TAMIL CENTRE FOR HUMAN RIGHTS - (TCHR)
LE CENTRE TAMOUL POUR LES DROITS DE L’HOMME - (CTDH)
Reports of the United Nations
Concern Sri Lanka
Year 2003
TAMIL CENTRE FOR HUMAN RIGHTS - (TCHR)
Head Office
9, Rue des Peupliers
95140 Garges les Gonesse
FRANCE
Tel/Fax : 33-1-40 38 28 74
Email : tchrgs@tchr.net / tchrdip@tchr.net
Branches
Australia, Canada, Denmark, Germany, Netherlands, Norway, Switzerland, U.K.
Ms. Hina Jilani, Special Representative of the Secretary-General
on human rights defenders 02
Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers,
Dato' Param Cumaraswamy 06
TORTURE AND DETENTION
Special Rapporteur on the question of torture, Theo van Boven,
Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances 33
Opinions adopted by the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention 40
Concluding observations of the Human Rights Committee 43
Item 17 (b) of the provisional agenda
(E/CN.4/2003/104/Add.1 - 20 February 2003)
Sri Lanka
Communication sent
1. On 4 October 2002, the Special Representative sent a communication regarding Nimal Punchihewa, a senior lawyer for the National Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka (NHRC). According to the information received, Nimal Punchihewa was the victim of an act of intimidation by a senior police official on 22 January 2002, while conducting an inquiry into a complaint of illegal arrest against three police officers. Upon entering the inquiry room as a witness, the Assistant Superintendent of Police, Ranmal Kodituwakku, reportedly challenged the authority of the Commission, claiming that it had no right to investigate the matter. Nimal Punchihewa reportedly requested Ranmal Kodithuwakku to leave the room, upon which the latter allegedly replied that he would take with him the three other police officers subjected to the inquiry. He is reported to have left the room with the three police officers, threatening that “we will attend to this tomorrow. I will make complaints.” According to information received, Ranmal Kodituwakku attempted without success to summon Nimal Punchihewa to the police station for a police inquiry. He also reportedly tried to intimidate Nimal Punchihewa by taking down the license number of his car. It has been alleged that since its inauguration in 1994, the NHRC has been under heavy pressure from individuals alleged to be law enforcement officials and politicians.
Communications received
2. By letter dated 16 April 2002, the Government transmitted to the Special Representative additional information regarding the case of Thivyan Krisnasamy (Thiviyan Krishnaswamy) (see E/CN.4/2002/106, annex, paras. 323 and 324). The Government informed the Special Representative that, in January 2002, in pursuance of ongoing efforts to resolve the conflict in the North East and with the view to creating a suitable environment in which fruitful negotiations could take place between the Government and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), the Attorney-General began to withdraw indictments filed against persons whose involvement in terrorist activity was minimal. As a result, on 22 February 2002, the indictment against Thivyan Krisnasamy for having failed to provide information regarding LTTE terrorist activity was withdrawn. Further, on 15 March 2002, the High Court of Jaffna discharged Thivyan Krisnasamy in the two other cases pending against him after witnesses failed to appear in Court.
Observations
3. The Special Representative thanks the Government for the information sent to her. She regrets, however, that at the time of the finalization of the present report, no reply to her communication had been received from the Government.
DISAPPEARANCES AND SUMMARY EXECUTIONS
arbitrary executions, Asma Jahanhir
Item 11 (b) of the provisional agenda
(E/CN.4/2003/3/Add.1 - 12 February 2003)
Sri Lanka
Urgent appeal
457 13 September 2002, the Special Rapporteur joint with the the Special Rapporteur on torture, the Chairman-Rapporteur of the working group on arbitrary detention and the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, sent an urgent appeal to the Government of Sri Lanka relating to Nandini Herat, who was allegedly subjected to sexual torture while in police custody in Wariyapola. According to the information received, on 8 March 2002, Nandini Herat was reportedly arrested by the police in Wariyapola on the mere suspicion of committing a crime without any attempt made by the police to check the facts before arresting her. While in the custody, she was reportedly subjected to sexual torture by five police officers, including the officer in charge of the police station and forced to sign a document about the robbery of a Buddhist statute that she knew nothing about. It has been reported that in early August the five police officers, who are still in their posts, were charged with the torture of Nandini Herat before the Magistrates' Court of Wariyapola. Their trial has reportedly begun, with the next hearing taking place on 13 September. Although the magistrate allegedly issued a warning that the witnesses should not be intimidated, the policeman officer in charge reportedly went to Kandy remand prison where Nandini Herat is currently being held, allegedly in order to ask her to withdraw the case. Fortunately, he was reportedly prevented from doing so by prison officials.The police also threatened Nandini Herat's father when he duly requested a copy of the initial complaint made to the police against his daughter. Other threats have reportedly been uttered against Nishanta Kumara, a correspondent of the daily newspaper Ravaya. According to the information received, on 10 July 2002 three men, including a supporter of the ruling United National Party (UNP) called Sunil, allegedly threatened him with a knife and asked if he was "the human rights dog who’s trying to send my brother-in-law to prison." Fears have also been expressed that the two lawyers who had been asked to act on Nandini Herat's behalf have already withdrawn their services as a result of intimidation.
Communications sent
458 2 September 2002, the Special Rapporteur jointly with the Special Rapporteur on torture sent an allegation to the Government of Sri Lanka relating to the following cases:
459 W A P Jayaratne, a corporal in the Special Forces brigade of the army reportedly died during interrogation by the military police in connection with the unauthorised removal of four automatic pistols from the armory of the Koholanwala army camp on 21 June 2001. He had reportedly been arrested on 7 June by the Special Investigation Unit (SIU) of the Military Police. Within hours of his death, four corporals of the SIU are said to have been taken into custody by the Mahawela police. According to an article in a newspaper on 27 June 2001, army headquarters had also appointed a military court of inquiry into the corporal's death. The Special Rapporteurs are not aware of the outcome of either the police or military investigations to date.
460 Kandaiyan Udayakumaran, a 42-year-old father of seven children, a displaced person from Jaffna living in Savakadu, Mannar, was reportedly taken into custody by the navy personnel on 28 February 2001 around 9 p.m. The next day, around 3 a.m., they allegedly returned to his home and gave an "arrest receipt" to his daughter. It was reportedly signed by the officer in charge and stated that he had been taken in for questioning and handed over to the Mannar police. On 1 March 2001 at about 6 a.m., navy personnel reportedly handed over his dead body to Mannar base hospital. According to the post mortem report, the death was caused due to "hypoxia following strangulation of the neck". His remains were reportedly buried on 3 March 2001 at Mannar cemetery. It is believed that he was strangled to death by navy personnel. Allegedly he had already been strangled when being taken into custody. Two navy personnel were arrested in connection to this killing. At the time of writing, a magistrate's inquiry was said to be continuing.
461 W. Sujeewa Priyadarshana, aged 31, reportedly died as a result of torture by police officers and personnel of Thebuwana Police in the night of 30 January 2001 while in remand custody. W. Sujeewa Priyadarshana was allegedly taken into custody by two sub-inspectors of Thebuwana Police on 15 January 2001 at around 1.30 p.m. There, Sujeewa Priyadarshana was reportedly subjected to severe beatings by these policemen. He was produced before the court on 16 January 2001 and remanded. The charge against Sujeewa Priyadarshana was alleged illegal possession of 5 grams of marijuana. It is alleged that a sub-inspector had come to the house and taken marijuana out of his pocket. Sujeewa Priyadarshana was again produced before court on 30 January 2001 and was to be remanded for further 6 days due to non-availability of reports. As the report of Judicial Medical Officer (JMO) was reportedly not available during a magisterial enquiry on 31 May 2001 the verdict on his death was reportedly not given. Police are said to be evading an enquiry.
462 Mullakandage Lasantha Jagath Kumara, a 23-year-old soldier, married with one child, from Payagala was allegedly taken into custody by Payagala Police on 12 June 2000 and detained for five days until 17 June 2000. He reportedly died at Welikada Prison on 20 June 2000 as a result of severe beatings. The magistrate who held the enquiry into the death reportedly expressed his opinion that this was a homicide. An enquiry into this death was said to have been held at Colombo Magistrate's Court (Hall No. 02) under B/901/2000. Police personnel belonging to Payagala police station have allegedly been named as suspects. Police officers who investigated the murder and presented materials before court are said to be covering up for the police officers involved in the murder. They are believed to have presented incorrect materials before court.
463 Jayakodige Anura Wijesiri was reportedly found hanging inside his police cell in the Ingiriya Police Station on 12 January 2001. On 11 January, he had reportedly been visited by his brother whom he told he had been beaten by two police sergeants. The father-in-law of one of the sergeants reportedly visited Jayakodige Anura Wijesiri’s mother and informed her that her son had been assaulted and that she had to pay 10,000 rupees to the police to have her son released. She reportedly responded that she did not have the money. The next day she found out that her son had died in the police station. Later the family was reportedly informed that he had hung himself inside his cell in the police station. The district medical officer is said to have made a report stating the cause of death as suicide.
464 On 2 September 2002, the Special Rapporteur jointly with the Special Rapporteur on torture and the Special Rapporteur on violence against women, its causes and consequences, sent an allegation to the Government of Sri Lanka relating to the following cases:
465 Jeyanthi Veerasingham, a 25-year-old woman, was reportedly raped and killed while in custody, in an army detachment at Sanasa transit camp, on 17 February 2000. According to the reports, Jeyanthi Veerasingham entered Vavuniya from the LTTE controlled Vanni Region, on 16 February 2001. On the following day, she was allegedly summoned to an army detachment at Sanasa transit camp for an inquiry. A few hours after she went to the Sanasa transit camp, the army reportedly handed over her body to the Vavuniya hospital, claiming that she had committed suicide by swallowing cyanide. The Magistrate inspected her body at the Vavuniya hospital mortuary, and reportedly instructed the police to conduct further investigation related to her death to clarify whether she had been tortured or sexually assaulted while being interrogated by army personnel at Sanasa army transit camp and the Brigade Headquarters camp. The Magistrate reportedly also instructed the JMO of Vavuniya hospital to hold a postmortem examination on the body of the deceased to find out whether she had been sexually assaulted while in custody.
466 S. Umadevi, a 23 year old female typing student from Nawalapitiya, Imbulpitiya Estate has reportedly been abducted, raped and murdered on the 12 September 2001 at Kopiwatte, Mallanda in Nawalapitiya on her way home after attending her typing class in Nawalapitiya Town. Her parents are said to have filed a case with the Nawalapitiya Police on the morning of the 13 September, after exhausting all of their own enquiries as to her whereabouts. When her father went to the police station to record the complaint, the woman police constable was said to have been abusive and not willing to accept their complaint. When she was shown a photograph of the young woman who was missing, she is reported to have said "this girl must have gone off with some young man. What are we to do with this photo?" and put away the photo. The same evening, her father was said to have heard that the corpse of a young woman was had been found in the shrubs near the Malkanda bridge. He reportedly went to the spot and identified the body as that of his daughter. The father is said to have informed the police at Nawalapitiya and gave the name of one particular person whom he suspects could have been the perpetrator of this crime, but the police reportedly have not shown any concern about this case and have so far failed to arrest any suspects, or to visit the home of the victim.
467 Sarathambal Saravanabhavanantha Kurukkal, a 29-year-old woman, was allegedly dragged out of her home in Pungudutivu, Jaffna district by unidentified gunmen dressed in black uniform, gang-raped and murdered, on 28 December 1999. According to the reports, the body of the victim was found the next morning under some bushes near Kannaki Amman Temple, situated just 20 metres away from her house. The medical report of JMO in Colombo states that the injuries and marks found on the body of the victim were consistent with rape and murder. Jaffna Acting Magistrate reportedly read out the JMO's report in open court on 8 January 2000. In June 2001, the National Human Rights Commission which had investigated the rape and murder of Sarathambaal Saravanabhavanantha Kurukkal, was reported to have decided to close the file for lack of evidence. The Special Rapporteur on violence against women has previously intervened on behalf of the above-named person on 14 March 2000.
Communications received
468 On 13 December 2001, the Government of Sri Lanka informed that the Commander of the Sri Lanka Army has established with effect 16 November 2001, a directorate to deal with human rights issues. This directorate has been mandated to implement the directives of the Commander of the Sri Lanka Army relating to human rights and oversee the implementation of human rights norms and standards in line with domestic constitutional and other legal provisions and those relating to international human rights law.
469 On 26 December 2001, the Government of Sri Lanka replied to a communication sent by the Special Rapporteur on 27 October 2001 regarding the murder of journalist Mylvaganam Nimalarajan. The Government informed that detailed investigations conducted by the Jaffna Police did not lead to the identification and apprehension of the primary suspects or others who may have been concerned in the commissioning of the crime. The criminal investigation department took-over the investigation from the Jaffna police. Its progress is periodically monitored by the inter-ministerial working group on human rights issues.
470 On 8 April 2002, the Government of Sri Lanka replied to a communication of the Special Rapporteur dated 7 December 2001, relating to the alleged rape and murder of Veluthapillai Rajani and Krishnapillai Thayayothy. The Government informed that regarding Veluthapillai Rajani, the Military Police carried out an in-depth investigation.
Accordingly four suspects (a Corporal, a Lance Corporal, and two Privates of the Sri Lanka army) were charged in the Magistrates Court for rape and murder; besides, a non summary inquiry was conducted. At the stage of the institution of criminal proceedings, the four accused were discharged from the Sri Lanka Army. Upon the conclusion of the non summary inquiry, the attorney general presented indictment against all four accused in the High Court of Colombo where the trial is presently pending. Regarding the alleged killing of Krishnapillai Thayayothy, the police commenced initial investigations and interviewed witnesses who said that security forces or police personnel were not implicated in the murder. Due to terrorist activity, it was not possible for the Magistrate to proceed to the location of the grave in which the body of the victim is said to have been buried. Upon restoration of normalcy in the area, police investigators are expected to proceed to the scene of the crime, conduct further investigations, and cause the exhumation of the body of the deceased. It is thereafter intended to have a post mortem investigation into the body of the deceased. Thereafter, necessary further investigations will be conducted with the view to identifying and apprehending the perpetrators of the crime.
471 On 8 April 2002, the Government of Sri Lanka replied to a communication dated 30 August 2001 regarding the alleged death in custody of Ushita Thussara Kumaea. The Government informed that the death of the deceased has been inquired into and facts relating to the death reported to the relevant magistrate. Upon the completion of criminal investigations, the attorney general will be invited to consider the institution of criminal proceedings against those responsible for causing bodily injury to the deceased, which led to his death.
Report of the Special Rapporteur on the independence of
judges and lawyers, Dato' Param Cumaraswamy
Item 11 of the provisional agenda
(E/CN.4/2003/65/Add.1 - 25 February 2003)
Sri Lanka
Communications to the Government
1. On 13 September 2002, the Special Rapporteur sent a joint urgent appeal with the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, the Special Rapporteur on torture and the Chairman-Rapporteur of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention regarding Nandini Herat, who was allegedly subjected to sexual torture by 5 police officers, including the officer in charge, while in police custody in Wariyapola, near Kurunegala. It has been reported that the trial of the five police officers for torture began in September before the magistrate’s court of Wariyapola. Although the magistrate allegedly issued a warning that the witnesses should not be intimidated, the police officer in charge reportedly went to the remand prison where Ms. Herat was being held, allegedly in order to ask her to withdraw the case. He was reportedly prevented from doing so by prison officials. Other threats were reportedly uttered against Nishanta Kumara, a correspondent of the daily newspaper Ravaya, by Mr. Sunil, a supporter of the ruling United National Party who allegedly threatened Mr. Kumara with a knife and asked if he was "the human rights dog who’s trying to send my brother-in-law to prison." Fears have also been expressed that the two lawyers who had been asked to act on Ms. Herat's behalf have withdrawn their services as a result of intimidation.
Communications from the Government
2. On 10 October 2002 the Government sent a response to the Special Rapporteurs’ communication of 13 September 2002 concerning Nandini Herat. The Government advised that the Criminal Investigations Department (CID) of the Sri Lanka Police had taken over the investigation on the alleged torture of Ms. Herat. The Government further advised that the Judicial Medical Officer had been directed to
undertake another medical examination of Ms. Herat. The CID was requested to submit the investigation and medical reports by 31 October 2002 in order to consider filing indictments under the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment Act. The Government also advised that the CID had been directed to conduct criminal investigations into the alleged threat against Priyantha Gamage, Ms. Heart’s lawyer and Nishanta Kumara, human rights activist.
3. On 17 December 2002, the Government sent a response to the Special Rapporteur’s communication of 6 August 2001 (see E/CN.4/2001/65, paras. 206-207, 209-210 and E/CN.4/2002/72, annex, para. 166) concerning lawyer, Kumar Ponnambalam, who was shot dead on 5 January 2000. The Government advised that the Crime Detection Bureau of the Police Department was directed to investigate the assassination. On 28 February 2001 the CID took over the inquiry. Based on further investigations, the Attorney-General directed the CID to charge three suspects, one a former reserve police constable, and the court proceedings will commence on 3 January 2003.
Observations
4. The Special Rapporteur is waiting to hear about the outcome of the prosecution of the three accused for the murder of Kumar Ponnambalam.
5. The Special Rapporteur continues to be concerned over the allegations of misconduct on the part of the Chief, Justice Sarath Silva, the latest being the proceedings filed against him and the Judicial Service Commission in the Supreme Court by two district judges which is set for hearing on 27 February 2003.
Item 11 (c) of the provisional agenda
(E/CN.4/2003/67 - 30 December 2002)
13 Invitations to undertake visits to Sri Lanka, Egypt and Guatemala during 2002 were extended to the former Special Rapporteur by the Governments of these countries, and preparations were under way for his visit to Sri Lanka. However, in light of the uncertainty as to the end of tenure of the former Special Rapporteur’s mandate (on 26 July 2002), the mission could not take place.
TORTURE AND DETENTION
Report of the Special Rapporteur on the question of torture, Theo van Boven,
Item 11 (a) of the provisional agenda
E/CN.4/2003/68/Add.1 - 27 February 2003
Sri Lanka
1486 letter dated 2 September 2002, the Special Rapporteur advised the Government that he had received information according to which there was an apparent rise in reports of torture and other forms of ill-treatment involving personnel of the Special Task Force (STF) deployed in the North and East of Sri Lanka, as well as in reports of torture allegedly committed by the Special Investigation Branch of the police in Amparai district. A high number of rape cases had allegedly been reported recently. It was reported that most of the cases have occurred in the context of the armed conflict between the security forces and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE). It was believed that the authorities may have failed to bring to justice those members of the security forces suspected of being responsible. As of mid-June 2001 seven indictments had reportedly been presented to the High Courts with regards to the alleged perpetration of torture and the Prosecution of Torture Perpetrators (PTP) Unit in the Attorney General's department has in addition processed investigative material in another six cases. However, despite these initiatives, it was reported that so far no one has been found guilty by a court of law in relation to charges of torture, or for rape in custody although some prosecutions have been brought in cases where the victim of rape was also murdered. Furthermore, no policy of compensation was said to have been worked out, and insofar as compensation has been granted it is said to be very insignificant. Furthermore, the Special Rapporteur had received a considerable number of alleged cases of torture having been carried out as part of routine criminal investigations as opposed to in areas characterized by civil strife, conflict or security operations. The practice of torture was said to be considerably more extensive and intensive in the latter areas.
