attorney General's Department
Colombo 12
SRI LANKA
Fax: +94 11 2 436421
Email: attorney@sri.lanka.net

4. Secretary
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


Thank you.

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

Document Type :
Urgent Appeal Case
Document ID :
UA-379-2006
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.