Home / News / Urgent Appeals / SRI LANKA: Alleged extrajudicial killings of two men by the police on the pretext of "crossfire"

SRI LANKA: Alleged extrajudicial killings of two men by the police on the pretext of "crossfire"

December 20, 2006

URGENT ACTION URGENT ACTION URGENT ACTION URGENT ACTION URGENT ACTION

ASIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION - URGENT APPEALS PROGRAMME

20 December 2006
-----------------------------------
UA-408-2006: SRI LANKA: Alleged extrajudicial killings of two men by the police on the pretext of "crossfire"

SRI LANKA: Extrajudicial killings; violation of the right to life; impunity; dysfunction of criminal justice system
-----------------------------------

Dear friends,

The Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) has received information that two men who surrendered to the Magistrate's Court of Galle were taken into custody by the Special Investigating Unit (SIU) of Galle from the court premises on 24 November 2006 and allegedly killed by the Ambalangoda Police on November 26. The police claim that they were killed in self defence during the encounter but no proper inquiry has yet been conducted to exam the police version to date. The AHRC is also deeply concerned by the Magistrate's action taken in favour of the police which was beyond his authority and in violation of the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC).
 
CASE DETAILS:

On 24 November 2006, two brothers named Mr. Latdu Karatunga (44) and Mr. Ladu Daramatunga (38), who are wanted by the police, surrendered themselves to the Magistrate's Court of Galle by filing a motion for that purpose through an attorney at law. Fearing that they would be tortured if they surrendered to the police, the two men surrendered to the Magistrate's Court instead to seek protection.
 
Before the motion was taken up for supporting before the Magistrate, the two men were seated inside the court. Meanwhile the magistrate who was already hearing the case took a recess. At this stage a group of policemen from the Special Investigating Unit (SIU) at Galle entered the court in a rush and assaulted the two men inside the court itself before taking them away. Later the officers from the SIU are said to have handed over the two detainees to the Ambalangoda police, who allegedly shot the two men to death on 26 November 2006.

According to the police version given at the inquest by the magistrate as well as report in the press, the police took these two suspects to a place where firearms were said to be hidden. But when they went to the spot the two men tried to take up arms and attacked the police.  Therefore the police in self defence shot at the two and killed them. 
 
The two bodies were taken to Balapitiya base hospital and the post mortem was conducted on the bodies by a District Medical Officer.  However, this hospital does not have proper facilities for conducting post mortems. The closest hospital in the Galle district with facilities for post mortems and with the availability of a Judicial Medical Officer (JMO) is Karapitiya Hospital. However, strangely, the police did not take the bodies to this hospital.
 
At the inquest the same Magistrate from whose court the two victims were taken into custody presided over the inquiry. The Magistrate then concluded that it was a justifiable homicide, despite the fact that the criminal procedure code (CPC) does not give power to magistrates to decide on the justifiability or otherwise of a homicide at the stage of an inquest. 

Instead the magistrate should record all the statements, call for inquiries under the CPC by the police and leave the decision of prosecuting to the Attorney General's Department. If there is sufficient evidence of death by shooting, the Attorney General would then file an indictment in the high court and it will be for the high court judge on examination of all the evidence before him to decide on the defence that may be taken by the police by way of self defence. If the case is heard before a jury it is the jury that will decide on the matter. Where the case is taken up before a high court judge without a jury, the judge will then decided the matter. However, this whole process will be stiffled when the magistrate makes a pronouncement of justifiable homicide at the initial stage of an inquiry.
 
Thus, the following violations of rights of the two men have taken place in this alleged incident:
 
a. abduction of persons from the premises of a court while they were before the court to surrender is a gross abuse of the rights of a person for security as guaranteed by Article 9 of the International Covenant for Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to which Sri Lanka is a state party;
b. torture of a person allegedly at the magistrate's court and outside is a violation of article 7 of the ICCPR which forbids torture, cruel and other inhuman punishment;
c.  the shooting of persons while in police custody is an extra judicial killing which is both murder and a violation of article 6 of the ICCPR. Even if it is actually true that the two men were killed in 'crossfire' as claimed by the police, the police should still be accountable for their deaths as they are responsible to ensure the security of persons in their custody.
d. deprivation of a proper post mortem is a violation of the right to equality before law and a right to an adequate remedy under Article 2(3) of the ICCPR;
e. declaration of justifiable homicide by the magistrate at the end of an inquest is a deprivation of a right to a fair trial under article 14(1) of the ICCPR.
 