1487 letter dated 2 September 2002, the Special Rapporteur advised the Government that he had received information on the following cases. By letters dated 7 and 29 November 2002 respectively, the Government transmitted interim responses regarding a number of them.
1488 Mahendranathan Shankar was reportedly arrested in Kandarmadam on 4 July 2001 by army personnel from the Urelu army camp. It was reported that he was undressed and blindfolded and that his hands were tied behind his back. It was also reported that he was pushed against a door, as a result of which his lip was injured. He was also allegedly assaulted with sticks and wires and burnt with cigarette butts. It was believed that he was handed over to the police at Kankesanthurai on 9 July 2001, where he was believed to have been assaulted by two police officers. A case filed before the Supreme Court in August 2001 was reportedly still pending at the time of writing.
1489 The Government responded that the Special Investigations Unit of the Police Department (SIU) had initiated an investigation on 10 October 2002. SIU made several attempts to trace the whereabouts of the alleged victim in order to record his statement. The Government indicated that the outcomes of its efforts will be provided to the Special Rapporteur.
1490 Krishnasamy Thiviyan, a former secretary of the Jaffna University Students Union, was reportedly taken into custody by the army on 2 July 2001. He was allegedly ill-treated by army personnel at the time of his arrest. His hands were reportedly tied behind his back and he was blindfolded with his shirt. He was reportedly beaten with the butt of a gun and kicked. He was taken to the Urelu army camp where it was alleged that soldiers undressed him, pulled his pubic hair, beat him with sticks and kicked him in the face. As a result, he was said to have sustained an injury to his mouth. He was reportedly assaulted in a similar way on the following day. He was allegedly seen with marks of injuries on his cheek and lower lip. He was also said to be suffering from back pain as a result of the ill-treatment. A fundamental rights petition was reportedly submitted on 9 August 2001. When the petition was taken up for inquiry by the Supreme Court on 22 August, the court was reported to have ordered that Krishnasamy Thiviyan be examined by a Judicial Medical Officer (JMO) and that the report of the examination be submitted to the court. The following hearing was believed to have been scheduled for 30 October 2001.
1491 Alagaiah Murugathas, a man from Vinayagapuram, Thirukovil, Amparai district, was reportedly arrested by the STF on 30 June 2001. The latter reportedly pulled a plastic shopping bag over his head which had been filled with petrol, put chilli powder into his eyes and beat him with wicket poles all over his body. Eight STF personnel reportedly stood on his chest. After he was handed over to the Special Investigation Branch of the police at Amparai town, he was allegedly beaten with a wooden pole all over his body by a police constable. Alagaiah Murugathas was reportedly seen with marks of severe injuries allegedly due to the treatment he had been subjected to on his back and thigh and red marks in his eyes, suspected of having been caused by the petrol and/or the chilli powder.
1492 The Government responded that the SIU had initiated an investigation on 10 October 2002.
1493 Ponnappapillai Sivanesan, a man originally from Chulipuram, Jaffna district, but living as a displaced person at Ilanthaimoddai, Nanaddan, Mannar district, was allegedly assaulted in his home and taken into custody by the STF to the Ilanthamoddai STF camp on 25 June 2001. His wife and three children were allegedly also assaulted by them at the time of his arrest. It was reported that he had been released in the afternoon of 26 June 2001 with a severe warning not to go to any hospital for treatment. He was reportedly admitted at the Mannar hospital, before being transferred to Vavuniya hospital.
1494 The Government responded that the SIU had initiated an investigation on 10 October 2002.
1495 Sivalingam Satheeskumar, a man from Thirukovil, Amparai district, was reportedly taken into custody by the STF on 16 May 2001 and held at the Thirukovil STF Camp. Soon after taking him into custody, STF officers reportedly pulled a shopping bag soaked in petrol over his face and assaulted him at the same time. They also reportedly put water and then chilli powder into his eyes. He was also allegedly suspended between two tables and assaulted with wicket poles while hanging between them. More than two months after having been subjected to this treatment, he reportedly continued to have marks of the beatings on his back and on his thigh.
1496 The Government responded that the SIU had initiated an investigation on 10 October 2002.
1497 Thangarasa Sathan, a man from Marambaikulam Vavuniya, was reportedly taken into custody by the Counter Subversive Unit (CSU) of police on 5 March 2001. It was believed that he was taken into custody for possession of a hand grenade. An attorney-at-law allegedly asked the court to institute a prosecution against the officials responsible for alleged ill-treatment.
1498 The Government responded that the SIU had initiated an investigation on 10 October 2002.
1499 R. Vigneswaran, a man from Chunnakam, was reportedly taken into custody at Urelu army camp on 8 February 2001. It was alleged that as a result of the treatment he was subjected to at the camp, he reportedly vomited blood. Soldiers reportedly are said to have warned him not to complain about his treatment while in detention and also not to obtain treatment from a hospital.
1500 The Government responded that the SIU had initiated an investigation on 10 October 2002.
1501 L. P. Maithreepala Senadira, from Pansalgodella, Galamuna, was reportedly taken into custody by the Polonnaruwa tourist police on 7 January 2001. It was reported that he was tied to a pillar, his clothes were removed and he was beaten with a pipe and sticks by a Sub-Inspector, as a result of which, his sexual organs were reportedly severely injured. He was allegedly taken to the Polonnaruwa Hospital by the sub-inspector himself. It is alleged that the injuries to his sexual organs required six stitches, and his back showed signs of severe beatings.
1502 The Government responded that the statement of the alleged victim had been recorded by the SIU. The case was settled by the National Human Rights Commission and compensation was paid by the accused officers.
1503 Nadarajah Thiruchelvam, a journalist of Point Pedro working in Jaffna for the daily newspapers Valampuri and Thinakaran, was reportedly taken into custody on 2 January 2001, and held handcuffed for 12 days in solitary confinement by the Terrorism Investigation Division (TID) of the police in Colombo. It was reported that he was taken into custody by the police in Wellawatte while on a visit to the capital with his family. It was alleged that he was assaulted with pipes and severely beaten.
1504 The Government responded that an investigation initiated on 7 March 2002 by the Police was still continuing.
1505 Sarojinidevi Thavarajah, a woman originally from Thiddy, Kankesanthurai, Jaffna district but living as a displaced person in Colombo, was reportedly taken into custody by members of the TID and detained at their offices along Chaitiya Road, Colombo 1 on 25 September 2000. The next day, she was reportedly taken to the TID offices situated in the police headquarters and interrogated about giving shelter to a person suspected of being an LTTE member. She was allegedly beaten with a piece of wood and with belts. She was believed to have collapsed but was reportedly still beaten. It was also alleged that her hair were pulled and that she was refused water. Similarly, on 27 September 2000, she was reportedly taken from Chaitiya Road to the TID office in the police headquarters. She was allegedly handcuffed and beaten. She was allegedly taken to the Colombo General Hospital on 28 September 2000. On the way to the hospital, she was allegedly threatened not to reveal how she had been treated. It was reported that as told a doctor what had happened, the TID officers refused to give her water and made her stand as a punishment for the rest of the day. On 8 November 2000, she reportedly had to be admitted to hospital again and this time she was examined by another doctor. Again, she was believed to have explained to him how she had been treated. According to the medical report, there were scars of seven injuries on her body which may have been caused by torture while held by the TID. It was reported that she was not allowed any visitors until 19 October 2000 and that she first saw a lawyer on 4 January 2001.
1506 The Government responded that an investigation had initiated on 28 October 2002. The statement of the victim was recorded on 11 November 2002. The following day, the complaint was voluntarily withdrawn by the victim, who expressed that she did not want to pursue the case.
1507 Nadaraja Rasalingam, a man from Manat Senai, Kalmunai, was reportedly taken into custody by personnel of Amparai CSU on 18 September 2000. It was reported that during the time of detention and investigation at the CSU, Nadaraja Rasalingam was injured in his left eye by a police constable. Boiling water was allegedly poured into his mouth on one occasion. A polythene bag, soaked in petrol, was allegedly put over his head covering his face and he was beaten by the police constable with bamboo sticks.
1508 The Government responded that the SIU had initiated an investigation on 10 October 2002.
1509 Muniyandi Selvarasa, a man from Markandu Veethi, Kalmunai, was reportedly taken into custody by the Amparai CSU on 18 September 2000. It was alleged that he was handcuffed and that his hands were placed on a table and his fingers were beaten with a pole. He was beaten and boiling water was forcibly poured into his mouth. A police constable allegedly urinated into his mouth. It was also reported that his fingers were broken and that he experienced problems speaking.
1510 The Government responded that the SIU had initiated an investigation on 10 October 2002.
1511 Anthonipillai Reginold, a man from Sammanthurai, Amparai district, was reportedly taken into custody by the Amparai CSU of police on 18 September 2000. A police constable reportedly inserted a ball point pen into his ear, forced a mixture of chili powder and salt into his mouth and made him chew it. The detainee was also reportedly forced to drink sewage water from a nearby drain. He was allegedly beaten with a handle of an axe and burnt with ignited cigarettes. He was reportedly handcuffed and beaten with a guava pole on his back and all over his body and trampled on. A fundamental rights case has reportedly been filed in the Supreme Court.
1512 The Government responded that the SIU had initiated an investigation on 10 October 2002.
1513 Maruthiah Yogaraja, a man from Narayanan Veethi, Periya Neelavanai, Kalmunai, Amparai district, was reportedly taken into custody by the Periya Neelavanai police on 14 September 2000. Police officers reportedly handed him over to the Kalmunai police station, without giving any reason for his arrest, and the next day transferred him to the Amparai CSU. It was alleged that boiling water was poured into his mouth, that he was forced to eat cow dung, and was beaten with a bamboo stick and wire and forced to eat the vomit of another detainee. Several months after, he was reportedly seen with marks of injuries on his body. Anthonipillai Reginold was reportedly held in the same cell as Maruthiah Yogaraja.
1514 The Government responded that the SIU had initiated an investigation on 10 October 2002.
1515 Murugesapillai Santhanarasa was reportedly deported from Norway on 14 April 2000. From 9 to 13 August 2000, he was allegedly detained in Negombo police station, where it was reported that he was handcuffed and that his head was covered with a plastic bag. He was reportedly hit with a pole while being questioned about his connections with the LTTE, during the time he stayed in Norway. He was reportedly released on 21 August 2000 after he was produced before the Negombo magistrate.
1516 The Government responded that following the attempts of the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) to trace the whereabouts of the alleged victim, the investigation initiated on 9 October 2002 was continuing.
1517 Jayakanthan was reportedly among seven Tamil young men taken into custody on 9 and 10 August 2000 by the Kirilapone police in Colombo after a search operation in the Grand Pass area. He was allegedly beaten while his head had been covered with a plastic bag filled with chili pepper. He was reportedly released from the detention after two weeks. As a result of the ill-treatment, he allegedly sustained an injury to his leg.
1518 The Government responded that an investigation had been conducted in November 2002. In a statement of the alleged victim recorded on 13 November 2002, the latter withdrew his complaint.
1519 Selvarajah Thamilchelvan, a man from Pattarakalli Koviladi, Thavadi South, Kokuvil, Jaffna district, was reportedly arrested on 22 June 2000 by officers of the TID while he was staying at his brother’s house in Wattala, Colombo, in order to travel abroad. It was alleged that while being held in detention at the TID office, the officers hit his ears with both hands on either side, after which his left ear started bleeding. They allegedly grabbed him by the back of his head and slammed his face onto the tabletop. They also reportedly took a paperweight and hit him on his head with it, causing injuries. The TID officers reportedly tied his legs, hung him upside down and beat him with wicket poles and wires. They reportedly covered his head with a bag soaked in petrol. Finally, it was reported that the TID officers also squeezed his penis with a pair of pliers and burnt him with cigarette butts on his hands. In May 2001, he was reportedly seen with marks of injuries sustained as a result, including on his back. It was reported that there were also marks of injuries still visible on his chest, forehead, thighs, buttocks, both upper arms and wrists. The marks of injuries caused by burning cigarette butts were also still visible on both his hands. He was said to have filed a fundamental rights petition in the Supreme Court in May 2001.A JMO who allegedly examined him on 20 March 2001 reportedly observed several scares.
1520 The Government responded that the SIU had initiated an investigation on 10 October 2002.
1521 Subramaniam Kannan, a man from Vavuniya, was reportedly taken into custody, on 20 June 2000, and was held during 42 days in the 211 Brigade Army camp in Vavuniya. He was reported to have been handed over to the army on 26 June 2000. It was alleged that during his detention he was beaten with batons and subjected to electric shocks, before he was allegedly over to the CSU of the police. At the CSU, his head was reportedly covered with a plastic bag that had been filled with petrol. It was believed that he was repeatedly beaten and that barbed wire was inserted into his rectum.
1522 The Government responded that the CID had initiated an investigation on 3 June 2002, upon advice of the Attorney General. A statement of the victim was recorded on 1 August 2002. A medical examination conducted on 24 August 2002 confirmed that the alleged victim had been assaulted. The Government also informed that investigations were continuing.
1523 Thushan Silva, and his brother Ranga Silva as well as one of their friends, Nimal Silva Gunaratne, a person allegedly suspected of murder, from Panadura, Ratnapura district, were reportedly taken to Panadurai police station custody on 22 May 2000, and kept in custody for one week. It was believed that the son of the Inspector General of Police and his fellow officers from the Panadura police station severely beat them and that Nimal Silva Gunaratne lost the sight in one eye as a result. A fundamental rights application was reportedly filed in the Supreme Court by the latter.
1524 The Government responded that an investigation initiated on 11 October 2002 was still continuing. The statements of the alleged victims were recorded and a report of a JMO was needed.
1525 Nagaraja Vamanaeswaran, a student from Muttur, was reportedly taken into custody in the Trincomalee Police Headquarters and Uppuveli police station, and admitted twice to Trincomalee base hospital for medical treatment for the injuries inflicted on him.
1526 The Government responded that the SIU had initiated an investigation on 10 October 2002.
1527 A man known as "old father" was allegedly arrested by STF of Thirukovil, on 3 May 2000. It was alleged that his buttocks were severely beaten with a dried bull's penis and he was also beaten with a pole all over his body. He was then reportedly handed over to the Amparai CSU, where the policemen removed his shirt and banian (men's underwear), and tied his hands with it, pushed him down and then beat him with a pole on his soles as a result of which he had difficulties in walking and lost his sight.
1528 Sivaguru Ravaneethan, a Tamil from Sinnakulam Vavuniya was reportedly taken into custody by a person dressed in army uniform and two others dressed in civilian clothes and sent to the JOSSOP army camp on 26 April 2000. It was alleged that the soldiers removed his clothes, tied his hands and feet and beaten him for several hours with their boots, pipes and an iron rod. It was reported that he was released the following day after being forced to sign a letter that he had not been taken into custody or assaulted by the army.
1529 The Government responded that the SIU had initiated an investigation on 10 October 2002.
1530 Mohamed Farik Sanoos, a man living in Colombo, was reportedly taken into custody on 26 April 2000 by officers of the CID. He was reportedly beaten, handcuffed, forced to sit on the floor and dragged along by his tie in front of his family and neighbours before being taken to the 4th Floor of Police Headquarters. A fundamental rights petition filed was pending in the Supreme Court of Sri Lanka.
1531 The Government responded that an investigation initiated on 11 October 2002 revealed that the alleged victim left the country.
1532 Ratnam Mahendram, a man from Saraswathy, Matha Vaithiyakulam, Vavuniya was reportedly taken into custody by army personnel of Kadiyiruppu Junction Army camp on 23 April 2000. He was allegedly forced to remove his clothes, blindfolded and his hands and legs were tied. Following this, he was allegedly beaten for about half an hour with pipes while being asked about his connections with LTTE. It was believed that he was released on 24 April 2000.
1533 The Government responded that the SIU had initiated an investigation on 10 October 2002.
1534 Kathiravelu Jagathas, a man from Thonikal Vavuniya, was reportedly taken into custody for one week in Sanasa Army camp, on 14 April 2000. He was allegedly assaulted for three hours with a wicket stump and hung on a beam. It was believed that he was not given any form of medical treatment for his injuries. He was reportedly released two weeks after his arrest and threatened by the army personnel not to tell anyone about the ill-treatment.
1535 The Government responded that the SIU had initiated an investigation on 10 October 2002.
1536 Navaratnam Sureshkaran, a man from Koddady, was reportedly taken into custody and ill-treated for seven days in Achchelu Army camp on allegations of connections with LTTE on 1 March 2000. He was reportedly undressed down to his shorts, and his legs were tied to the bench with a rope. His hands were allegedly folded under the bench and handcuffed, and a big club was pressed on his chest by two soldiers on both sides. After removing handcuffs, pins were reportedly inserted under his finger nails. Soldiers were said to have scratched his nipples with their finger nails. It is alleged that he was subjected to similar treatment for seven consecutive days.
1537 The Government responded that the SIU had initiated an investigation on 10 October 2002.
1538 Balachandralal Piratheepan, a man from Thirunelvely, Jaffna district, was reportedly taken into custody at the Urelu army Camp on 25 February 2000. It was reported that he had been beaten repeatedly for four days while being interrogated about his alleged connection with the LTTE. Two of his toe nails were allegedly pulled out with tweezers and his hair was reportedly pulled out.
1539 The Government responded that the SIU had initiated an investigation on 10 October 2002.
1540 Sinnathurai Vijayaruban, a man from Urumpirai East, was reportedly taken into custody by the soldiers of the Urelu Army camp repeatedly from 22 to 25 February 2000. He was allegedly beaten with a bat-shaped reaper plank and kicked with boots. His hair was said to have been pulled out with tweezers, and the soldiers reportedly pinched his nipples while beating him with s-lon pipes (a pipe used for plumbing made of hard plastic). It was also believed that he had been beaten with a bunch of keys tied to a long string. It was further reported that he was made to bend over and soldiers tied a polythene shopping bag over his face and tied it tightly around his neck, bringing him close to suffocation. During the day, he was reportedly kept blindfolded and his left hand handcuffed.
1541 The Government responded that the SIU had initiated an investigation on 10 October 2002.
1542 Selvarasa Nandakumar, a man from Kokuvil, Jaffna district, was reportedly taken into custody when he went to report at Urelu army camp on 2 March 2000 as requested by five soldiers who had come to his home earlier that day. He was allegedly put in a dark room for three consecutive days, beaten with bars and hammers. The soldiers allegedly inserted a ball point pen between his fingers, after keeping all fingers tight and rolled it. It was alleged that he had been released on 6 March 2000.
