The Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka in a letter to the Attorney-General, urges take steps to prosecute police officers found guilty by the Supreme Court to be responsible for acts of torture.
We publish below the letter in full:
The Hon. Attorney-General
Attorney General’s Department,
Colombo 12
Hon. Attorney-General,
The Occurrence of Torture, and Custodial and Encounter Deaths in Sri Lanka
The Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka was designated the National Preventive Mechanism on Torture (NPM) by the Government of Sri Lanka via a decision of the Cabinet of Ministers in 2017 following Sri Lanka’s ratification of the Optional Protocol to the Convention Against Torture. The Commission formally established the NPM in February 2022. Since then, it has undertaken visits to places of detention, including police stations, with the aim of identifying challenges and making suitable recommendations on preventing torture.
The Commission notes that prosecution of persons suspected of having committed touter is an indispensable element of promoting accountability, combatting a culture of impunity, and preventing the recurrence of torture in the future. We note that, despite Article 11 of the Sri Lankan Constitution guaranteeing the fundamental right to the freedom from torture, and the clear prohibition of torture under the Convention Against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or punishment Act, No. 22 of 1994 (Torture Act), torture continues to be a recurrent phenomenon in Sri Lanka. In fact, the Commission’s head office in Colombo received over 200 complaints with respect to torture in 2023.
The Commission also notes the prevalence of custodial and encounter deaths involving Sri Lanka Police. The Commission received a total of twenty four cases of custodial deaths and thirteen cases of encounter deaths involving Sri Lanka Police during the period between January 2020 and August 2023. Six custodial deaths and two encounter deaths took place during the first six months of 2023. It is also observed that all reported deaths were caused during the process of locating weapons or narcotics, due to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment, or due to the negligence or omission of the officers on duty.
Additionally, we note that the Supreme Court of Sri Lanka has recently delivered two landmark judgments on torture and custodial death respectively. In Weheragedara Ranjith Sumangala v Bandara, Police Officer, Police Station, Mirihana and Others, SC (F.R.) Application No. 107/201 1, the Supreme Court found that several police officers attached to the Mirihana Police Station had committed torture and ordered that the said police officers pay the victim compensation. Moreover, in Fathima Sharmila v Officer in Charge, Police Station, Slave Island & Others, SC (F.R.) Application No. 398/2008, the Supreme Court found that several police officers attached to the Slave lsland police Station were responsible for the death of the petitioner’s spouse and ordered these officers to pay compensation to the petitioner. The Court in fact observed that “it is not rare to hear instances of suspects dying in the hands of the police…[and that] it appears that the hierarchy of the administration had paid scant attention to arrest this trend which does not augur well for the law enforcement and the rule of law”
In this overarching context, we enclose herewith the Commission’s Draft General Guidelines and Recommendations to Sri Lanka Police on Preventing Custodial and Encounter Deaths, launched on 1 1 December 2023. We would greatly appreciate any feedback your Department can offer on the said Draft General Guidelines and Recommendations. In particular, we bring to your attention Draft Guideline No. 3 on ‘safeguards during investigations.
We also respectfully encourage you to consider the prosecution of police officers, found by the Supreme Court to be responsible for acts of torture, under the provisions of the Torture Act. We reiterate that such prosecution is crucial to combatting a culture of impunity and preventing the recurrence of torture in the future. Where investigations under the Torture Act are deemed appropriate, it is crucial that suspects who are serving police officers are interdicted to ensure that they are prevented from interfering with witnesses or otherwise thwarting the gathering of evidence. We recall the unfortunate incident concerning one Gerald Perera, whom the Supreme Court recognised as a victim of torture by certain police officers, and who was later assassinated in November 2004 while the High Court trial under the Torture Act was pending against those accused of torturing him. We accordingly recommend that appropriate measures be taken under the Assistance to and Protection of Victims of Crime and Witnesses Act, No. I0 of 2023 to protect victims and witnesses from acts of reprisal.
Additionally, we respectfully encourage you to consider the prosecution of police officers found by the Supreme Court to be directly responsible for the deaths of persons held in police custody, particularly where there is evidence that the deaths of such persons were caused by acts of torture. The prosecution of alleged perpetrators of custodial and encounter deaths remains crucial to combatting a culture of impunity and preventing the recurrence of such deaths in the future.
