Home / News / Urgent Appeals / UPDATE (Sri Lanka): Police officers interdicted regarding three torture cases of Gerald Perera, Lalith Rajapakse and Channa Prasanna Fernando
 

UPDATE (Sri Lanka): Police officers interdicted regarding three torture cases of Gerald Perera, Lalith Rajapakse and Channa Prasanna Fernando

January 3, 2005

UPDATE ON URGENT APPEAL UPDATE ON URGENT APPEAL UPDATE ON URGENT APPEAL

ASIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION - URGENT APPEALS PROGRAMME

Update on Urgent Appeal
3 January 2005

[RE: UP-81-2004: SRI LANKA: Continuing death threats to human rights activists and torture victims after murder of Gerald Perera; UP-77-2004: SRI LANKA: More death threats to a torture victim and a human rights defender; Witness protection is urgently needed, UP-76-2004: SRI LANKA: Gerald Perera died after gunshot; His family needs urgent protection, UP-74-2004:  SRI LANKA: No action from the government to protect torture victim even after attempt on his life, UA-157-2004: SRI LANKA: Torture victim pursuing criminal torture case shot; UP-54-2004: SRI LANKA: Urgent protection is necessary for the torture victim; UA-122-2004: SRI LANKA: Second torture of a torture victim who was kidnapped by the perpetrator issued on 22 September 2004]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
UP-01-2005: SRI LANKA: Police officers interdicted regarding three torture cases of Gerald Perera, Lalith Rajapakse and Channa Prasanna Fernando

SRI LANKA: Torture; Rule of law
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear friends,

The Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) has received letters from the National Police Commission (NPC) of Sri Lanka regarding three torture cases, that of Gerald Perera, Lalith Rajapakse, and Channa Prasanna Fernando. We are very happy to share the developments in these cases with you.
 
The AHRC thanks you all for your support in the three cases. The recent developments emphasize the Folk School approach that the AHRC promotes-quite and consistent actions will eventually build a movement that can bring about change. We urge you to continue writing and making your voices heard.

Urgent Appeals Desk
Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC)
---------------------------------------------------------

UPDATED INFORMATION:

1. CASE OF GERALD PERERA

According to the National Police Commission's letter dated on 27/28 December 2004 to the AHRC, the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) that has been handling the investigation into the murder of Gerald Perera has arrested and detained Suresh Gunasena, Sub Inspector (S.I.) of the Wattala Police Station, as a prime suspect who masterminded Gerlad's murder.  The CID is expecting to arrest the gunman who committed the murder and others who are connected with the killing in the "very near future".

Meanwhile, S.I. Suresh Gunasena, Police Constable 38237, Nalin Jayasinghe and Perera, Police Constable 9197 who were indicted under the Torture (CAT) Act of Sri Lanka (Act No. 22 of 1994) for the torture of Gerald were interdicted and transferred out of the station they were serving.

Furthermore, Sena Suraweera, Chief Inspector of Police and Officer in Charge (O.I.C.) of the Wattala Police Station was removed from his post and transferred out to another police station as a supernumerary officer.

Gerald Perera was shot by an unknown person on 21 November 2004 and succumbed to his injuries on November 24 at the Colombo Hospital, Sri Lanka. He was the torture victim who obtained the highest compensation payout from a Supreme Court decision, and who was the virtual complainant of a criminal case of torture against several police officers formerly of Wattala Police Station. He was due to give evidence in court against the seven police officers accused of torture on December 2. 

[Reference No.: UP-79-2004, UP-76-2004, UP-74-2004, UA-157-2004, MR-13-2002, MR-15-2002, AS-07-2003, UP-47-2002, UP-44-2002]


2. CASE OF LALITH RAJAPAKSE

According to the NPC's letter dated on 27/28 December 2004 to the AHRC, S.I. Roshan Prasanga Peiris who was indicted under the Torture (CAT) Act of Sri Lanka (Act No. 22 of 1994) has also been interdicted and transferred out of his present police station. N.D.B. Attanayake, O.I.C. of the Kandana Police Station and first respondent in the Fundamental Rights Application filed by Lalith Rajapakse before the Supreme Court has been removed from his post and transferred out to another police station as a supernumerary officer. Police Constable 31125, Wijeratne has been transferred out of the present police station. All three policemen were responsible for the alleged torture of Lalith. However, O.I.C. Attanayake and Police Constable Wijeratne have not been interdicted as they have not been indicted under the Torture Act and are only respondents of the Fundamental Rights Application.  

The AHRC also has been informed that Lalith Rajapakse, and Uswatta Liyanage Anthony Joseph Perera, the human rights activist who helped Lalith have been provided with "special protection" by the police.

Lalith Rajapakse has filed a Fundamental Rights Application that is pending and is a virtual complainant in a torture case pending before the Negombo High Court against several officers of Kandana Police Station. He has made many complaints about threats to his life. U.L.A. Joseph Perera is a human rights activist who helped Lalith and consequently received death threats from unknown persons several times.

[Reference No.: UP-81-2004, UP-77-2004, UP-42-2003, UP-39-2003, UP-27-2003, UP-29-2002, UA-19-2002]


3. CASE OF CHANNA PRASANNA FERNANDO

According to the NPC's letter dated on 27 December 2004 to the AHRC, Police Sergeant 31545 Subasinghe has been interdicted and charged in Negombo High Court for causing hurt and abducting Channa Prasanna Fernando. The case is to be heard again on 7 January 2005.

Channa Prasanna Fernando was allegedly tortured by Sergeant Subasinghe on 13 June 2004. After the incident, he made several complaints against Sergeant Subasinghe about his torture. He was allegedly kidnapped and taken to an unknown place on 15 September 2004 by a group of people including the said Sergeant who forced him to provide a letter withdrawing the charges against him and a further letter to his mother stating that he was committing suicide of his own free will. He could barely escape from the house where he was kept.

[Reference No.: UP-54-2004 and UA-122-2004]


Thank you.

Urgent Appeals Programme
Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC)
Document Type :
Urgent Appeal Update
Document ID :
UP-01-2005
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.