1543 The Government responded that the SIU had initiated an investigation on 10 October 2002.
1544 Markandu Srivasakam, a man from Valveddithurai in Jaffna, was reportedly taken into custody at Kotahena police station, Colombo, after his deportation from the Netherlands at the beginning of February 2000. He was reportedly arrested by some men dressed in civilian clothes, supposedly CID officers. He was allegedly beaten with batons and riffle butts for four days with a view to making him admit that he had relations with the LTTE. He was reportedly released after four days in custody.
1545 The Government responded that the SIU had initiated an investigation on 10 October 2002.
1546 Rasaiah Baleswaran, a man from Point Pedro, was reportedly taken into custody by Kandy police and allegedly beaten on 29 January 2000. According to the information received, he was beaten with PVC pipes and broomsticks. As a result, three of his teeth were reportedly broken, and he also suffered serious injuries to his face, elbow and knees. After being held in custody for 17 days, he was reportedly released on 5 February 2000 without having been produced in court. Following the release, he was believed to have received medical treatment at Kandy General Hospital.
1547 The Government responded that the SIU had initiated an investigation on 10 October 2002. SIU made several attempts to trace the whereabouts of the alleged victim in order to record his statement. The Government also indicated that the outcomes of its efforts will be provided to the Special Rapporteur.
1548 Periyathamby Kuhananthan, from Thavalai Iyattalai, Varani, Jaffna district, was taken into custody by army personnel on 22 January 2000, and subsequently sent to the Chuddipuram army camp. It was reported that soldiers pulled his ears and beard with their hands and with pliers. During the night, a trunk of a palm tree was allegedly put on his legs and the soldiers stood on it. At the same time one of the soldiers reportedly throttled his neck.
1549 The Government responded that the SIU had initiated an investigation on 10 October 2002.
1550 Stephens Pius Romulus was reportedly taken into custody by CID officers, on 20 January 2000. He was said to have been held there for four days. He was allegedly beaten with a bat and given electric shocks with a view to making him admit that he had relations with the LTTE. It was reported that he was later admitted to the General Hospital in Colombo.
1551 The Government responded that an investigation initiated on 11 October 2002 revealed that the alleged victim left the country. The Government further indicated that the investigation is continuing.
1552 Kadiravel Kamalarasan, from Grandpas area, was reportedly taken into custody at the Grandpass police station on 6 January 2000. He was reportedly suspended upside down, a shopping bag filled with chili powder was put over his head and rubbed into his sexual organs. It was said that he was made to lie on a table and water was poured into his nostrils so that he almost suffocated. They reportedly put his hands on a table, put a nail on one of his fingers, and hit the nail. He was also allegedly beaten on the soles of his feet with a rod. The Committee to Inquire into Undue Arrest and Harassment (CIUAH) was said to have investigated the case. He was reportedly presented to a JMO who allegedly found that his injuries were consistent with his allegations.
1553 The Government responded that an investigation initiated on 11 October 2002 was still continuing and that the Police were looking for the whereabouts of the alleged victim.
1554 B. Manivannan and his brother Babu were allegedly taken into custody at Trincomalee prison in January 2000. It was reported that he had been beaten and left unconscious, naked and bleeding. It was reported that he had urinated over his whole body. Babu was also allegedly severely beaten by the police in Trinco prison.
1555 Balasubramaniam Subaharan was reportedly arrested on 3 December 1999 at a security checkpoint by members of the Tamil Eelam Liberation Organization (TELO), an armed Tamil group said to be working alongside security personnel. He was reportedly taken to the TELO camp near the army camp in Vavunathivu, Batticaloa district, and handed over the following day to the Counter Subversive Unit of the police in Batticaloa town. At the time of arrest, he was working for the Department of Youth Service and he was also the organizer of the People's Alliance party in the area. He was alleged that during his detention at the TELO camp he had been beaten with a wooden pole and a chain, immersed in water and held upside down with both his legs tied together. The detainee also claimed that the neck of a bottle was inserted into his anus and that he was subjected to electric shocks. As a result of the ill-treatment, he reportedly suffered from chest pain, had difficulty passing urine, painful bowel movements and impaired vision and hearing. In July 2000, he was awarded 100,000 Rupees as compensation by the Supreme Court of Sri Lanka who found his allegations of torture to be a violation of his fundamental rights. Members of TELO had reportedly been arrested in connection with his ill-treatment. It was however not known if any charges had been brought against them or what action, if any, had been taken against the army personnel alongside whom the TELO members were deployed.
1556 The Government responded that the CID had initiated an investigation on 14 February 2001. The report of the CID investigation was sent to the Department of the General Attorney on 28 May 2002.
1557 Rajaratnam Thevaratnam, a man from Pandiruppu, Kalmunai, Amparai district, was reportedly arrested by STF personnel on 11 October 1999 in Kalmunai. According to a fundamental rights petition allegedly filed by him before the Supreme Court on 31 October 2000, he was assaulted with poles and sticks and was hung up by his hands and a shopping bag soaked in petrol was put over his face. It was reported that upon being transferred to the STF Camp in nearby Karaithivu later that day, he had been assaulted in a similar way with wicket poles. The STF personnel reportedly applied chilli to his genitals and administered electric shocks. He also alleged that, after being transferred into the custody of the Counter-Subversive Unit of the police in Amparai town on 13 October 1999, he was severely assaulted with S-lon pipes. He was reportedly later transferred into the custody of the TID in Colombo, where he was allegedly whipped with wire and slapped on both ears. He was reportedly suffering from hearing difficulties and has marks of torture on his hands, legs and several places on his back.
1558 The Government responded that the SIU had initiated an investigation on 10 October 2002. SIU made several attempts to trace the whereabouts of the alleged victim in order to record his statement. The Government indicated that the outcomes of its efforts will be provided to the Special Rapporteur.
1559 Ratnam Sivakumar, a student from Karanthan South, Jaffna district, was reportedly taken into custody ill-treated at the Urelu Army camp. He was reportedly severely beaten on the buttocks, leading to bleeding from his anus. After the ICRC delegation left the prison the next day, he was reportedly beaten again with a club and on his soles. Two days later, he was allegedly taken to the Anti Terrorist Unit Detention Centre at Kankesanthurai.
1560 The Government responded that the SIU had initiated an investigation on 10 October 2002.
1561 Four young fishermen from Duwa, Negombo were reportedly taken into custody on 27 April 2001 and severely assaulted while being taken to the Negombo police station. Police reportedly claimed that they were being arrested on suspicion of causing damage to a water supply pipeline. The police themselves reportedly took the assaulted fishermen to the hospital. Medical reports were obtained. One of the fishermen was said to have suffered an injury on his arm.
1562 The Government responded that an investigation had been conducted in October and November 2002. The statements of the four complainants were recorded. Minor injuries were reported. The Government further indicated that disciplinary actions will be taken by the Police Department.
1563 Kumaravel Perinbanathan, a resident of Pesalai, Mannar district, was reportedly arrested on 25 June 2001 from his home by police and navy personnel. He was reportedly placed in their jeep and taken to the Pesalai Police Post, where he was allegedly assaulted, before being taken to another police post in Unit 5, Pesalai. There, his hands were reportedly tied and he was allegedly hung from a beam, and assaulted with an s-lon pipe and a wooden wicket. He was reportedly later brought back to the Pesalai Welfare Centre, he was allegedly beaten again in the presence of several witnesses.
1564 The Government responded that the SIU had initiated an investigation on 10 October 2002.
1565 Periyakarupan Tharshaman, a man from Palamunai, Mannar district, was reportedly taken into custody at the Unit 5 Police Post on 23 June 2001, after he had allegedly been abducted by LTTE members. It was reported that in the police station his hands were tied together and a bag filled with petrol and chilli powder was put over his head covering his entire face. Chilli powder was reportedly thrown into his mouth and applied to his gunshot wound. He was similarly ill-treated on 24 June 2001, before being taken to Mannar Police Station and to Mannar Hospital.
1566 The Government responded that the SIU had initiated an investigation on 10 October 2002.
1567 Kanthappan Sarojini, a woman from Kurumanveli, Kaluwanchikudy, was reportedly taken into custody on 10 January 2000 by the personnel attached to the CSU of the Amparai Police. Her uncle and another person, who were at her home on a visit, were said to have also been arrested and taken to Amparai CSU. On 20 February 2000 she was allegedly taken to Damana police station. On 20 July 2000, she was reportedly produced before Magistrate in Amparai, who had ordered her remand, and then sent to Badulla Prison. While in detention at Amparai CSU, she was said to have had been hung upside down, whipped with a wire, kicked with boots, and beaten with sticks and pipes. She was treated at the Amparai Government Hospital. The magistrate in Amparai reportedly ordered the JMO in Badulla on 12 September 2000 to examine her and submit the medical report to the court.
1568 The Government responded that the CID had initiated an investigation on 7 February 2002 was continuing. A medical examination conducted by a JMO on 17 December 2000 confirmed that the alleged victim had been assaulted. The statement of the alleged victim was recorded on 19 November 2002.
1569 Girissa (Gresha) De Silva was reportedly taken to the police barrack at Ahangama on 22 March 2002, where his clothes were removed by force and his hands tied behind the back. He was reportedly suspended from the beams, and beaten with wooden poles and S-Lon pipes by the officer in charge, two sergeant inspectors, and one sergeant and others in civilian clothing. He was furthermore reportedly suspended by his fingers, and denied water. As a result, he was allegedly unable to use his hands which felt numb. He was reportedly released and hospitalized from 23 March to 11 April 2002. He was said to have lost the use of both hands. He reportedly lodged a complaint with the police station at Galle. A representative from the Deputy Inspector General was said to have recorded a statement from him while he was in hospital.
1570 The Government responded that the SIU had concluded an investigation on 22 October 2002 and forwarded its findings to the Department of the Attorney General. The investigation revealed that on 23 March 2002 a JMO confirmed that Girissa de Silva had been subjected to ill-treatment.
1571 Waragodamudalige Gerald Mervin Perera was said to have been on a life support system in hospital as a result the treatment he was allegedly subjected to at the Wattala Police Station on 3 June 2002 in the presence of his wife. He was reportedly brutally assaulted by the officers attached to this police station. It was alleged that his hands were tied behind his back, that he was blindfolded, hung on a beam and brutally beaten for about one hour. He was said to have been released on the 4 June 2002 and subsequently taken to Yakkala Wickramarachchi Ayurvedic Hospital and later transferred to Navaloka Hospital in Colombo. While in the hospital, he reportedly made a statement to an officer from Grandpass Police Station, Colombo, about the treatment in detention. His state of health worsened by 15 June 2002, and doctors were said to have advised his family that his situation was critical and life-threatening. Fears were expressed that the life support system may be removed due to excessive costs. None of the perpetrators had reportedly been arrested.
1572 The Government responded that a medico-legal report issued on 18 June 2002 indicated that he had been assaulted. An investigation initiated by the CID on 2 July 2002 was still continuing. On 7 October 2002, the statement of three suspects was recorded.
1573 Nimal Silva Gunaratne was reportedly detained for 101 days from 19 June 2000 in an illegal detention centre, where he was reportedly ill-treated leading to the loss of the use of one eye. He reportedly filed a fundamental rights petition but his family was said to have been put under pressure to withdraw the case. Although the injuries were allegedly very severe, the Attorney-General did reportedly not file case for torture against the alleged perpetrators.
1574 The Government responded that the investigation initiated by the CID on 2 July 2002 was still continuing. A medical examination conducted by a JMO on 10 November 2000 confirmed that he had been assaulted. The statement of the alleged victim was recorded on 22 July 2002.
1575 Kodithuwakkuarrachige A. Samarasinghe was allegedly severely beaten and had liqueur poured through his nose ill-treated during his detention at Badurueliya Police Station, Kalutara District, from 11 to 14 November 2001. As a result of this treatment, he was said to have suffered from a mental illness and to have been taken to the mental hospital in Mulleriyawa, where he was not admitted, and to the General Hospital Kalutara (Nagoda), where he was hospitalized until 22 November 2001. On 3 December 2001, he was allegedly produced before a JMO in Colombo, who reportedly referred him back to hospital. Complaints had reportedly been filed at the National Human Rights Commission. No steps had reportedly been taken by the Attorney General’s Department to file criminal charges against the suspected perpetrators.
1576 The Government responded an investigation initiated on 9 October 2002 was still continuing. The statement of the alleged victim was recorded on 22 October 2002 and a JMO was requested to send a report on 13 November 2002.
1577 Hewage Ranjini Rupika, a three-month-pregnant woman from Girikola, Agalawatte, was reportedly hit with wooden poles and kicked in the stomach ill-treated by the officer in charge of the Matugama Police and subsequently taken to the police station on 11 September 2001. It was reported that although she began to bleed she was denied medical assistance. She was reportedly released on 15 September 2001. As a result of the alleged ill-treatment and bleeding, she reportedly lost the baby.
1578 The Government responded an investigation initiated on 14 October 2002 was still continuing. The statement of the alleged victim was recorded on 2 October 2002 and a JMO was requested to send a report on 13 November 2002. Statements of the accused officers were to be recorded.
1579 H. Fonseka, from Modara, Moratuwa, was reportedly arrested by Panadura police officers on 4 June 2002, and thrown twice into the Panadura River by a police officer. Some people reportedly intervened and saved him. He was said to have been unconscious when he was saved. A medical report dated 6 June 2002 from Panadura Base Hospital allegedly reported several injuries due to drowning. A complaint had reportedly been made regarding attempted murder but no action had so far been taken. The case was reportedly brought before the National Human Rights Commission.
1580 The Government responded that an investigation had been initiated on 11 October 2002. The statement of the alleged victim was recorded on 30 October 2002. The latter said that the case was settled and that he had voluntarily withdrew the complaint on 8 February 2002.
1581 Lance
Corporal Kavinda, a disabled Navy officer, was reportedly arrested and
beaten with a club and taken to Padukka Police Station on 29 October 2001. In
the police station, he was allegedly slapped on both ears, kicked in the lower
abdomen and verbally abused. It was reported that as had felt sick, he had been
taken to Padukka Hospital. He reportedly sustained injuries to both ears, left
hip and lower abdomen, which were reflected in a medical report. The Attorney
General did reportedly not take any action to file charges under the Act no.22
of 1994.
1582 The Government responded that an investigation had been initiated on 25 October 2002. In his statement, the alleged victim said that the case had been settled on 23 October 2002 at the National Human Rights Commission. Accused persons agreed to pay Rs. 45,000 as compensation.
1583
A. M.
E. De Silva of Egoda, Ekala, was
reportedly slapped twice by a police constable at Je-ela Police Station on the
9 January 2001. Further, one officer reportedly put his hand between his legs
and grabbed his neck and several other officers beat and kicked him. He was
forcefully undressed, and beaten on the soles with the belts. The police is
said to have insulted navy personnel in the process. On 10 January 2001, a
legal officer and a medical officer reportedly came to the police station and
examined him. A complaint was lodged at Je-ela police station and at the ASP’s
office at Peliagoda. He was allegedly hospitalized at Negombo General Hospital
until 18 January 2001. As a result of the ill-treatment, he reportedly had
pains in his chest and abdomen and was unable to urinate. On 16 January 2001,
he was reportedly taken to the Magistrate’s Court, who released him on bail.
Complaints had reportedly been lodged at the National Human Rights Commission.
1584 The Government responded that an investigation initiated on 8 October 2002 was still continuing. On 30 October 2002, statements of the victim and witnesses were recorded. At the time the Government responded to the Special Rapporteur, a report of the Prison Hospital doctor was awaited.
1585 Namal Fernando was reportedly arrested Pitipana Duwa, Negombo, on 6 October 2001 by several police officers from the Mundalama police station. A man in civilian clothes reportedly punched him in the face and a police officer reportedly beat and kicked him. He was also reported to have been pinned to the ground while a police officer pointed a gun at him. Later, another police officer allegedly hit his chest and knees with a gun butt. Due to the severe pain, Namal Fernando was said to have involuntarily defecated. He was taken to hospital at Mundalama on 7 October 2001. On the same day he was reportedly produced before the Magistrate and remanded. He was said to have been released the next day without charge. It was believed that he had been arrested on mistaken identity. He allegedly entered Ragama Hospital for treatment.
1586 The Government responded that an investigation was conducted in November 2002. The statement of the alleged victim was recorded on 14 November 2002. Minor injuries were reported. Two accused individuals were due to appear before the Special Investigations Unit on 19 November 2002. A Home Guard involved in the case has been suspended of his functions and disciplinary action will be taken against an accused officer.
1587 Ajith Nawaratne Bandara was allegedly taken into custody and assaulted by the Keselwatte Police personnel on 2 May 2001. He was subsequently taken to the Panadura Hospital District Medical Officer’s (DMO) official residence by the police sergeant and his assistant but was allegedly not examined by the doctor. Upon having been released on 4 May 2001, he was reportedly hospitalized for five days. It was reported that although complaints were made to the officer in charge of Panadura police and the Human Rights Commission, no action was said to have taken place.
1588 The Government responded that an investigation initiated by the CID on 21 August 2001 was still continuing. A medical examination conducted by a JMO on 7 August 2001 confirmed that he had been subjected to ill-treatment. The statement of the alleged victim was recorded on 7 November 2001.
1589 Vijitha Dissanayake was allegedly arrested by Mathugama Police around 21 March 2001. He was allegedly beaten, burnt with cigarettes and had a finger cut off by officers of the Mathugama police station, in particular the officer in charge. Upon his release, he was allegedly admitted to the Mathugama hospital and subsequently transferred to the teaching hospital in Nagoda, Kalutara, where he reportedly stayed six days. No legal action was said to have been taken against the OIC.
1590 The Government responded that the CID had initiated an investigation on 5 August 2002. On 11 September 2002 the CID held an identification parade during which three suspects were identified. On 8 October 2002, the attorney General advised the CID to file indictments and to take disciplinary action against them.
1591 A.M. Maithreepala was reportedly arrested on 29 December 2000 by a sub-inspector of Rajagiriya Police, where he was allegedly taken and severely beaten, despite the fact that he had recently undergone an operation. He was said to have been later produced before the courts and remanded. He reportedly died as a result of the beatings on 19 January 2001. No complaint had reportedly been made for fear of reprisals from the police.
1592
The Government
responded that the investigation was continuing. So far, statements of
neighbors and relatives had been recorded.
1593 Bandula Rajapakse, R.P. Sampath Rasika Kumara, Mr. Ranaweera and Chaminda Dissanayake were reportedly ill-treated on 19 and 20 February 2002 in the police station of Ja-ela. The policemen are said to have beaten Bandula Rajapakse, R.P. Sampath Rasika Kumara, and Mr. Ranaweera, on the back using rubber hoses and PVC pipes. R.P. Sampath Rasika Kumara was reportedly beaten on the knees and fingers as well. Chaminda Dissanayake was allegedly kicked by a policeman. Bandula Rajapakse was denied water. The four men were allegedly taken to a District Medical Officer and produced before a magistrate, who reportedly ordered their release on bail and that they were examined by a JMO. The Deputy Inspector General of Police was said not to have conducted a criminal investigation.
1594 Angaline Roshana was reportedly forcibly taken to Narahenpita police station where she was allegedly assaulted and forced to sign a confession on 3 December 2000. She was also believed to have been threatened with being suspended and beaten.