We thank you for your Department’s continued cooperation and engagement.
Sincerely,
Justice LTB Dehideniya
Chairman
Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka
CC
H.E. Ranil Wickremesinghe
President of the Republic of Sri Lanka
Minister of Defence,
Presidential Secretariat
Colombo 01
Hon. Dr. Wijeyadasa Rajapakshe
Minister of Justice,
Prison Affairs and Constitutional Reforms
19, Sri Sangaraja Mawatha,
Colombo l0
Hon. Tiran Alles,
Minister of Public Security Ministry of Public Security
14th Floor “Suhurupaya”, Battaramulla.
Mr. Suhada K Gamalath, PC
Chairman, Board of Management,
National Authority for the Protection of Victims of Crime and Witnesses
1’t Floor, No. 42811 1 A, Denzil Kobbakaduwa Mawatha, Battaramulla
Douglas / December 22, 2023
Why this letter is not copied to the Police Commission?
In my opinion, this letter should have been addressed to the Police Commission.
This Deshabandu Thennakone is still a Senior Deputy Inspector General of Police and NOT the IGP.
He has been found GUILTY for offenses committed during his tenure of office as a “DIG”. So who is the “DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY”? Surely that must be the Police Commission and still to date, he comes within the Police Commission as a DIG, irrespective of him being appointed to “COVER/OVERSEE” duties of IGP until a “PERMANENT” appointment is made to the post of IGP.
On an earlier occasion, this AG gave instructions to the IGP and the Police Commission to ARREST and initiate “Disciplinary and Legal action against this SDIG, Deshabandu Thennakone. What happened? Is the Human Rights Commission aware of such an action taken against him?
/
Good Sense / December 23, 2023
When the Apex court of any country determines the conduct of any party, say being found torturing people, must any other body, in following up the determination of the Apex Court, undergo the standard process which amounts to re-examination of the veracity of the conduct? I don’t think that should happen. Even if it requires a change in the law, once the Apex court after due inquiry (dragging for years) finds a person did commit torture then the relevant criminal court (which is lower in courts hierarchy) must be directed to convict and sentence the offender. Further it is observed that courts order the relevant disciplinary authority to take disciplinary action. Are we duplicating the process? The relevant disciplinary authority must be directed to dismiss the public servant. In the past when Commissions of Inquiry (COI) in the 1960’s finds MPs accepting bribes, the Parliament passed a special act to disenfranchise the offenders. The subsequent Special Presidential Commissions act is an extension of this. Then, a (COI) found a Navy boss’s conduct unacceptable and therefore dismissed. Now, persons are found guilty in courts for criminal conduct but cleared in the internal disciplinary inquiry. This tomfoolery must stop.
/
Lasantha Pethiyagoda / December 23, 2023
In a country where policemen found guilty of manslaughter of suspects in custody are merely asked by the highest court to pay a fine, rather than commit them to long prison sentences, can an ordinary citizen seek justice for the crimes that these lowly scumbags commit? Why is it that only wealthy or influential people do not get tortured or assaulted or humiliated when confronted by cowardly people who hide behind their uniforms to bully innocent people? Don’t the people want to change this system fundamentally so that the country can genuinely develop? Why are the lotus eaters floating around like zombies while their country descends ever deeper into hell?
/
Captain Morgan / December 23, 2023
The administration of justice in this country is not transparent at all and the workings of the system are very murky. It is very rarely that persons in positions of power are prosecuted, as the prosecutorial process is applied rather selectively. Even when someone is taken to court by some chance, wires are pulled and eventually the case is dismissed. The system acted with breathtaking efficiency only when dealing with Ranjan Ramanayake.
/
Ajith / December 23, 2023
Until the country is divided and a country is formed for Buddhist Sinhalese people only, it is impossible to expect rule of law, unbiased judiciary, accountability of president, prime minister or ministers, prosecution of police or military, senior officers etc. At present, the excuse is Tamil Terrorism, divide the country, Sinhalese have to fall in the Indian ocean.
/
paragon / December 24, 2023
VESABANDU THENNAKOON IS SHOULD NOT BE CALLED ACTING IGP BUT HE SHOULD BE CALLED DOUBLE ACTING IGP.
/
Buddhist1 / December 27, 2023
Kick this bugger out!
/