The state is under an obligation to reinvestigate this matter, to examine the bodies and to conduct a proper post mortem inquiry and also to record statements through a proper and competent criminal investigation unit and to bring the cases before the court so that they may decide the matter on the basis of merit.
 
SUGGESTED ACTION:
Please write to the relevant authorities listed below and urge them to conduct a prompt and thorough inquiry about this alleged extrajudical killings of the two men. Please particularly urge the Attorney General's Department to inquire this incident in order to make possible decision of prosecution against alleged perpetrators.

To support this appeal, please click:

Sample letter:

Dear ________,
 
SRI LANKA: Alleged extrajudicial killings of two men by the police on the pretext of "crossfire"

Name of victims: Mr. Latdu Karatunga, aged 44, and Mr. Ladu Daramatunga, aged 38; both men are from Kanape Thotagama Gamava; the two men are brothers
Alleged perpetrators:
1. Officers attached to the Special Investigating Unit (SIU) of Galle
2. Officers attached to the Ambalangoda Police Station, Ambalangoda district, Elpitiya division, Sri Lanka
Date of incident: arrested by the (SIU) of Galle on 24 November 2006 and allegedly shot dead by the Ambalangoda police on November 26

I am shocked by the alleged extrajudicial killing of two men namely Mr. Latdu Karatunga (44) and Mr. Ladu Daramatunga (38), who surrendered to the magistrate court of Galle.

According to the information I have received, On 24 November 2006, the two suspects mentioned above surrendered themselves to the Magistrate's Court of Galle to find protection for them, fearing that they would be tortured if they surrender to the police. Seeking protection to a court is the greatest guarantee of security of a person that the law should provide. However, this protection has not been extended to these two persons. 

I was informed that instead the two men was taken by the Special Investigating Unit (SIU) of Galle from the court premises on November 24 and allegedly killed by the Ambalangoda Police on November 26.

Now the police claim that they killed the two men in self defence because the two men tried to take up arms and attack the police, while the police took them to a place where firearms were said to be hidden. However, I doubt about the credibility of the police version because similar versions were often given by the police about the killing of persons after their arrest. Furthermore, even in the situation that it is actually true that the two men were killed in 'crossfire' as claimed by the police, the police should still be accountable for their deaths as they are responsible to ensure the security of persons in their custody.

I was further informed that a proper post mortem was not conducted on the two bodies. Instead of conducting a post mortem at Karapitiya Hospital where has proper facilities for post mortems and with availability of a Judicial Medical Officer (JMO), strangely the police took the bodies to Balapitiya base hospital and the post mortem was conducted by a District Medical Officer.

I was also informed that after the inquest, the same magistrate from whose court the two victims were taken into custody concluded that it was a justifiable homicide, despite the fact that the criminal procedure code (CPC) does not give power to magistrates to decide on the justifiability or otherwise of a homicide at the stage of an inquest. 

The alleged circumstances of the post mortem and the inquest seem to me not conducted in conformity of the law. I therefore urge you to ensure that a proper and thorough inquiry is conducted into these two deaths. All the relevant statements should be recorded and the Attorney General's Department should examine prosecuting those responsible if there is sufficient evidence establishing extrajudicial killings.

Lastly, I urge the Government of Sri Lanka to respect and protect rights of citizens, regardless they are suspects or not, that are guaranteed by International Covenant for Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to which Sri Lanka is a state party.

Yours truly,


--------------------
 
PLEASE SEND YOUR LETTER TO:

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

2. Hon. Sarath Nanda Silva
Chairman
Chief Justice
Judicial Service Commission
No. 573, Hulftsdorp Steet
Colombo 12
SRI LANKA
Tel: +94 11 2 436308/451159
Tel/fax: +94 11 2 432854

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

4. 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
Email: secretary@presidentsoffice.lk

5. Mr. Ratnasiri Wickremanayake
Prime Minister
Temple Trees
Galle Road, Colombo 03
SRI LANKA
Tel: +94 11 2 575317-8 or 370 737-8
Fax: +94 11 2 575454

6. 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

7. 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

8. Mr. Philip Alston
Special Rapporteur on Extra-judicial, Summary, or Arbitrary Executions
Attn: Lydie Ventre
Room 3-016
c/o OHCHR-UNOG
1211 Geneva 10
SWITZERLAND
Tel: +41 22 917 9155
Fax: +41 22 917 9006 (ATTN: SPECIAL RAPPORTEUR EXECUTIONS)


Thank you.

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



Document Type :
Urgent Appeal Case
Document ID :
UA-408-2006
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.