1595 The Government responded that the CID had initiated an investigation on 20 March 2002. The statement of the victim was recorded on the same day. On 25 March 2002, a medical examination conducted by a JMO confirmed that she had been assaulted. The CID investigation revealed that she had been arbitrarily detained and tortured by officers attached to the Narahenpita police station. On 4 June 2002 the Attorney General advised the CID to arrest and produce the alleged perpetrators before the Court and to forward the reports on the case in order to take disciplinary actions.
1596 Eric Antunia Kramer was allegedly beaten and subjected to other forms of ill-treatment by police from Mutuwal police station on 28 and 29 May 2002 to determine whether he had been involved in this attempted burglary. He was allegedly beaten all over the body and the soles of his feet with a leather belt and wooden poles, slapped and kicked. It was also alleged that an officer but a leather belt around his neck, tightened it and threatened him to kill him. As a result of this treatment, he was said not to be able to walk properly and to have received treatment in a hospital. A complaint was lodged with the authorities.
1597 The Government responded that an investigation initiated by the SIU on 14 October 2002 was continuing.
1598 T. K. Hiran Rasika, aged 10, and E. A. Kasun Madusanka, aged 12, were reportedly arrested on 9 July 2002 by two police officers from Hiniduma police station who allegedly hung them on beams by their legs and beat them. They reportedly also pulled their hair with pliers and inserted pins under their fingernails. The boys were released on 10 July and reportedly had to be hospitalised for their injuries. The two officers had reportedly not been charged but only transferred to another police station.
1599 By letter dated 7 November 2002, the Government informed the Special Rapporteur that a police investigation had been initiated in the context of which the statements of several persons involved in the incident, including the alleged victims, were recorded. A medical report issued by the JMO of Karapitiya Hospital, Galle, indicated that Hirran Rasika did not sustain injuries and that Kasun Madusanka sustained a non grievous abrasion caused by a blunt weapon. An inspector of police was transferred to Colombo on disciplinary grounds and charged with neglect of duties, discreditable conduct and being an accessory to breach of discipline. A police constable was transferred to Akmeemana police station and charged with discreditable conduct, oppressive conduct, neglect of duties, and falsehood or prevarication. A second police constable was sent a warning letter and a senior superintendent of police (SSP) was instructed to take disciplinary action against the police officers involved in the incident.
1600 By letter dated 16 September 2002 sent jointly with the Special Rapporteur on violence against women, its causes and consequences, the Special Rapporteur advised the Government that he had received information on the following cases. By letter dated 16 December 2002, the Government responded to a number of them.
1601 Thambipillai Thanalakshmi was allegedly raped in her house at Meesalai by soldiers from the Sri Lankan army on 7 July 2001. Her mother was reportedly hit when she tried to rescue her. A complaint was reportedly filed with police in Kodikamam. It was alleged that two soldiers had been arrested by the military police on 12 July 2001.
1602 The Government responded that two suspects for her rape were produced at an identification parade conducted by the Jaffna Magistrate on 25 July 2001. However, the alleged victim could not identify them. At the time the Government responded to the Special Rapporteurs, the two men were in fiscal custody. Reports on the investigations had been sent to the Attorney General.
1603 Mahendiran Nageswari was reportedly sexually abused by personnel attached to the STF camp at Kaluthawalai in April 2001. She was later admitted to the Batticaloa teaching hospital. The matter was alleged to have been reported to the Kaluwanchikudy police station for inquiries.
1604 The Government responded that the case was proceeding. So far, the accused, a man belonging to the Special Task Force, has been charged by the Batticaloa Magistrate Court
1605 Vijayaratnam Subashini and Thangiah Vijayalalitha, aged 14, were reportedly sexually assaulted by more than ten Navy personnel, on 20 April 2001. It was alleged that Vijayaratnam Subashini had been blindfolded and her hands had been tied behind her back and that the soldiers had touched and squeezed her breasts and her genital area for about two hours. They both were later said to have been taken into custody in Vavuniya army camp.
1606 The Government responded that the District Secretaries of Mullathivu and Vanni had been requested to check their presence in the addresses they gave upon their release on 13 June 2002 in order to record their statement and initiate an investigation into the allegations of torture.
1607 Sivamany Archunan and Wijikala Nanthakumar were reportedly arrested by members of the navy accompanied by members of the Special Investigation Unit (SIU) of the police in Mannar on 19 March 2001. They were allegedly beaten and raped by navy and SIU personnel at the office of the Counter-Subversive Unit (CSU) of the police along Palimunai Road. The two women were also believed to have been hung on a crossbar which was placed between two tables. The initial medical examination by the JMO Mannar allegedly did not confirm rape as both victims had refused to be examined reportedly as a result of threats from the CSU officers taking them to hospital. Later examinations by the JMO Mannar and the JMO Colombo reportedly did confirm that they had been raped. After widespread protests, an investigation by the CID from Colombo was allegedly ordered. A Mannar magistrate hearing was said to have taken place on 3 April 2001
1608 The Government responded that following a directive made by the Inspector General of Police, the CID conducted an investigation into the allegations included in the Special Rapporteurs’ communication. On 4 April 2001, the alleged victims were interviewed by CID officers at the Mannar Police Station. In their statements, the two alleged victims reported that they had been raped and subjected to other forms of torture by both Naval and Police personnel. The two alleged victims subsequently underwent a medical examination by the consultant Judicial Medical Officer of Colombo. A series for identification parades were held in Mannar Magistrate Court, in which 14 Naval and Police personnel were produced. The latter were also produced before Mannar Magistrate Court and later released on bail by Vavuniya High Court. At the time the Government responded to the Special Rapporteurs, indictments were being prepared by the Attorney General.
1609 Yogalingam Vijitha was allegedly raped while in detention in the Negombo police station, between 21 and 27 June 2000. She was believed to have been beaten with poles on her knees, back, chest and the lower abdomen, and trampled on with boots. She was reportedly forced to lie on a table and pins were inserted under the nails of her fingers and toes, and she was slapped on her ears. On another occasion all her clothing, except her underwear, was reportedly removed and her face was covered with a polythene bag filled with chilli powder and petrol. It was also alleged that chilli powder was inserted into her vagina, as a result of which she fainted. She was reportedly produced in the Colombo Chief Magistrate Court on 21 July 2000, who allegedly ordered that she be examined by a JMO. The latter reportedly confirmed that she sustained scars, that she was suffering from post traumatic stress disorder and depression. A fundamental rights petition was reportedly filed in March 2001 and continues to be heard. She was said to have been released on 26 April 2001.
1610 The Government informed the Special Rapporteurs that the Supreme Court, who heard the Fundamental Rights application filed by the alleged victim, gave a judgment in her favor and granted her a compensation of Rs. 250,000. The Court also directed the Attorney General to pursue the possibility of criminal prosecution against those responsible for. Police has made several attempts to trace her whereabouts until it was found out that she had gone abroad. The Government expressed that it would welcome any further information that would held in locating her.
1611 A mother of two children was reportedly raped by a STF commando at Cheddipaalayam in Batticaloa district, on 5 February 2001. According to the reports, the woman was collecting firewood when she was raped by a member of the STF. It is alleged that he had also threatened to kill her, if she complained to anyone. She was reportedly admitted to Batticaloa Hospital. The suspect who is said to be attached to Cheddipaalayam STF camp, whose name is known to the Special Rapporteur, was reportedly arrested by the police and produced before the Batticaloa District Judge.
1612 Velmurugu Thanalauxmi, Velmurugu Thangeswaray and another woman, Thamotharam Yokampikai were reportedly raped by Sri Lanka Army (SLA) soldiers attached to the Kumburumoolai army camp, who were on duty at a checkpoint in Vembu on 10 August 2000. It was also alleged that the men in their houses were assaulted by the soldiers. One of the victims allegedly complained to the officer in charge of Kumburumoolai army camp.
1613 A 33-year-old mother of one child, married to a man working in Korea, was reportedly taken into custody by the officers of Negombo CID on 27 June 2000 and ill-treated for two days. She was believed to have been beaten with the rear of the chair and to have been threatened with further ill-treatment. On 30 June 2000, some drunken male police officers were said to have gone to her cell and forced her to remove all her clothes. It was reported that she had later been admitted in the Negombo hospital.
1614 Poomany Saravanai, a 70-year-old woman from Karanthan, Neervely West, Jaffna, was reportedly raped by two Sri Lanka Army service personnel on 31 May 2000, while her son was allegedly held at gunpoint and severely beat him. She was said to have made a complaint to the National Human Rights Commission and to have identified the perpetrators. It was not known whether any action had been taken by the authorities in response to her complaint.
1615 By letter dated 16 September 2002 sent jointly with the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions and the Special Rapporteur on violence against women, the Special Rapporteur advised the Government that he had received information on the following individual cases.
1616 Jeyanthi Veerasingham was reportedly raped and killed while in custody, in an army detachment at Sanasa transit camp, on 17 February 2000. The army reportedly handed over her body to the Vavuniya hospital, claiming that she had committed suicide by swallowing cyanide. The Magistrate inspected her body at the Vavuniya hospital mortuary and reportedly instructed the police to conduct further investigation. The Magistrate reportedly also instructed the JMO of Vavuniya hospital to hold a postmortem examination.
1617 S. Umadevi, a student from Nawalapitiya, Imbulpitiya Estate, was reportedly abducted, raped and murdered on 12 September 2001 at Kopiwatte, Mallanda in Nawalapitiya on her way home. Her parents were said to have filed a case with the Nawalapitiya Police. However, the woman police constable was said to have been abusive and not willing to accept their complaint. The same evening, her father was said to have heard that the corpse of a young woman was had been found in the shrubs near the Malkanda bridge. He reportedly went to the spot and identified the body as that of his daughter. The police reportedly did not show any concern about this case and have so far failed to arrest any suspects, or to visit the home of the victim.
1618 By letter dated 20 September 2002 sent jointly with the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, the Special Rapporteur advised the Government that he had received information on the following individual cases.
1619 W A P Jayaratne, a corporal in the Special Forces brigade of the army, reportedly died during interrogation by the military on 21 June 2001. He had reportedly been arrested on 7 June by the SIU of the Military Police. Within hours of his death, four corporals of the SIU were said to have been taken into custody by the Mahawela police. Army headquarters were also said to have appointed a military court of inquiry into his death.
1620 Kandaiyan Udayakumaran was reportedly taken into custody by the navy personnel on 28 February 2001. On the following day, his family was reportedly informed that he had been handed over to the Mannar police. On 1 March 2001 navy personnel reportedly brought his dead body to Mannar base hospital. According to the post mortem report, the death was caused due to strangulation. Two navy personnel were allegedly arrested. At the time of writing, a magistrate's inquiry was said to be continuing.
1621 W. Sujeewa Priyadarshana reportedly died as a result of ill-treatment by police officers and personnel of Thebuwana Police on 30 January 2001 while in remand custody. He was allegedly taken into custody on 15 January 2001by two sub-inspectors of Thebuwana Police who allegedly severely beat him. He was reportedly produced before a court on 16 and 30 January 2001 and twice remanded. A complaint had reportedly been made with the Matugama A. S. P. on both 15 and 16 January 2001, but the entry was said not to have been entertained. As the report of JMO was reportedly not available during a magisterial enquiry on 31 May 2001, the verdict on his death was reportedly not given. Police were believed to be evading an enquiry.
1622 Mullakandage Lasantha Jagath Kumara, a soldier from Payagala, was allegedly taken into custody by Payagala Police on 12 June 2000 and detained for five days. He was reportedly subjected to ill-treatment during the period. He said to have been produced before Kalutara Magistrate on 17 June 2000 and remanded. As a result of severe beatings, he reportedly died at Welikada Prison on 20 June 2000. It was alleged that according to the autopsy conducted by the JMO, the death had been due to damage caused to muscles and tissues by a blunt weapon, which rendered the kidneys ineffective. An enquiry into this death was said to have been held at Colombo Magistrate's Court and later handed over to a Deputy Inspector General. Police personnel belonging to Payagala police station had allegedly been named as suspects. However, police officers who investigated the murder and presented materials before court were said to cover up for the police officers involved in the murder.
1623 Jayakodige Anura Wijesiri was reportedly found hanging inside his police cell in the Ingiriya Police Station on 12 January 2001. On 11 January, he had reportedly been visited by his brother who he allegedly told that he had been beaten by two police sergeants on the previous night and was in fear of renewed ill-treatment that night. The district medical officer was said to have reported that the cause of death was suicide. However, the magistrate reportedly ordered a second post-mortem to be done by a JMO. The latter reportedly found two hearts and four lungs inside the dead body. It was believed that the body had been reopened in the hospital mortuary in order to subvert the second post-mortem, and other body parts had been placed inside before the second post-mortem was carried out. Despite requests to investigate the case and bring the perpetrators to justice, no investigation was said to have been carried out.
1624 By letter dated 13 December 2001, the Government informed the Special Rapporteur that a Directorate of Human Rights and Humanitarian Law had been created in the Sri Lanka Army. The mandate of the new Directorate includes overseeing the implementation of human rights norms and standards in line with domestic constitutional and other legal provisions and those relating to international human rights law.
Urgent appeals
1625 On 16 May 2002, the Special Rapporteur sent an urgent appeal on behalf of Lalith Rajapakse who had reportedly been arrested on 19 April 2002. Three police officers reportedly assaulted him and took him to the Kabdana police station, accusing him of theft. When his grandfather went to see him, he reportedly found that his grandson was lying on the floor of the cell unconscious, allegedly as the result of the treatment he had been subjected to. He was reportedly taken to the Ragama Hospital in a very serious medical condition. From there he was said to have been immediately transferred to ward 55 of the Colombo Central Hospital. He reportedly
1626 remained unconscious until 7 May 2002. His condition was said to remain very critical, and his family, who are said to be poor, cannot provide him with adequate medical attention.
1627 The Government responded that the CID had initiated an investigation on 24 July 2002, upon advice of the Attorney General. The statement of the alleged victim was recorded on 22 August 2002. A statement of a JMO recorded on 11 October 2002 revealed that Lalith Rajapakse had been assaulted.
1628 On 13 September 2002, the Special Rapporteur sent a joint urgent appeal with the Special Rapporteurs on the independence of judges and lawyers and on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions and the Chairman-Rapporteur of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention on behalf of Nandini Herat, who had reportedly been arrested on 8 March 2002 by the police in Wariyapola, near Kurunegala. While in custody, she was allegedly subjected to torture of a sexual nature by five police officers. It was reported that in early August the officers, who are still in their posts, were charged with the torture of Nandini Herat before the Magistrates' Court of Wariyapola. Although the magistrate allegedly issued a warning that the witnesses should not be intimidated, the police officer in charge of the station reportedly went to Kandy remand prison where Nandini Herat is currently being held, allegedly in order to ask her to withdraw the case. Her father was also allegedly threatened when he duly requested a copy of the initial complaint made to the police against his daughter. Two lawyers who had been asked to act on Nandini Herat's behalf have already withdrawn their services as a result of intimidation.
1629 By letter dated 10 October 2002, the Government responded that the Attorney General had instructed the Criminal Investigations Department (CID) to take over the investigations on the alleged torture of the above-mentioned person. The Attorney General had also directed the CID to arrange for another medical examination of the alleged victim by the JMO and the CID had been asked to submit all reports of the medical examination and the investigation in order to enable the consideration of filing indictments under the Convention against torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment act. Finally, the Government stated that the CID has also been directed by the Attorney-General to conduct criminal investigations into the threat to Mr. Priyantha Gamage, Counsel of Ms. Herath and Mr. Nishantha Kumara, by Wariyapola Police.
Follow-up to previously transmitted communications
1630 By letter dated 6 December 2001, the Government responded to the urgent appeals sent jointly with the Chairman-Rapporteur of the Working Group on arbitrary detention on 23 July 2001 and with the Special Representative of the Secretary General on human rights defenders on 2 August 2001 and to the communication sent jointly with the latter on 30 August 2001 (see E/CN.4/2002/76/Add.1, paras. 1517, 1534 and 1535). The Government indicated that upon being informed that a group of Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) cadres were in the area of Uralu, search operations were conducted by a group of army personnel. In this context, in the morning of 2 July 2001, Krishnaswami Thivyan and another person traveling with him disobeyed to an order to stop. While the other one managed to escaped, Krishnaswami Thivyan was apprehended. As he was in possession of a weapon, he was detained under the Prevention of Terrorism Act. As a result of detailed interrogation, a LTTE safe house in which a considerable arsenal was hidden was discovered in Urumbirai. Krishnaswami Thivyan was handed over to the Anti-Terrorist Unit of the Sri Lanka Police in Kankasanthurai to proceed with the investigations on his alleged involvement in terrorist activities. Representatives of the International Committee of the Red Cross and the National Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka were permitted to visit him during his detention. According to the results of the investigations, Krishnaswami Thivyan had been in charge of LTTE activities within Jaffna University. He has been indicted before the High Court in Jaffna by the Attorney General who has filed three cases under the Prevention of Terrorism Act. By letter dated 16 April 2002, the Government further informed that in January 2002, in pursuance of ongoing efforts to resolve the conflict in the North East and with the view to creating a suitable environment in which fruitful negotiations could take place between the Government and LTTE, the Attorney General begun to withdraw indictments filed against persons whose indicted involvement in terrorist activity was minimal. As a result, on 22 February 2002, the indictment against Thivyan Krisnasamy for having failed to provide information regarding LTTE terrorist activity was withdrawn. Further, on 15 March 2002, the High Court of Jaffna discharged Thivyan Krisnasamy in the two other cases pending against him after witnesses failed to appear in Court. By the same letter, the Government assured that he was not subjected to torture or other form of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment while in detention.
1631 By letters dated 7 December 2001, 18 December 2001, 21 December 2001, 8 April 2002, 29 April 2002 and 29 November 2002, the Government responded to cases previously transmitted.
1632 Concerning the case of Shanmugam Manogaran (E/CN.4/2002/76/Add.1, para. 1512), the Government responded that the CID had made several attempts to find the whereabouts of the alleged victim in order to record his statement. However, since all the attempts have been unsuccessful, the CID could not pursue its investigations.
1633 Concerning the case of Michael Edwards (ibid., para. 1513), the Government responded that the Inter-ministerial Standing Committee on Human Rights had directed the CID to initiate an investigation. However, by an affidavit dated 27 November 2002, the alleged victim informed the Standing Committee on Human Rights that he did not wish to participate in the investigation and that he did not want the alleged perpetrators to be prosecuted. In these circumstances, the CID decided to terminate its investigations.
1634 Concerning the case of Nadarajah Thiruchelvan (ibid., para. 1414), the Government responded that on 25 April 2001, the CID had initiated an investigation. The latter revealed that the records of the Terrorism investigation Department (TID) indicate that this person had never been arrested by the TID. In these circumstances, further investigations into allegations of torture could not be continued. However, the Government expressed that further action could be taken if more information regarding this case is provided by the Special Rapporteur.
