Sri Lanka: What Happened To Protect And To Serve

March 27, 2012

A Statement from the Asian Human Rights Commission

Sri Lanka: What Happened To Protect And To Serve?

On an almost daily basis the Asian Human Rights Commission receives complaints related to the practice of torture and ill-treatment by the police in Sri Lanka. From January to November 2011 the AHRC issued a total of 106 Urgent Appeals on torture and ill treatment in Sri Lanka based on information gathered by local grass root organizations. In the majority of the cases the perpetrators were members of the police force.

In most of the urgent appeal cases victims appear to be randomly selected, arrested and detained by the police on unsubstantiated charges and are subsequently subjected to torture or ill-treatment to obtain a confession for those charges. Often the police target innocent people from a poorer socio-economic background. In the absence of a state-sponsored legal aid scheme the members of the weakest social groups rarely have the resources at hand to hold the police accountable for the abuse.

The numerous urgent appeals illustrate that torture in Sri Lanka is a widespread and systematic practice. It is important to keep in mind that the urgent appeals issued in 2011 only are the tip of the iceberg. The vast majority of incidents remain unreported. Fear, intimidation, the lack of credible complaint mechanisms, the absence of witness protection and a host of other factors all contribute to a culture of silence on police torture in Sri Lanka.

The AHRC's extensive documentation of thousands of cases of torture by the police sits uncomfortably with the 'zero tolerance' policy on torture advocated by the Government. The state of Sri Lanka has signed and ratified the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT), but the legal framework in place is not working in the manner intended. Investigations into acts of torture carried out by state authorities have come to an absolute halt. In present day Sri Lanka, the CAT convention is not worth the paper it is written on.

The Sri Lankan judicial system has failed at holding the police accountable for their transgressions. The legal aftermath of the urgent appeal cases illustrates that an investigation into acts of torture is the exception rather than the rule. In almost all the urgent appeal cases on torture committed by the police complaints were lodged by the victims or by human rights organisations on their behalf. Complaints were also made to the Inspector General of the Police, the Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka, the Attorney General's Department and sometimes the National Police Commission. To our knowledge, there have been no serious investigations into any of the allegations, which could lead to prosecution under the Convention against Torture Act No. 22 of 1994. Nor has the Special Inquiry Unit (SIU) of the Sri Lanka Police Department carried out any investigations into the allegations of torture. As long as there are no credible investigations into acts of torture committed by state officials the government's 'zero tolerance policy' is of little value.

The Sri Lankan government has failed in providing torture victims with means of redress and the introduction of a National Action Plan does not change this sorry state of affairs. The National Action Plan for the Protection and Promotion of Human Rights drafted by the Sri Lankan authorities in 2009 includes the issue of torture, but the government has not disclosed how the National Action Plan will be implemented. Also the National Action Plan does not present a solution to the fact that acts of torture are committed with impunity and is therefore found lacking.

As for the National Human Rights Commission its mandate is limited and its activities cannot replace a thorough criminal investigation. Furthermore, at the moment it does not function at full capacity and its independence has frequently been questioned.

Perpetrators of torture enjoy absolute impunity. The lack of internal discipline within the police force is partly to blame for this state of affairs. The hierarchical order embodied in the command responsibility doctrine is not operating effectively in Sri Lanka. A police officer guilty of torture will not be held accountable for his transgressions by his superiors. The police authorities continue to neglect enforcing discipline among its cadres and this is one of main reasons behind the continued use of torture that is still in practice in Sri Lankan society.

Torture by the police is only one symptom among many which indicates that Sri Lanka is a country where people no longer respect the rule of law. This calls for a fundamental change in the criminal justice system. Important in this regard is a change in the Constitution of 1978 that placed the executive above the judiciary. In order to counter this alarming trend the judiciary needs to be re-empowered, so it once again can play the role required in order for Sri Lanka to be a functioning democracy.

In 2008 the Government of Sri Lanka promised that a Witness and Victim Protection Bill would be introduced in Parliament shortly and measures would be taken to implement the legislation including the establishment of the necessary institutions. The Witness Protection Bill is yet to be implemented. Ensuring that witnesses enjoy a modicum of protection is crucial in the fight against torture. Only when victims and witnesses feel safe will they come forward and testify against state officials. At present the legal process is paralyzed by the absence of a witness protection scheme. The government should make good on its promise and actively lobby for the passing of this law.

Read this statement online

# # #

About AHRC: The Asian Human Rights Commission is a regional non-governmental organisation that monitors human rights in Asia, documents violations and advocates for justice and institutional reform to ensure the protection and promotion of these rights. The Hong Kong-based group was founded in 1984.

ENDS

© Scoop Media