1635 Concerning the case of Vijitha Siriwardena (Dissanayake) (ibid. para. 1515), the Government responded that the CID had been directed by the Attorney General to conduct inquiries on the allegations of torture. The CID investigations revealed that according to the JMO of Nagoda hospital who examined the alleged victim on 22 March 2001, the burn marks and the cut injuries of the fore finger of the left hand were self-inflicted. The alleged victim was invited by the CID to undergo a second medical examination by a JMO in Colombo but he did not appear to the appointment. In these circumstances, it was not possible for the CID to pursue its investigations. On 22 July 2002, the case was forwarded to the Attorney General who was to file action against Vijitha Siriwardena for making false complaints.
1636 Concerning Uchita Thussara Kumaea (ibid., para. 1518), the Government responded that upon completion of criminal investigations, the Attorney General will be invited to consider the institution of criminal proceedings against those responsible for his torture and death.
1637 Concerning Velauthapillai Rajani (ibid., para. 1520), the Government responded that the Military Police (CCMP) had conducted inquiries into her disappearance, rape and death and identified four army personnel as responsible for these crimes. Six army personnel were subsequently arrested and handed over the Kankasanthurai Police for the conduct of criminal investigations. The case was subsequently sent to the Attorney General, who presented indictment in the High Court of Colombo against a Corporal, a Lance Corporal and two privates of the Sri Lanka Army. The Government also informed that the body of the victim was exhumed under judicial supervision in October 1996 and that a Post Mortem Examination was conducted by a qualified Forensic Pathologist.
1638 Concerning the rape and murder of Ida Hamilitta (Ida Camaleeta) (ibid., para. 1521), the Government indicated that investigations had been conducted by the CID of the Police and that a post mortem examination was conducted by a qualified JMO. Initial investigations revealed that a group of soldiers entered her house on 20 July 1999, raped and killed her. As a result, two soldiers were arrested and produced before a magistrate. They were identified during an identification parade conducted on 20 July 1999. Further investigations revealed the complicity of three other soldiers in the rape and killing. The latter subsequently surrendered to the Magistrates Court. The case was transferred to the Chief Magistrates Court of Colombo who initiated a non-summary case. On 3 July 2001, the Court discharged three of the suspects due to lack of evidence but the two main suspects remained accused. The non-summary inquiry was still continuing when the Government transmitted this information.
1639 Concerning Krishnapillai Thayayothy (ibid., para. 1522), the Government responded that Serunuwara Police investigations had been obstructed by the fact that the location of the grave in which the victim was buried was under the control of terrorist groups. The Assistant Superintendent of Police (ASP) of Serunuwara interviewed the deceased’s relatives, who did not implicate security forces in the murder of the victim. The case was transferred to the Magistrate who, without being able to exhume the body of Krishnapillai Thayayothy, concluded the inquest, issued a death certificate and forwarded the information to the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC). The Government responded that further investigations, including a Post Mortem Examination, were expected to proceed upon the restoration of normality in the area.
1640 Concerning Wijikala Nanthan and Simvamani Sinnathamby Weeralon (ibid., para. 1524), the Government responded that criminal investigations on the alleged rape and torture against them were conducted by the CID. In the context of these investigations, the two alleged victims were examined by the District Medical Officer of Mannar on 27 March 2001 and by the Consultant Judicial Medical Officer of Colombo. Further, a series of identifications parades permitted to identify 14 suspects belonging to the naval and police personnel of Mannar, who were subsequently arrested. Upon conclusion of criminal investigations, the case was transferred to the Attorney General.
1641 Concerning the case regaring a widowed mother of two (ibid., para. 1525), the Government indicated that a complaint was lodged on 24 June 2001 and that Maradana police launched an investigation within 48 hours after she was allegedly raped. Four suspects were reportedly remanded. The Attorney General assigned a State Counsel to advise the police in the conduct of the investigations. The Judicial medical Officer who examined the alleged victim could not confirm signs of penetration or signs of resistance. During an identification parade conducted on 6 July 2001 by the Magistrate of Maligakanda, the complainant identified two of her alleged aggressors, including a Reserve Police Constable. The latter has been dismissed from his functions. The police investigation was concluded and case was forwarded to the Attorney General, who was due to advice the Police to institute non-summary proceedings at the Magistrates Court against the suspects.
1642 Concerning the case of Lakshmi Pillai (ibid., para. 1527), the Government responded that the suspects were murdered by members of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) on 28 May and 1 August respectively, while the criminal proceedings were still pending. In this context, criminal proceedings into this case had to be terminated.
1643 Concerning the case of Sivasothy Krishnapillai (ibid., para. 1528), the Government responded that criminal investigations had been initiated and the victim had been examined by a JMO. Three persons were arrested in relation to the crime and produced before the Batticaloa Magistrate. Non summary proceedings were instituted against them and the Attorney General indicted them to stand trial before the High Court.
1644 Concerning the case of a 17-year-old Tamil schoolgirl (ibid., para. 1529), the Government responded that a soldier had been arrested and brought before the Jaffna Magistrates’ Court after inquiries had been conducted by the Chunnakkam Police. The case was later transferred to the Mallakkam Magistrates Court, where a hearing was scheduled to be held on 21 December 2001. The soldier who allegedly raped the girl was dismissed from his functions pending completion of Court proceedings.
1645 Concerning the case of Sri Balakumar Ajanthana (ibid., para. 1530), the Government responded that it was unable to provide the Special Rapporteurs with further information since inquiries from Police Stations in Jaffna Peninsula had not revealed the occurrence of such incident. The Government indicated that it is willing to further investigate into the allegations transmitted by the Special Rapporteur if the exact address of the alleged victim is communicated to it.
1646 Concerning the case of Rajeshwari Krishnarajah (ibid., para. 1531), the Government responded that inquiries conducted by the Kodikaman Police confirmed that the victim had been raped. However, the perpetrators had not yet been identified and the alleged victim had not been able certify that they belonged to the Sri Lanka Army. The case was sent to the Chavakachcheri Magistrates Court.
1647 Concerning the case of the 13-year-old girl (ibid., para. 1532), the Government responded that the victim had been immediately taken to a hospital for treatment. She was interviewed in connection with her rape and examined by a Judicial Medical Officer. Following criminal investigations, non-summary proceedings were instituted against the suspected for rape. The latter was brought before the High Court, who sentenced him to 25 years imprisonment and to pay compensation to the victim. In its response, the Government did not make any mention to the alleged involvement of five police officers of the Criminal Investigation Division (CID) in the rape of the minor.
1648 Concerning the case of Anthoni Pillai Wimalaraj, (E/CN.4/2001/66, para. 957), the Government responded that on 8 August 2000, the CID interviewed the alleged victim, who reported the treatment allegedly inflicted with full details but who was unable to identify the alleged perpetrators. Given his contradictory statements on the identity of his alleged aggressors, the Attorney General directed the CID to record further statements. The CID investigations revealed that on 20 September 1999 the alleged victim was examined by a JMO who indicated that it was not possible to confirm that the injuries were sustained while in custody. The Government informed the Special Rapporteur that since the perpetrators could not be identified, it was not possible to take further action.
1649 Concerning the case of Saravana Bhavan Kurrukal (ibid., para. 958), the Government responded that the CID, with the collaboration of a special team from Colombo, conducted an investigation into the allegations of rape and murder. The CID recorded statements of the Army personnel based in Boch Army Camp, of the alleged victim’s relatives and neighbors. Army Officers indicated that on the night of the crime, there was a regimental party and most officers had consumed alcohol. However, only two of them left the camp for “listening duties”. The victim’s brother, who was the only witness of the alleged abduction, stated that he was not able to identify the perpetrators because they were wearing black masks. However, he stated that their breath smelled of liquor. According to a report issued on 2 January 2000 by a Colombo JMO, Saravana Bhavan Kurrukal was raped prior to be strangled to death. A subsequent report on a government analyst indicated that there was no evidence to conclude that the blood stains found on her dress was human blood. On 17 August 2002, the Attorney General’s Department advised the CID that a criminal prosecution could not be launched and that no further inquiries into this case were needed, unless any new information regarding the alleged perpetrators is provided.
1650 Concerning the case of Ghanasingham Kulasingham (ibid., para. 959), the Government responded that a postmortem examination conducted by a JMO attached to the Jaffna General Hospital had indicated that the death was due to injury caused by assault. A Captain and a Lieutenant were subsequently arrested. At the time the Government responded to the Special Rapporteur, the case was being heard at the Magistrate Court Anuradhapura. The Government informed that once the verdict of the court will be issued, it will be provided to the Special Rapporteur.
1651 Concerning the case of Kalithas Selvam (ibid., para. 960), the Government responded that the CID had conducted an investigation into the allegations of torture and has made several unsuccessful attempts to interview the victim in order to record his statement. The Department of the Attorney General advised to take further action to trace the alleged victim in an effort to pursue investigations.
1652 Concerning Weerage Buddika Weerasinghe (E/CN.4/2000/9, para. 934), the Government responded that the Supreme Court ruled in October 1997 that he had been victim of unlawful detention but not of torture. The Government also informed that an investigation into the allegations of torture had been ordered on 27 July 2000. The Attorney General decided to refrain from instituting criminal proceedings against the alleged perpetrators on the grounds that the alleged victim kept giving contradictory statements and that the medical evidence to corroborate perpetration of torture was weak. However, the Attorney General directed the Inspector General of Police to institute disciplinary action against a Sergeant and two Sub Inspectors, who were held liable by the Supreme Court for the unlawful detention of Weerage Buddika Weerasinghe. On 7 September 2002, the CID recommended disciplinary action as well.
1653 Concerning Sinnarasa Anthonymala (ibid. para. 935), the Government responded that criminal investigations had been conducted in the context of which the alleged victim made a statement recorded on 18 February 2001 at Welikada Reman Prison in presence of her lawyer. She alleged that she had been tortured by the Navy and the CID personnel while in custody. However, in an affidavit sent to the High Court through her lawyer on 22 November, Sinnarasa Anthonymala requested the authorities to refrain from taking legal action against the alleged perpetrators of torture. After having checked the authenticity of the documents and since the alleged victim was not prepared to cooperate with the investigation, the Attorney General decided to terminate the proceedings.
1654 Concerning Anura Sampath (ibid. para. 936), the Government responded that the CID had initiated an investigation on 15 July 1999 and that on 10 January 1999 a post-mortem examination was conducted by a Judicial Medical Officer in Colombo. The latter determined that the cause for his death was hemorrhagic shock following multiple muscular contentious injuries caused by blunt weapons. The Government also informed that the suspects were produced before a court on 30 December 1998 but bailed out on 24 September 2001. On 14 August 2001, the General Attorney instructed the CID to institute non-summary proceedings against a Sub Inspector and a Police Constable for committing murder. The case was proceeding before the Magistrate Court, Moratuwa, and the next trial was scheduled to be held on 27 January 2003.
1655 Concerning Sathasivam Sanjeevan (ibid. para. 937), the Government responded that an investigation into the allegations submitted by the Special Rapporteur had been launched on 31 July 2000 by the CID. According to this investigation, the alleged victim was admitted to the Kalmunai General Hospital on 14 October 1998. A medical officer stated that he sustained few non-serious injuries and that Sathasivam Sanjeevan did not complain that he was tortured. On the other hand, his parents alleged that when they visit him at Kalmunai Police Station the same day, he reported that he had been tortured on the night of 13 October 1998. While he was being transferred to Ampara Police Station on 15 October 1998, the convoy was allegedly attacked by LTTE members. According to the above-said investigation, the alleged victim was injured during the attack and subsequently taken to Ampara Hospital, where he died. Upon consideration of the investigative materials, the Attorney General concluded that they did not provide a basis to institute criminal proceedings. However, in November 2002, the Attorney General and the CID recommended that disciplinary action should be taken in relation to this case.
1656 Concerning Gopalaratnam Thananjeyan (ibid. para. 938), the Government responded that the CID had launched an investigation into the allegations submitted by the Special Rapporteur. In this context, in January 2001, the alleged victim accused two Sergeants and four other police officers of torture. On 25 July 2002, the alleged victim issued another statement in which he withdrew his allegation of torture because he was unable to identify the perpetrators. Accordingly, on 16 September 2002, the Attorney General instructed the CID to terminate the investigation.
1657 Concerning Kumaru Selvaratnam (ibid. para. 939), the Government responded that the Supreme Court had directed the CID to investigate into the allegations of torture against him. After various attempts to find his whereabouts in order to interview him and record a statement as required to prosecute the alleged perpetrators, on 1 June 2002 the CID informed the Attorney General that they had been unable to record the victim’s statement. In this context, the CID was advised to temporally suspend the investigations.
1658 Concerning Suppu Udavakumar (ibid. para. 940), the Government responded that he had been examined by a JMO on 24 September 1999. The latter confirmed that he had been subjected to torture but could not precise the time of the occurrence. The Government also informed that preliminary investigations into allegations of torture were launched on 2 August 2000 by the CID, who recorded the victim’s statement on 11 August 2000. Upon completion of these investigations, the case was forwarded to the Attorney General’s Department in December 2000. It was considered that Suppu Udavakumar’s statements were inconsistent and lack of credibility. Accordingly, the Attorney General concluded that it was not possible to launch criminal prosecutions.
1659 Concerning Pichchamuththu Chandran (ibid. para. 940), the Government responded that the CID had launched an investigation into the allegations of torture on 16 January 2001, recorded statements from the victim, accused police officers and witnesses. On the basis of a medical report issued by the JMO on 10 February 2000, the investigation revealed that he sustained several injuries while in custody. The case was forwarded to the Department of the Attorney General, who was subsequently instructed to take disciplinary action against the accused police officers.
1660 Concerning Arunasalam Logeshwaran (ibid. para. 940), the Government responded that he had submitted a Fundamental Rights violation application to the Supreme Court on 4 November 1998. On 23 September 1999 he was examined by a Judicial Medical Officer, to whom he complained that he had been subjected to torture by Kandy SIU officers. His statement was recorded on 20 December 2001. The case was forwarded to the Attorney General on 12 June 2001. The latter concluded that the victim’s statements and the affidavit filed by him at the Supreme Court were contradictory. Accordingly, the Attorney General instructed the CID on 26 August 2001 not to institute criminal proceedings.
1661 Concerning Solamuththu Loganathan (ibid. para. 940), the Government responded that an investigation ordered on 16 January 2000 and conducted by the CID had revealed that police officers assaulted him at the time of the arrest on 12 June 1998. A medical report issued by a Judicial Medical Officer on 16 June 1998 as well as evidence provided by the victim’s relatives confirmed that he had been subjected to torture while in custody in Kandy and Colombo. The case had been forwarded to the Attorney General.
1662 Concerning Samimuttu Benedict (ibid. para. 940), the Government responded that the CID had launched an investigation into allegations of torture on 16 January 2001. Based on his statements and on a medical report issued on 23 September 1999 by a JMO which indicated that Samimuttu Benedict had been tortured, the CID forwarded the case to the Department of the Attorney General.
1663 Concerning T. (Siyadoris) Ranjani (ibid. para. 941), the Government responded that the Supreme Court determined in June 1998 that she had indeed been assaulted while in police custody and ordered the State to pay her Rs. 10,000 as compensation. In March 1999, the CID launched a criminal investigation into the allegations of torture. Despite several attempts to trace the whereabouts of the alleged victim in order to record her statement, the CID has not been able to interview her. The case was forwarded to the Department of the Attorney General on 12 June 2000 and further efforts to trace the victim were pursued. In June 2001 the CID was informed that she was working in Saudi Arabia and another attempt was made to trace her through the Sri Lanka Embassy in Riyadh. The Government responded that the CID needed the victim’s record to proceed with the investigations.
1664 Concerning Muthuthamby Vanitha (ibid. para. 942), the Government responded that the CID had launched an investigation into allegations of torture on 7 March 2000. The CID repeatedly attempted to trace her whereabouts in order to interview her and record her statement. In June 2001, it was reported that she left for the United Kingdom and the Government contacted with the Sri Lanka Embassy in London and the British Immigration Service Documentation Unit. As all these attempts to find her had been unsuccessful, the CID was unable to conduct further investigations.
1665 Concerning Periyathamby Subramaniam (ibid. para. 943), the Government responded that the CID had launched an investigation into allegations of torture on 27 June 2000. This investigation revealed that according to a medical report issued by the Judicial Medical Officer who examined the alleged victim on 5 April 2000, he had not been subjected to torture. The Government further informed that since there was no evidence to prove that he had been tortured, CID has not been able to pursue its investigation.
1666 Concerning the case of 35 young men and women allegedly detained at Thavady Camp and subjected to torture in January 1997 (ibid. para. 944), the Government responded that since the Special Rapporteur did not provide it with the names of the alleged victims, it has not been possible to proceed with the investigation.
1667 Concerning Kanapathipillai Sasikumar (ibid. para. 945), the Government responded that on 3 July 2000 the CID had launched an investigation into allegations of torture. The statement of the alleged victim was recorded on 24 April 2002. A Major involved in his arrest acknowledged that the minimum force had been used to arrest him as he had shown resistance. A medical report submitted by the alleged victim to the Supreme Court confirmed that he had been assaulted. However, the allegations of torture were not consistent with the contents of the medical report. Another medical report issued by a Judicial Medical Officer on 8 September 1999 also indicated that Kanapathipillai Sasikumar had been assaulted. In a statement given by the victim on 24 April 2002, the latter said that he was unable to identify the alleged perpetrators. The High Court decided to dismiss the case on 15 March 2002 on the grounds that the alleged victim had withdrawn his complaint.
1668 Concerning Bathatha Jayatunge Gamage Malsha Kumari (ibid. para. 946), the Government responded that the CID had launched an investigation on 3 July 2000. According to the investigations, she committed suicide on 14 February 1998 after a family dispute. In this context, it had not been possible to undertake further investigations since the CID could not record a statement of the victim.
1669 Concerning K.A. Sisira Kumara (ibid. para. 947), the Government responded that the CID had launched an investigation on 3 July 2000 and recorded the statement of the alleged victim and three witnesses. A medical report issued by a JMO on 19 August 2000 confirmed that she had been subjected to ill-treatment. The investigation revealed that a Fundamental Rights application had been submitted to the High Court on 7 January 1999 alleging that she had been subjected to torture by four police officers. On 30 August 2001, the Attorney General advised the CID to indict the accused officers and to take disciplinary action against them. The Government responded that these indictments were served on 19 December 2001 before the Gampaha High Court. The next session of the trial was scheduled to take pace on 11 February 2003.
1670 Concerning Pradeep Kumara Dharmaratne (ibid. para. 948), the Government responded that an investigation had been launched on 3 July 2000 and its report forwarded to the Attorney General on 6 December 2000. The CID was instructed by the Attorney General to file indictments against the accused officers and was advised to take disciplinary action against the accused officers.
1671 Concerning Velusamy Baskaran (ibid. para. 949), the Government responded that the CID had launched an investigation on 3 July 2000. On 21 January 1999, Velusamv Baskaren was examined by the District Medical Officer, who was unable to find any visible mark of torture. It revealed that on 24 May 1999, the Supreme Court ordered his release, upon which the alleged victim allegedly stated that he did not seek redress from the Government. On 2 November 2001, the Attorney General advised the CID to dismiss the case due to absence of evidence to institute criminal proceedings.
1672 Concerning Neelian Yogesan (Neelian Yogeswaran) (ibid. para. 949), the Government responded that the CID had launched an investigation on 25 July 2000. On 10 April 1999, the alleged victim was examined by a District Medical Officer, who did not corroborate allegations of torture. On 24 May 1999, a Court ordered his release, upon which the alleged victim allegedly stated that he did not seek redress from the Government. The Court recommended that a disciplinary inquiry could be instituted against the involved police officers. However, in the absence of evidence, the Attorney General was unable to institute criminal proceedings against the alleged perpetrators.
1673 Concerning Wadival Kanagaratnam (Vadivel Kanagaratnam) (ibid. para. 949), the Government responded that the CID had launched an investigation on 21 July 2000. It revealed that the victim was examined by a District Medical Officer on 21 January 1999 but that the latter was unable to find any visible mark of torture. On 6 December 2000, the CID forwarded the case to the Attorney General who was unable to institute criminal proceedings since available investigative material was not sufficient.
1674 Concerning Somasundaram Shanmugarajah (ibid. para. 949), the Government responded that the CID had launched an investigation on 12 July 2000. It revealed that a Fundamental Rights application was submitted to the High Court alleging that he was tortured by police officers of Nuwara Eliya police station. On 25 January 1999, he was examined by the District Medical Officer who could not confirm the allegations of torture. On 24 May 1999, a Court ordered his release, upon which the alleged victim allegedly stated that he did not seek redress from the Government. In this context, the Attorney General was unable to institute criminal proceedings.
1675 Concerning Michaelpillai Rober Wellington (ibid. para. 950), the Government confirmed the allegations submitted by the Special Rapporteur. It further indicated that a Lieutenant had been arrested in this connection and that non-summary proceedings were before the Point Pedro Magistrate courts.
1676 Concerning Vythilingam Thiruchelvam (ibid. para. 951), the Government responded that an investigation had been launched on 20 November 2000. The CID made several unsuccessful attempts to trace the whereabouts of the alleged victim in order to record his statement regarding the allegations of torture.
1677 Concerning Kandasamy Kalanidi (Kanthasamy Kalanithy) (ibid. para. 952), the Government responded that the CID, including a special team sent from Colombo, had conducted an investigation into the alleged incident on 20 November 2000. The investigation did not reveal any evidence of rape and medical evidence indicated that the victim died as a result of consuming insecticide. Investigations concluded that the alleged victim committed suicide. The only evidence which linked the victim’s death with the officers of the Murusuvil Army camp is that she previously visited the camp. Upon reception of the case on 30 January 2001, the Attorney General concluded that prosecution was not possible due to lack of sufficient evidences. The Government indicated that it was willing to resume investigations if new evidence of torture and murder was provided.
1678 Concerning Vallipuram Suganthi (ibid. para. 953), the Government responded that the CID had launched an investigation on 8 March 2000 and attempted several times to trace the alleged victim in order to record her statement. Upon having been informed that she left for Switzerland, the CID contacted with the Sri Lanka Permanent Mission in Geneva and with the Swiss Federal Judicial Police. It was indicated that the alleged victim had left Switzerland in November 2001. In these circumstances, it was not possible for the CID to conduct further investigations.
1679 Concerning Thambirajah Kamalathasan (ibid. para. 954), the Government responded that the CID had initiated an investigation on 24 November 2000. Several attempts had been made to trace the whereabouts of the alleged victim in order to record her statement. So far, the CID had only been able to record the statement of the victim’s mother on 10 December 2000. The latter indicated that her son had left for Germany in 1999. It is believed that he came back to Colombo since then but the CID has not been able to find. In these circumstances, it was not possible for the CID to conduct further investigations. The Attorney General advised to suspend the investigations.
1680 Concerning Kanapathypillai Navaratnam (ibid. para. 956), the Government responded that the CID had initiated an investigation on 27 November 2000 and attempted to trace the whereabouts of the alleged victim in order to record her statement on the allegations of torture. Once the alleged victim was found in Jaffna, she did not give her statement. The Government indicated that in the absence of the latter, it was not possible to consider the investigation of either criminal proceedings or disciplinary inquiries.
1681 Concerning Mahalingam Mahenthiren (Mahendran) (ibid. para. 957), the Government responded that many attempts had been made, including through the ICRC, to trace his whereabouts in order to record his statement on the allegations of torture. He was eventually found and expected to meet the special investigation team at the office of the District Secretary of Vavuniya on 29 September 2001. However, he did not come to the appointment. The Attorney General instructed to terminate the investigation since the alleged victim did not cooperate with the investigation.
1682 Concerning Veeraputhiran-Thevy (Veeraputhiran Devi) (ibid. para. 958), the Government responded that the CID had been ordered to initiate an investigation on 24 November 2000. However, all CID’s efforts to trace her, including through the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, in order to interview her, failed. The Government indicated that under the advice of the Attorney General, both the CID and the police will pursue their efforts to find her with a view to prosecute the alleged perpetrators.
1683 Concerning S. Selvarani (ibid. para. 960), the Government responded that the CID with the assistance of the military had conducted investigations into the case. On 16 February 2001, the CID recorded the statements of the victim and her mother and the clothes worn by the alleged victim at the time of the incident were sent to an official analyst for examination. The CID’s investigation revealed that on 18 March 1998 the assistant judicial medical officer examined the alleged victim and confirmed that there had been involuntary penetration of the vagina. The Government informed the Special Rapporteur that some army personnel who had been at the army check-point on the day of the incident were produced before Jaffna magistrate in an identification parade. However, the victim failed to identify any of those produced as her aggressors. The CID was continuing its investigations.
1684 Concerning Ehamparam Damayanthi (ibid. para. 961), the Government responded that on 30 December 1999 the CID had recorded her statement, in which she said that the Army did not subject her to torture and that she had undergone training in an LTTE Women’s Unit. The CID’s investigations also revealed that she had been examined by a JMO on 30 July 1997. However, as the examination took place five months after the alleged incident, the officer was unable to certify that she had been tortured during her detention. On 5 September 2002, the Attorney General concluded that since the allegation of torture had not been proved and the victim herself refuted the allegation in her statement, there was no evidence to institute criminal proceedings against the alleged perpetrators. On the advice of the Attorney General, the Cid was expected to send extracts of the investigation notes to the relevant sections of the Army and Police, requesting disciplinary inquiries.
1685 Concerning Selvarathnam Raveensagar (selvaratnem Ravinsagar) (ibid. para. 962), the Government responded that the case had been forwarded to the Inter-Ministerial Working Group on Human Rights (IMWG) on 24 November 2000, who directed the CID to conduct an investigation. The investigation lasted two years and was carried out under the supervision of the IMWG. The CID recorded statements of the victim and of the police officers allegedly involved in the torture. In his statement, the alleged victim said that he could not identify any of the police officers who allegedly tortured him and that he was not interested in pursuing the investigation any further. In these circumstances, the Attorney General ruled that the institution of criminal prosecution was not feasible. However, the Government expressed its willingness to take further necessary action if new evidence was provided.
1686 Concerning the case of Kandasamy Sri Ram (ibid. para. 963), the Government responded that on 24 November 2000, the CID had been ordered to initiate an investigation. However, when the CID attempted to interview him through the Consul for Sri Lanka in Hong Kong, where he left for, Kanadasamy Sri Ram stated that he did not wish to pursue the matter further. The CID investigation also revealed that when the Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka invited him to file a formal complaint against the officials who allegedly torture him, he replied that he was not interested in initiating any procedure. In these circumstances, the attorney General, instructed the CID to terminate the investigations. However, the Government expressed its willingness to take further action on this case with the assistance of the Special Rapporteur in view to institute criminal proceedings against the alleged torturers.
1687 Concerning Selvaraiah Thenuka (ibid. para. 964), the Government responded that the CID had unsuccessfully attempted to find out the whereabouts of the girl in order to record her statement. The CID was later notified by an affidavit dated 10 December 2001 transmitted by the father of the alleged victim that the incident included in the Special Rapporteur’s communication did not occur and that he did not want the matter to be further investigated. The father further stated that he did not want his daughter to undergo a medical examination, as requests by the CID. In these circumstances, the Attorney General advised the CID not to take further action.
1688 Concerning Srilal Priyantha (ibid. para. 965), the Government responded that the alleged victim had not made any formal complaint regarding the alleged torture and assault against the police officers. Since the version of the alleged victim lacked of credibility, the Attorney General instructed the Criminal Investigations Department to terminate its inquiries in relation to the case.
1689 Concerning Pasupathipillai Yogendran (ibid. para. 966), the Government responded that the CID had initiated an investigation on 20 November 2000. On 29 November 2000 a statement of the victim was recorded by the CID in order to ascertain the identity of the alleged perpetrators. However, the alleged victim had not been able to identify or describe them. In these circumstances, the Attorney General advised the CID not to take any further action regarding the case. The Government expressed that it would welcome any further information from the Special Rapporteur that would assist in its efforts to bring the alleged perpetrators to justice.
1690 Concerning Luis Rama (ibid. para. 968), the Government responded that a statement made by the alleged victim had been recorded on 19 March 2001 at Welikada Prison. In her statement, Luis Rama said that she had been assaulted and tortured by the Navy and the CID personnel while in custody. However, in affidavit sent on 27 November 2001 through her lawyer, the alleged victim requested the authorities to refrain from taking legal action against the alleged perpetrators. In this context, the Attorney General decided to terminate the proceedings after the authenticity of the documents submitted was checked.
1691 Concerning Sivalingam Kajenthiran (Gajaindran) (ibid. para. 969), the Government responded that the CID launched an investigation on 18 December 2000.
1692 Concerning Rasanayakam Uthayakumar (ibid. para. 970), the Government responded that according to a report dated 4 January 2001 issued by the JMO who conducted the post-mortem examination, there was no evidence that suggested that the death was due to a cause other than suicide by hanging. It was also reported that there was no evidence of previous injuries on the body. In absence of any other evidence, the Attorney General concluded on 24 February 2001 that the institution of criminal proceedings was not possible.
1693 Concerning Sivam Ashokumar (ibid. para. 971), the Government responded that the CID had initiated an investigation under the direction of the IMWG. This investigation revealed that the victim had been member of the PLOTE organization and had been assaulted and tortured by other members of the same organization during a dispute over misappropriation of the organization’s finance. A medical report issued by the District Medical Officer corroborates that the alleged Sivam Ashok Kumar had been tortured. The CID investigation did not reveal any acquiescence by any official of the state either in the execution of the relevant act or in preventing the prosecution of the perpetrators. Two individuals were arrested by CID on suspicion of being involved in the incident. The latter had been granted bail pending the completion of a non-summary inquiry in the Vavuniya Magistrate Court. A hearing was scheduled to take place on 12 December 2002.
1694 Concerning Arumugam Pakkiri (ibid. para. 972), the Government responded that inquiries conducted by Vavuniya Defence Coordinating Unit had indicated that this person had not been arrested. The Government also informed the Special Rapporteur that so far any attempt to locate the alleged victim had been unsuccessful. The Government expressed its willingness to continue in its efforts to trace his whereabouts in order to record his statement.
Observations
1695 The Special Rapporteur acknowledges the continuing disposition of the Government to provide him with detailed information on individual cases brought to its attention in the past. He takes note with interest of the creation of a Directorate of Human Rights and Humanitarian Law within the Sri Lankan Army and would appreciate further information on its activities.
1696 The Special Rapporteur notes with concern that no response has been provided to a number of cases brought to the attention of the Government since 1998. The Special Rapporteur considers it appropriate to draw attention to the views expressed by the Committee against Torture after consideration of the situation in the country under the procedure provided for by Article 20 of the Convention against Torture, a summary of which may be found in report A/57/44, paras 123-195.
248 During the period under review, no new cases of disappearance were transmitted by the Working Group to the Government of Sri Lanka.
249 The 12,297 cases of disappearance reported to the Working Group are alleged to have occurred in the context of two major sources of conflict in that country: the confrontation between Tamil militants and government forces in the north and north-east of the country, and that between the People’s Liberation Front (JVP) and government forces in the south. Between 1987 and 1990, the disappearances occurred mainly in the southern and central provinces and coincided with extreme violence on the part of both security forces and JVP. The cases reported to have occurred since 11 June 1990, the date of resumption of hostilities with the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), have been confined primarily to the eastern and north-eastern provinces of the country.
250 The Working Group undertook three field missions to Sri Lanka, in 1991, 1992 and 1999. The recommendation to the Government was that an independent body be established with the task of investigating all cases of disappearance which had occurred since 1995 and to accelerate its efforts to bring the perpetrators of enforced disappearances to justice. The Working Group also recommended the setting up of a central register of detainees as provided for in article 10 (3) of the Declaration. It also pointed out that all families of disappeared persons should receive the same amount of compensation and that the procedure for issuing death certificates in cases of disappearances should be applied in an equal and non-discriminatory manner. The Working Group further noted that the Prevention of Terrorism Act and the Emergency Regulations have not been abolished or harmonized with internationally accepted standards of human rights, and recommended that the prohibition of enforced disappearance be included as a fundamental right in the Constitution of Sri Lanka.
251 According to its records, the Government has so far provided information in respect of a total of 11,881 outstanding cases, including information relating to 208 cases provided during the period under review. Most of these replies are still under consideration by the Working Group.
252 During the period under review, the Working Group considered information provided by the Government in relation to 3,341 outstanding cases. In respect of 1,234 cases, death certificates had been issued and/or compensation granted or was in the process of being granted in a number of cases. The Working Group decided to apply the six-month rule to these cases. With regard to 2,107 other cases, the Government reported that it had not been possible to establish the whereabouts of the persons concerned inasmuch as the addresses provided were incorrect or unclear or because the family had left the area; no person by the name had disappeared from the address provided; cases were pending in courts of law; family members had not requested or had declined death certificates or compensation; the persons were reported to be alive or the disappearance had not been reported to a government authority.
253 In the past, the Working Group clarified 4,962 cases, of which 4,923 were clarified on the basis of information provided by the Government and 39 on the basis of information provided by the source. At the current stage of the processing exercise, however, it must be borne in mind that the statistical figures indicated in the present section as well as in the statistical tables annexed to the present report in respect of the number of cases reported to the Working Group, cases that have been clarified and those still outstanding, reflect only an estimate and are, as such, subject to change.
254 The Working Group wishes to express its appreciation to the Government of Sri Lanka for the amount of information that it has provided and for its efforts to investigate and clarify the fate of the many thousands of persons who disappeared in the past.
255 The Group wishes to remind the Government of its obligations under article 10 of the Declaration to hold persons deprived of liberty only in officially recognized places of detention, to bring them promptly before a judicial authority and to make available promptly accurate information on the detention of such persons to their family members, their legal counsel, or to any other persons having a particular interest.
consequences, Ms. Radhika Coomaraswamy
Item 12 (a) of the provisional agenda
(E/CN.4/2003/75/Add.2 - 14 January 2003)
169 By a letter dated 16 September 2002, sent jointly with the Special Rapporteurs on the question of torture and on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, the Special Rapporteur on violence against women advised the Government that she had received information on the following individual cases.
170 Jeyanthi Veerasingham, aged 25, was reportedly raped and killed while in custody, in an army detachment at Sanasa transit camp, on 17 February 2001. According to the reports, Jeyanthi Veerasingham entered Vavuniya from the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE)‑controlled Vanni Region, on 16 February 2001. On the following day, she was allegedly summoned to an army detachment at Sanasa transit camp for an inquiry. A few hours after she went to the Sanasa transit camp, the army reportedly handed over her body to Vavuniya hospital, claiming that she had committed suicide by swallowing cyanide. The magistrate inspected her body at the Vavuniya hospital mortuary, and reportedly instructed the police to conduct further investigation related to her death to clarify whether she had been tortured or sexually assaulted while being interrogated by army personnel at Sanasa army transit camp and the Brigade Headquarters camp. The magistrate reportedly also instructed the judicial medical officer (JMO) of Vavuniya hospital to hold a post‑mortem examination on the body of the deceased to find out whether she had been sexually assaulted while in custody.
171 S. Umadevi, aged 23, from Nawalapitiya, Imbulpitiya Estate, was reportedly abducted, raped and murdered on 12 September 2001 at Kopiwatte, Mallanda in Nawalapitiya on her way home after attending her typing class in Nawalapitiya Town. Her parents are said to have filed a case with the Nawalapitiya Police on the morning of 13 September, after exhausting all of their own enquiries as to her whereabouts. When her father went to the police station to record the complaint, the woman police constable was said to have been abusive and not willing to accept their complaint. The same evening, her father was said to have heard that the corpse of a young woman had been found in the shrubs near the Malkanda bridge. He reportedly went to the spot and identified the body as that of his daughter. The father is said to have informed the police at Nawalapitiya and gave the name of one particular person whom he suspects could have been the perpetrator of this crime, but the police reportedly have not shown any concern about this case and have so far failed to arrest any suspects, or to visit the home of the victim.
172 Sarathambal Saravanabhavanantha Kurukkal, aged 29, was allegedly dragged out of her home in Pungudutivu, Jaffna district, by unidentified gunmen dressed in black uniform, gang‑raped and murdered, on 28 December 1999. According to the reports, the body of the victim was found the next morning under some bushes near Kannaki Amman Temple, situated just 20 metres away from her house. The medical report of JMO in Colombo states that the injuries and marks found on the body of the victim were consistent with rape and murder. Jaffna Acting Magistrate reportedly read out the JMO’s report in open court on 8 January 2000. In June 2001, the National Human Rights Commission which had investigated the rape and murder of Sarathambaal Saravanabhavanantha Kurukkal, was reported to have decided to close the file for lack of evidence. (The Special Rapporteur previously intervened on behalf of the above‑named person on 14 March 2000.)
172 By a letter dated 16 September 2002, sent jointly with the Special Rapporteur on the question of torture, the Special Rapporteur advised the Government that she had received information on the following individual cases.
173 Herat Pathirannehelage Nandani Sriyalatha, aged 39, was reportedly arrested by four plainclothes police officers from Wariapola at around 6 p.m. on 8 March 2002 at her home. An officer allegedly examined her sister’s identity card and then stated that they would have to take a statement from her, without answering in relation to what. They reportedly took Herat into a car without letting her dress. She was reportedly still wrapped in a bathing towel. The police reportedly stopped her mother from accompanying her. At the Wariapola police station, she was made to wait on a bench. At around 8.30 p.m., three police officers arrived who were reportedly very drunk. One reportedly beat her with a pole until her left arm became lifeless, and she was close to fainting. Another officer is said to have removed her clothes by force. She was allegedly struck from behind, and an officer inserted a pipe‑like object into her vagina, whilst another kept her mouth shut with his hand. The third officer reportedly watched. As a result, she is said to have bled heavily from her vagina and felt a sharp pain. She reportedly fell asleep feeling extremely ill, and reportedly vomited around 5.30 a.m. When she asked the officer in charge for medicine, he reportedly hit and insulted her. Later, she reportedly went to his room again to ask why she had been arrested. She was allegedly told that she no longer had a house to go to. The officer in charge reportedly beat her again at 10.30 a.m., after which she felt sick and semi‑conscious. The officer in charge for the crime section reportedly asked that she not be beaten. The following night, she was given some tea and very little food. The next morning, she was reportedly taken to the Crimes Section where she was told to sign a statement which she had not read. When she hesitated, a female police officer kicked her hard from behind. Due to the pain and hunger, she then signed the statement. At 12.30 p.m., she was taken to Wariapola court. At court, Herat Pathirannehelage Nandani Sriyalatha reportedly told the magistrate what had happened to her who is said to have issued an order stating that “while the police have the right to arrest an accused and investigate and take a statement from him about the relevant happenings, the police have no power to inhumanely assault anyone”. She reportedly ordered the Deputy Inspector General to investigate the case and to submit a complete report to her. She furthermore advised the registrar of the court to send a copy of the order to the deputy inspector general of police. Herat Pathirannehelage Nandani Sriyalatha was reportedly taken to Wariapola hospital, where she informed a doctor about her condition. Two police officers were present all the time. She was subsequently handed over to the Kurunegala prison. On 10 March, she was reportedly again taken to hospital, after making a complaint to a prison warden. Mid‑March she was reportedly taken to hospital for visit again, and examined in the orthopaedic section of the hospital. According to information received, the inquiry ordered by the magistrate had not taken place at the time of writing. Furthermore, Nandani Herat has reportedly not had a full proper medical examination, and is said not to be receiving proper medical treatment in prison. Her father has reportedly been severely threatened by the local police and higher officers not to pursue the complaint.
174 Thambipillai Thanalakshmi, aged 42, from Meesalai, Jaffna district, was allegedly raped in her house at Meesalai by soldiers from the Sri Lankan army on 7 July 2001. Thambipillai Thanalakshmi’s mother reportedly tried to intervene after hearing her daughter screaming, but was assaulted and hit with rifles by the soldiers. Thambipillai Thanalakshmi and her mother had been displaced from their home and had returned to resettle, only two months before the incident. They reportedly lodged a complaint about the rape with police in Kodikamam. According to the military spokesman, two soldiers at a nearby army checkpoint were involved in the rape. He reported that they had been arrested by the military police on 12 July 2001.
175 Velu Arshadevi, a Tamil woman of Indian origin, who was living in a boarding house in downtown Colombo, was allegedly raped by three policemen on 24 June 2001. She was reportedly stopped at a checkpoint on the Maradana‑Borella Road, Colombo, on 23 June 2001 when returning from work with a friend. Her identity was checked by the security forces personnel on duty at the checkpoint. The next day, on 24 June 2001 around 3 a.m., two police officers without weapons and an armed soldier attached to that checkpoint reportedly came to the lodgings where the victim was staying. They said they had come for a “routine checking”. After interrogating all the persons staying at that place, they reportedly went to her room and told her that “since she was a Tamil, she was not allowed to stay there”. She was then allegedly told that she had to go with them to the Maradana police station. The friend who had also been staying at the same place accompanied her for safety reasons. While en route to the police station, they stopped at the Maradana‑Borella Road checkpoint. Her friend was reportedly told to purchase some tea for the security forces and sent away. After he had gone, two police personnel are said to have taken her to a staircase situated next to a bunker below road level. She was reportedly made to lean against the wall and then raped. Velu Arshadevi was admitted to a hospital for a medical examination. Three police officers were reportedly arrested in connection with this crime.
176 Mahendiran Nageswari, aged 37, from Kaluthawalai, was reportedly sexually abused by STF personnel attached to the STF camp at Kaluthawalai in April 2001. It is alleged that the STF personnel went to her house and harassed her with the intention of molesting her. She was later admitted to the Batticaloa teaching hospital. According to the hospital police post, this matter was reported to the Kaluwanchikudy police station for further inquiries.
177 Vijayaratnam Subashini, aged 19, was reportedly sexually assaulted by more than 10 Navy personnel, on 20 April 2001. According to the reports, Vijayaratnam Subashini was on an LTTE boat returning from the open sea when several Sri Lanka Navy gunboats surrounded them. There reportedly was fierce fighting for several hours. Vijayaratnam Subashini and many others allegedly jumped into the sea, after their boats were damaged, and then she was taken into the gunboat of Sri Lankan Navy. Immediately after she got in the gunboat, all her clothes were reportedly removed, she was blindfolded and her hands were tied behind her back. More than 10 Navy personnel are said to have touched and squeezed her breasts, and her genital area. They allegedly also one by one put their fingers inside her vagina, while she was screaming. The incident lasted about two hours. When the boat reached Trincomalee her clothes were given to her. She was later said to have been detained in Vavuniya army camp.
178 Thangiah Vijayalalitha, aged 14, was sexually assaulted by more then 10 Navy personnel on 20 April 2001 when she was taken into custody during an LTTE operation in the open sea (see also above case of Vijayaratnam Subashini). Reportedly, Thangiah Vijayalalitha was taken into the gunboat of Sri Lankan Navy and her skirt and bra were removed. When the boat reached Trincomalee her clothes were given to her. It is reported that she was later detained in Vavuniya army camp.
179 Sivamany Archunan, aged 24, and Wijikala Nanthakumar, aged 22, were arrested by members of the navy accompanied by members of the Special Investigation Unit (SIU) of the police in Mannar on 19 March 2001. They were allegedly raped by navy and SIU personnel at the office of the Counter‑Subversive Unit (CSU) of the police along Palimunai Road, approximately 500 metres outside Mannar town. Sivamany Archunan and Wijikala Nanthakumar had both been displaced due to the conflict in the north and east. According to the reports, Wijikala Nanthakumar’s husband and the 5‑year‑old son of Sivamani Archunan were also taken into custody. They were all taken to the CSU office in a white van. Wijikala Nanthakumar and her husband were reportedly taken to the CSU office. After her husband was locked in a cell, she was taken into a room in which the OIC was also present. He reportedly asked her to sit on the floor, and then asked another person to bring a piece of cloth and to blindfold her. She was allegedly asked to remove her clothes. When she refused she was said to have been beaten up and stripped. While they held her hands and legs two men raped her. Later they reportedly tied her hands and hung her on a crossbar which was placed between two tables. Soon after Wijikala Nandakumar and her husband had been taken away into the CSU office, Sivamany Archunan’s son was reportedly taken away by a navy officer. Sivamany Archunan was reportedly subsequently blindfolded, and raped. She was said to have been taken to the room in which Wijikala Nandakumar was being held and they allegedly beat her demanding that she remove her clothes. As she could not bear the pain she removed her clothes. She was hung on a cross bar between two tables with her hand and legs tied. The two women were then threatened with further torture and were forced to sign a statement admitting they were members of the LTTE. The initial medical examination by the JMO Mannar allegedly did not confirm rape as both victims had refused to be examined reportedly as a result of threats from the CSU officers taking them to hospital. Later examinations by the JMO Mannar and the JMO Colombo reportedly did confirm that they had been raped. After widespread protests, an investigation by the Criminal Investigation Department from Colombo was ordered. A Mannar magistrate hearing is said to have taken place on 3 April 2001.
180 Yogalingam Vijitha, a 27‑year‑old woman from Kayts, Jaffna district, was allegedly raped whilst in detention in the Negombo police station, between 21 and 27 June 2000. According to the reports, she was beaten with poles on her knees, back, chest and the lower abdomen, and trampled on with boots. She was reportedly forced to lie on a table and pins were inserted under the nails of her fingers and toes, and she was slapped on her ears. On another occasion all her clothing, except her underwear, was reportedly removed and her face was covered with a polythene bag filled with chili powder and petrol. Then she was asked to sign a statement written in Sinhalese, but when she refused, a plantain tree flower sprinkled with chili powder was allegedly inserted into her vagina, as a result of which she fainted after about 15 minutes. Yogalingam Vijitha was reportedly produced in the Colombo Chief Magistrate Court on 21 July 2000, and the magistrate is said to have ordered that she be examined by the JMO, Colombo North. The medical report reportedly confirmed that there were “many scars on her limbs and torso” and that she was suffering from post‑traumatic stress disorder and depression (JMO report dated 14 February 2001). A fundamental rights petition was reportedly filed in March 2001 and continues to be heard. In the meantime, Yogalingam Vijitha was reportedly unconditionally released on 26 April 2001.
181 A mother of two children was reportedly raped by a STF commando at Cheddipaalayam in Batticaloa district, on 5 February 2001. According to the reports, the woman was collecting firewood when she was raped by a member of the STF. It is alleged that he threatened to kill her, if she complained to anyone. She was reportedly admitted to Batticaloa Hospital. The suspect who is said to be attached to Cheddipaalayam STF camp, whose name is known to the Special Rapporteur, was reportedly arrested by the police and produced before the Batticaloa District Judge.
182 Velmurugu Thanalauxmi, aged 46, her daughter Velmurugu Thangeswaray, aged 26, and another woman, Thamotharam Yokampikai, aged 36, were reportedly raped by Sri Lanka Army (SLA) soldiers, who were on duty at a checkpoint in Vembu, about 30 kilometres north of Batticaloa on 10 August 2000. According to the reports, soldiers under the influence of alcohol had entered the houses and raped them. The men in their houses were assaulted by the soldiers. It was alleged that the soldiers were attached to the Kumburumoolai army camp. One of the victims made a complaint to the officer in charge of the camp.
183 A woman, aged 33, was reportedly taken into custody by the officers of Negombo CID on 27 June 2000, and ill‑treated for two days. According to the reports, she was taken into custody related to the inquiry about her National Identity Card and then sent to the Negombo CID office. The next day she was reportedly beaten with the rear of the chair, and was threatened that they would put chili powder into her vagina. On 30 June 2000, some drunken male police officers are said to have gone to her cell and forced her to remove all her clothes. Following this, she fainted and when she regained consciousness, she had been admitted in the Negombo hospital. She also testified that the police had put chili powder into another detainee’s vagina in her presence.
184 Poomany Saravanai, aged 70, from Karanthan, Neervely West, Jaffna, was reportedly raped by two Sri Lanka Army service personnel on 31 May 2000. According to the reports, two army officers held Poomany Saravanai by her neck, dragged her on to the road and molested her, while the other man held her son at gunpoint and pushed him into a room of nearby house and severely beat him. Poomany Saravanai was allegedly subsequently dragged to the same room and raped in front of her 32‑year‑old son. The perpetrators also allegedly stole some money and jewellery from her. Poomany Saravanai is said to have made a complaint to the National Human Rights Commission and to have identified the perpetrators. It is not known whether any action has been taken by the authorities in response to her complaint.
185 By a letter dated 16 December 2002, the Government transmitted the following observations regarding six of the allegations referred to in the joint communication dated 16 September 2002.
186 According to the Government, Ms. Thambipillai Thanalakshmi filed a complaint that she had been raped on 7 July 2001, and the following police investigation found evidence of rape. The Government added that two suspects who were on duty at a nearby checkpoint were arrested, but the victim was unable to identify them in an identification parade. The suspects remain in custody the Attorney‑General’s Department has been asked to provide advice in how to proceed.
187 The Government reported that the Special Task Force Member accused of raping Mahendran Nageshwari has been charged and the case is proceeding.
188 Vijavaratnam Subashini and Thangaiah Vijavalalitha were arrested by the Sri Lankan Navy on 20 April 2001, and then released on bail on 13 June 2002. According to the Government, the District Secretary has been requested to check their presence at their given addresses in view of recording their statements to initiate an investigation.
189 According to the Government, an investigation was conducted into the allegation that naval personnel and police officers had tortured and raped Ehambaram Vijayakala and Sinnathamby Sivamani (Sivamany Archunan and Wijikala Nanthakumar), and statements of the alleged victims were recorded. The Government reported that 14 suspects, including 2 navy personnel and 12 police officers, were produced before the magistrate court, and indictments were being prepared by the Attorney‑General.
190 The Government reported that Yogalingam Vijitha was arrested and detained for suspected terrorist activities, and later released on bail. It stated that she is not reachable at her given address and is thought to have gone abroad. According to the Government, the Supreme Court, in the meantime, ruled that her constitutional rights had been violated and granted her compensation of Rs 250,000. The Government added that the Attorney‑General has been directed to pursue the possibility of criminal prosecution against those responsible for violating her rights.
191 Also by letter dated 16 December 2002, the Government responded regarding the case of Sarathambal Saravanabavananthakurukkal. According to the Government, the investigation into the alleged rape and murder of the victim began on 5 January 2000. The investigation revealed that only two army personnel left the camp after a regimental party at which alcohol was consumed. The Government states that a medical report indicates that the victim was raped prior to being strangled to death, but that the investigation has not yet been able to positively identify the perpetrators of the crime. In August 2002 the Attorney‑General’s Department reportedly advised that a criminal prosecution would not take place and that there be no need to continue the investigation unless new information was received.
192 By a letter dated 8 April 2002, the Government responded to the communication dated 30 August 2001 sent jointly with the Special Rapporteur on the question of torture and the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary and arbitrary executions (see E/CN.4/2002/83/Add.1, paragraphs 119‑123). Further to the communication dated 7 December 2001, the Government informed the Special Rapporteur regarding the following cases of alleged rape and murder.
193 The Government reported that the Military Police (CCMP) conducted inquiries into the disappearance of Velauthapillai Rajani after her parents reported her missing on 30 September 1996. The Government added that the CCMP identified and questioned a group of army personnel who had questioned the victim at a military checkpoint. The CCMP reportedly elicited information that four army personnel were responsible for the rape, murder and disposal of the body, and six army personnel were subsequently arrested and handed over to the Kankasanthurai Police. The Government stated that, following a criminal investigation and a magisterial inquest into the death of the victim, the Attorney‑General advised the police to charge the four main suspects for the rape and murder of the victim. Due to a need to present adequate evidence, the other two suspects were reportedly listed as witnesses. The Government reported that all four accused persons were discharged from the Sri Lankan Army, and they were indicted before the High Court of Colombo. The trial is reportedly pending.
194 According to the Government, the Seranuwara Police began an initial investigation into the alleged killing of Krishnapillai Thayayothy after the receipt of information on 8 October 2000. It is reported that the immediate family members of the victim were interviewed, but the Government stated that they did not implicate police or security forces in the murder. A magisterial inquest was reportedly conducted into the death of the victim. However, the Government reported that the magistrate was not able to gain access to the area where the victim is alleged to have been buried because the area was dominated by separatists. Therefore, the magistrate concluded the inquest without exhuming the body of the victim, and a death certificate was issued. The Government advised that the investigation is expected to resume once normalcy is restored in the area, and investigators can proceed to the scene of the crime.
195 By a letter dated 29 April 2002 the Government responded to the letter dated 30 August 2001, sent jointly with the Special Rapporteur on the question of torture (see E/CN.4/2002/83/Add.1, paragraphs 124‑132), regarding the following four cases.
196 According to the Government, a criminal investigation began immediately after a complaint was filed on 31 December 1996 regarding the alleged rape of Sivasothy Krishnapillai by three persons. The Government reported that the victim was interviewed, and medically examined. It stated that the initial investigation revealed that the incident took place in a paddy‑field in Maringadipuwal, and that three persons named Samarasena Bandusena, E.C. Ajith Kumara and K. Bandula Herman were reportedly arrested in relation to the crime. Following a non‑summary inquiry, the Attorney‑General indicted all three suspects before the High Court of Batticaloa, where the case remained pending.
197 The Government reported that the alleged rape of Ramanathan Pillai Lakshmi Pillai by two persons was reported at the Trincomalee Police Station on 30 August 1993. The Government stated that the victim was interviewed, and a medico‑legal report was obtained. Following a criminal investigation, two suspects, Sehu Mohamed Rauff and Nagoor Pitchai Faizal, were reportedly arrested, remanded by the Trincomalee Magistrate and then released on bail. The Government added that while criminal proceedings against the suspects, scheduled for 28 May and 1 August 1996, were pending, both suspects were murdered. The Government explained that given the circumstances, the trial had to be terminated.
198 According to the Government, the Mawanella Police Station received a report on 24 April 1999 that a 13‑year‑old girl named Niluka Sandamali had been raped. The girl was reportedly interviewed, and then examined by a judicial medical officer. The Government stated that a suspect named Priyantha Kusum Kumara was arrested and brought before the Kegalle Magistrate. Following criminal investigations, he was reportedly indicted in the High Court of Kigalle, where he was convicted on his own guilty plea. The Government reported that he was sentenced to 25 years, and ordered to pay compensation to the victim, which he paid on 19 September 2001.
199 Regarding the case of Sri Balakumar Ajantha, the Government informed the Special Rapporteur that police inquiries in the Jaffna Peninsula, including both Jaffna and Ariyalai towns, did not reveal the occurrence of an incident involving the above‑mentioned person. It indicated that further inquiries could be made if the exact address of the alleged victim was communicated to the Government.
Item 11 (b) of the provisional agenda
(E/CN.4/2003/8/Add.1 - 24 January 2003)
Communication addressed to the Government on 20 July 2000
Concerning: Edward Anton Amaradas, and 13 other citizens of Sri Lanka
1. The Working Group on Arbitrary Detention was established by resolution 1991/42 of the Commission on Human Rights. The mandate of the Working Group was clarified and extended by resolution 1997/50, and reconfirmed by resolution 2000/36. Acting in accordance with its methods of work, the Working Group forwarded to the Government the above-mentioned communication.
2. The Working Group conveys its appreciation to the Government for having provided the requisite information.
3. The Working Group regards deprivation of liberty as arbitrary in the following cases:
(i) When it manifestly cannot be justified on any legal basis (such as continued detention after the sentence has been served or despite an applicable amnesty act) (category I);
(ii) When the deprivation of liberty is the result of a judgement or sentence for the exercise of the rights and freedoms proclaimed in articles 7, 13, 14, 18, 19, 20 and 21 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and also, in respect of States parties, in articles 12, 18, 19, 21, 22, 25, 26 and 27 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (category II);
(iii) When the complete or partial non-observance of the international standards relating to a fair trial set forth in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in the relevant international instruments accepted by the States concerned is of such gravity as to confer on the deprivation of liberty, of whatever kind, an arbitrary character (category III).
4. In the light of the allegations made, the Working Group welcomes the cooperation of the Government. However, in a letter dated 25 October 2001 the source reiterated, in general terms, its allegation concerning the deplorable situation of detainees of Tamil origin in various prisons in the south of Sri Lanka; it made no comment on the merits of the reply of the Government. The Working Group believes that it is in a position to render an opinion on the facts and circumstances of the case.
5. According to the information submitted by the source to the Working Group, the Government of Sri Lanka has given wide powers to the police and the Minister of Defence, under the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA) and the Emergency Regulations (ERs) linked to PTA, to arrest and detain Sri Lankan citizens of Tamil origin for a period of up to 18 months without a warrant. Under the said Act, a magistrate can remand a person indefinitely until his or her trial is completed in the High Court. Section 6 of PTA is said to enable a police officer (not below the rank of a superintendent of police) or a police officer (not below the rank of sub‑inspector with written authorization of a superintendent of police) to arrest a citizen of Tamil origin.
6. According to the source, normally the police would arrest a person under the Emergency Regulations and, at the end of the 21 days, the 60 days, or the 3 months of permissible detention under the ERs, change the legal basis for detention and file charges under PTA, so as to provide for the possibility of indefinite remand of the detainee.
7. The ERs provide that an individual can be detained without a warrant for a period of up to 60 days in the Northern or Eastern Province, or up to 21 days outside the Northern and Eastern Provinces. If the arrest order is issued by the Ministry of Defence, the individual can be held for another period of three months. When there is a confession from a detainee, the security forces produce the detainee before a magistrate and try to obtain authorization for indefinite remand.
8. The 14 Sri Lankan citizens of Tamil origin whose cases are listed below are all said to have been arrested without reasons being given for their arrest and to have been forced to sign self-incriminating statements. Those statements were written in Sinhalese, a language not known to most of them. In many cases, the confession statement, obtained under duress, is said to be used as the only evidence against the accused in court proceedings:
1. Edward Anton Amaradas, born in 1975 and an undergraduate at the University of Moratuwa, was arrested on 27 August 1999 in Colombo by members of the Sri Lankan army. He was detained at Nugegoda police station.
2. Gajamohan, born in 1974 and an undergraduate student at the University of Moratuwa, was arrested on 27 August 1999 in Colombo by members of the army. He was also detained at Nugegoda police station.
3. Thanigasalam Pillai Nandanan, also born in 1974 and an undergraduate of the University of Moratuwa, was arrested on 27 August 1999 in Colombo by members of the army. He was detained at Nugegoda police station.
4. Kadiravelupillai Sivamogan, born in 1974 and an undergraduate of the University of Moratuwa, was arrested on 27 August 1999 in Colombo by members of the army. He was detained at Nugegoda police station.
5. Selvanayagam Suganthan, an Arts Faculty student at Jaffna University, was arrested on 25 October 1999 in Jaffna by members of the army.
6. Moothuthamby Uthayakumar, a teacher at Kadukkamunai Vidyalayam, was arrested on 2 August 1999 in Naavatkudu, Jaffna district, by members of the army.
7. Mrs. Navajothi Sinnarasa, a teacher at the Batticaloa Teacher Training College, was arrested on 3 September 1999 in Batticaloa by agents of the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) on orders of the CID office in Kandy. She was detained in Batticaloa.
8. Sinnathambi Kamalanadan, Ms. Sinnarasa’s husband, a teacher at the Batticaloa Teacher Training College, was arrested on 3 September 1999 in Batticaloa by CID agents on orders of the CID office in Kandy. He was detained in Batticaloa.
9. Krisnapillai Pavalakeshan, born in 1973 and an employee of a local non‑governmental organization, was arrested on 12 August 1999 in Batticaloa by members of the army.
10. Thambinakayam Sribalu, a journalist, was arrested on 12 August 1999 in Batticaloa by members of the army when he inquired about Pavalakesan’s arrest at a local army camp.
11. P. Selvaraja, President of the Jaffna Missing Persons Guardian Association, was arrested on 6 September 1999 in Chemmani, Jaffna district, by army personnel as he witnessed the clearing of an alleged mass grave site located at Chemmani. The source reported that Jaffna District Judge Illancheliyan reprimanded an army commander and a major general for interfering in the Chemmani Court proceedings, noting that the arrest of this person was an attempt to disrupt the investigations.
12. S. Senthurajah, coordinator of a local welfare organization, was arrested on 31 October 1999 in Akkaraipattu, Batticaloa district, by agents of the Sri Lankan police under PTA.
13. Sri Arasaretnam Senthinathakurukkal, chief priest of a Hindu temple, was arrested on 22 July 1999 in Akkaraipattu, Batticaloa district, by the police under PTA.
14. Krishnapillai Perinpam, a Hindu priest, was arrested on 13 August 1999 in Matale, Kandy district, by the police, while he was carrying out his duties at Balamurugan Temple. He was detained at Naula police station.
9. In its replies dated 29 June and 12 November 2001 the Government made the same comments as those reported in paragraph 7 of Opinion No. 21/2001 (SRI LANKA), to which the reader is referred, including the description of the action taken by the Government to implement the recommendations made by the Committee against Torture at the time of its delegation’s visit to Sri Lanka in August 2000.
10. With regard to the allegations made by the source concerning the unlawful detention of the above-mentioned 14 persons, the Government made the following statement:
(a) Despite the inquiries made of the relevant services, the Government maintains that no trace can be found of the detention of the following four persons: Gajamohan, Moothuthamby Uthayakumar, Krisnapillai Pavalakeshan and Thambinakayam Sribalu (the Government specified the bodies and registry services of which it made inquiries). In the absence of any comment by the source and to the absence of sufficient information, the Working Group therefore considers that, in accordance with paragraph 17 (d) of its methods of work, the case may be filed. The same applies to the cases of S. Senthurajah and P. Selvaraja, in the absence of sufficiently well-founded allegations;
(b) Four of these persons have been released: Thanigasalam Pillai Nandanan, Kadiravelupillai Sivamogan, Edward Anton Amaradas and Selvanayagam Suganthan (released on bail).
11. In the light of this response, a determination as to whether the deprivation of liberty was arbitrary is necessary only in the following four of those cases brought to the Working Group’s attention: Ms. Navajothi Sinnarasa (Sebastian Pillai Selvarasa Navajothi), Sinnathambi Kamalanadan, Sri Arasaretnam Senthinathakurukkal and Krishnapillai Perinpam.
12. The Working Group welcomes the action taken by the Government of Sri Lanka to implement the recommendations of the Committee against Torture, particularly with regard to the maximum period during which an arresting authority can detain a person for questioning without bringing him before a judge, which has been reduced from 30 to 14 days. The Working Group nevertheless wishes to point out that 14 days is still far in excess of what can be considered consistent with the term “promptly” within the meaning of article 9, paragraph 3, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (to which Sri Lanka is a party), according to which “Anyone arrested or detained on a criminal charge shall be brought promptly before a judge ... .”
13. The same applies to article 17, paragraph 1, of the ERs, which provides that the Minister of Defence may order a person to be detained solely on the basis of information to the effect that a harmful act might be committed. This measure is similar to administrative detention and therefore not compatible with article 9 of the Covenant. The Working Group is particularly concerned because, according to the source, new Emergency Regulations were promulgated on 3 May 2000, widening the emergency powers already vested in the executive.
14. In the light of the foregoing:
(a) The Working Group takes note of the release from detention of Thanigasalam Pillai Nandanan, Kadiravelupillai Sivamogan, Edward Anton Amaradas and Selvanayagam Suganthan. In accordance with paragraph 17 (a) of its methods of work, the Working Group is of the view that their case should be filed, without expressing an opinion on the arbitrary nature of their detention;
(b) The Working Group finds that, in the absence of sufficient information concerning Gajamohan, Moothuthamby Uthayakumar, Krisnapillai Pavalakeshan and Thambinakayam Sribalu, their cases should be provisionally filed in accordance with paragraph 17 (d) of its methods of work;
(c) The Working Group is of the view that the deprivation of liberty of Mrs. Navajothi Sinnarasa (Sebastian Pillai Selvarasa Navajothi), Sinnathambi Kamalanadan, Sri Arasaretnam Senthinathakurukkal and Krishnapillai Perinpam is arbitrary, being in contravention of article 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and falls within category III of the categories applicable to the consideration of cases submitted to the Working Group.
15. Consequent upon the opinion rendered, the Working Group requests the Government to take the necessary steps to remedy the situation of the persons enumerated in paragraph 14 (c) of the present opinion and to bring it into conformity with the standards and principles set forth in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
Adopted on 29 November 2001
HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE
(CPR/CO/79/LKA/Future)
79th session
CONSIDERATION OF REPORTS SUBMITTED BY STATES PARTIES UNDER
ARTICLE 40 OF THE COVENANT
Concluding observations of the Human Rights Committee
SRI LANKA
1. The Human Rights Committee considered the combined fourth and fifth reports of Sri Lanka (CCPR/C/LKA/2002/4) during its 2156th, and 2157th meetings, held on 31 October and 3 November 2003 (see CCPR/C/SR.2156 and 2157) It adopted the present concluding observations during its 2164th meeting (CCPR/C/SR. 2164), held on .6 November 2003.*
Introduction
2. The Committee notes that the report was submitted
after considerable delay and combines the fourth and fifth periodic reports of
Sri Lanka. It notes that the report contains detailed information on domestic
legislation and relevant national case law in the field of civil and political
rights, but regrets that it does not provide full information on the follow-up
of the Committee's concluding observations on Sri Lanka's previous report. The
Committee expresses its appreciation for the discussion with the delegation,
and notes the answers, both oral and written, that were provided to its
questions.
B. Positive aspects
3. The Committee welcomes the conclusion, on 24
February 2002, of a cease-fire agreement between the Government of Sri Lanka
and the LTTE, and expresses the hope that the implementation and monitoring of
the agreement will help to achieve a peaceful and lasting solution to a
conflict which has given rise to serious violations of human rights on both
sides.
4. The Committee welcomes the establishment of the
National Human Rights Commission in March 1997. It notes that the Commission
has begun to play an active role in the area of promotion and protection of
human rights in the peace process. It expresses the hope that the Commission's
monitoring and educational activities, including those projected under the
Strategic Plan for 2003-2006, will receive appropriate resources.
5. The Committee notes the measures taken by the State
party to improve awareness of human rights standards among public officials and
members of the armed forces, and to facilitate the investigation of human
rights violations. These measures include improved human rights education for
all law enforcement officers, members of the armed forces and prison officers,
the establishment of a central register of detainees in all parts of the
country and the creation of the National Police Commission.
6. The Committee welcomes the State party's ratification of the Optional Protocol to the Covenant in October 1997, and the training workshop on the procedure under the Optional Protocol to the Covenant co-organized by the National Human Rights Commission and the UN Development Programme in December 2002.
C. Principal subjects of concern and recommendations
7. While taking note of the proposed constitutional reform and the legislative review project currently being undertaken by the National Human Rights Commission, the Committee remains concerned that Sri Lanka's legal system still does not contain provisions which cover all of the substantive rights set forth in the Covenant, or all the necessary safeguards required to prevent the restriction of Covenant rights beyond the limits permissible under the Covenant. It regrets in particular that the right to life is not expressly mentioned as a fundamental right in Chapter III of the Constitution even though the Supreme Court has, through judicial interpretation, derived protection of the right to life from other provisions of the Constitution. It is also concerned that contrary to the principles enshrined in the Covenant (e.g. the principle of non-discrimination), some Covenant rights are denied to non-citizens without any justification. It remains concerned about the provisions of article 16(1) of the Constitution, which permits existing laws to remain valid and operative notwithstanding their incompatibility with the Constitution's provisions relating to fundamental rights. There is no mechanism to challenge legislation incompatible with the provisions of the Covenant (articles 2 and 26). It considers that a limitation of one month to any challenges to the validity or legality of any "administrative or executive action" jeopardizes the enforcement of human rights, even though the Supreme Court has found that the one-month rule does not apply if sufficiently compelling circumstances exist.
The State party should ensure that its legislation gives full effect to the rights recognized in the Covenant and that domestic law is harmonized with the obligations undertaken under the Covenant.
8. The Committee is concerned that article 15 of the
Constitution permits restrictions on the exercise of the fundamental rights set
out in Chapter III (other than those set out in articles 10, 11, 13.3 and 13.4)
which go beyond what is permissible under the provisions of the Covenant, and
in particular under article 4(1) of the Covenant. It is further concerned that
article 15 of the Constitution permits derogation from article15 of the
Covenant, which is non-derogable, by making it possible to impose restrictions
on the freedom from retroactive punishment (article 13(6) of the Constitution).
The State party should bring the provisions of Chapter III of the Constitution into conformity with articles 4 and 15 of the Covenant.
9. The Committee remains concerned about persistent
reports of torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment of
detainees by law enforcement officials and members of the armed forces, and
that the restrictive definition of torture in the 1994 Convention against
Torture Act continues to raise problems in the light of article 7 of the
Covenant. It regrets that the
majority of prosecutions initiated against police officers or members of the
armed forces on charges of abduction and unlawful confinement, as well as on
charges of torture, have been inconclusive due to lack of satisfactory evidence
and unavailability of witnesses, despite a number of acknowledged instances of
abduction and/or unlawful confinement and/or torture, and only very few police
or army officers have been found guilty and punished. The Committee also notes
with concern reports that victims of human rights violations feel intimidated
from bringing complaints or have been subjected to intimidation and/or threats,
thereby discouraging them from pursuing appropriate avenues to obtain an
effective remedy (article 2 of the Covenant).
The State party should adopt legislative and other measures to prevent such violations, in keeping with articles 2, 7 and 9 of the Covenant, and ensure effective enforcement of the legislation. It should ensure in particular that allegations of crimes committed by state security forces, especially allegations of torture, abduction and illegal confinement, are investigated promptly and effectively with a view to prosecuting perpetrators. The National Police Commission complaints procedure should be implemented as soon as possible. The authorities should diligently enquire into all cases of suspected intimidation of witnesses and establish a witness protection program in order to put an end to the climate of fear that plagues the investigation and prosecution of such cases The capacity of the National Human Rights Commission to investigate and prosecute alleged human rights violations should be strengthened.
10. The Committee is concerned about the large number
of enforced or involuntary disappearances of persons during the time of the
armed conflict, and particularly about the State party's inability to identify,
or inaction in identifying those responsible and to bring them to justice. This
situation, taken together with the reluctance of victims to file or pursue
complaints (see paragraph 9 above), creates an environment that is conducive to
a culture of impunity.
The State party is urged to implement fully the right to life and physical integrity of all persons (Art 6, 7, 9 and 10, in particular) and give effect to the relevant recommendations made by the UN Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances and the Presidential Commissions for Investigation into Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances. The National Human Rights Commission should be allocated sufficient resources to monitor the investigation and prosecution of all cases of disappearances.
11. While noting that corporal punishment has not been
imposed as a sanction by the courts for about 20 years, the Committee expresses
concern that it is still statutorily permitted, and that it is still used as a
prison disciplinary punishment. Moreover, despite directives issued by the
Ministry of Education in 2001, corporal punishment still takes place in schools
(article 7).
The State party is urged to abolish all forms of corporal punishment as a matter of law and effectively to enforce these measures in primary and secondary schools, and in prisons.
12. The Committee is concerned that abortion remains a
criminal offence under Sri Lankan law, except where it is performed to save the
life of the mother. The Committee is also concerned by the high number of
abortions in unsafe conditions, imperiling the life and health of the women
concerned, in violation of articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant.
The State party should ensure that women are not compelled to continue with pregnancies, where this would be incompatible with obligations arising under the Covenant (article 7 and General Comment 28), and repeal the provisions criminalizing abortion.
13. The Committee is concerned that the Prevention of
Terrorism Act (PTA) remains in force and that several of its provisions are
incompatible with the Covenant (articles 4, 9 and 14). The Committee welcomes
the decision of the Government, consistent with the Ceasefire Agreement of
February 2002, not to apply the provisions of the PTA and to ensure that normal
procedures for arrest, detention and investigation prescribed by the Criminal
Procedure Code are followed. The Committee is also concerned that the continued
existence of the PTA allows arrest without a warrant and permits detention for
an initial period of 72 hours without the person being produced before the
court (sec. 7), and thereafter for up to 18 months on the basis of an
administrative order issued by the Minister of Defense (sec.9). There is no
legal obligation on the State to inform the detainee of the reasons for the
arrest; moreover, the lawfulness of a detention order issued by the Minister of
Defense cannot be challenged in court. The PTA also eliminates the power of the
judge to order bail or impose a suspended sentence, and places the burden of
proof on the accused that a confession was obtained under duress. The Committee
is concerned that such provisions, incompatible with the Covenant, still remain
legally enforceable, and that it is envisaged that they might also be
incorporated into the Prevention of Organized Crimes Bill 2003.
The State party is urged to ensure that all legislation and other measure enacted taken to fight terrorism are compatible with the provisions of the Covenant. The provisions of the PTA designed to fight terrorism should not be incorporated into the draft Prevention of Organized Crime Bill to the extent that they are incompatible with the Covenant.
14. The Committee is concerned about recurrent
allegations of trafficking in the State party, especially of children (article
8).
The State party should vigorously pursue its public policy to combat trafficking in children for exploitative employment and sexual exploitation, in particular through the effective implementation of all the components of the National Plan of Action adopted to give effect to this policy.
15. The Committee notes with concern that overcrowding
remains a serious problem in many penitentiary institutions, with the
inevitable adverse impact on conditions of detention in these facilities
(article 10).
The State party should pursue appropriate steps to reduce overcrowding in prisons, including through resorting to alternative forms of punishment. The National Human Rights Commission should be granted sufficient resources to allow it to monitor prison conditions effectively.
16. The Committee expresses concern that the procedure
for the removal of judges of the Supreme Court and the Courts of Appeal set out
in article 107 of the Constitution, read together with Standing Orders of
Parliament, is incompatible with article 14 of the Covenant, in that it allows
Parliament to exercise considerable control over the procedure for removal of
judges.
The State party should strengthen the independence of the judiciary by providing for judicial, rather than parliamentary, supervision and discipline of judicial conduct,
17. While appreciating the repeal of the statutory
provisions relating to criminal defamation, the Committee notes with concern
that State radio and television programs still enjoy broader dissemination than
privately owned stations, even though the Government has taken media-related
initiatives, by repealing the laws that provide for state control of the media,
by amending the National Security Act and by creating a Press Complaints
Commission (article 19).
The State party is urged to protect media pluralism and avoid state monopolization of media, which would undermine the principle of freedom of expression enshrined in article 19 of the Covenant. The State party should take measures to ensure the impartiality of the Press Complaints Commission.
18. The Committee is concerned about persistent reports
that media personnel and journalists face harassment, and that the majority of
allegations of violations of freedom of expression have been ignored or
rejected by the competent authorities. The Committee observes that the police
and other government agencies frequently do not appear to take the required
measures of protection to combat such practices (articles 7, 14 and 19).
The State party should take appropriate steps to prevent all cases of harassment of media personnel and journalists, and ensure that such cases are investigated promptly, thoroughly and impartially, and that those found responsible are prosecuted.
19. While commending the introduction since 1995 of
legislation designed to improve the condition of women, the Committee remains
concerned about the contradiction between constitutional guarantees of
fundamental rights and the continuing existence of certain aspects of personal
laws discriminating against women, in regard to marriage, notable the age of
marriage, divorce and devolution of property (articles 3, 23, 24, and 26).
The State party should complete the ongoing process of legislative review and reform of all discriminatory laws, so as to bring them into conformity with articles 3, 23, 24 and 26 of the Covenant.
20. The Committee deplores the high incidence of
violence against women, including domestic violence. It regrets that specific
legislation to combat domestic violence still awaits adoption and notes with
concern that marital rape is criminalized only in the case of judicial
separation (article 7).
The State party is urged to enact the appropriate legislation in conformity with the Covenant without delay. It should criminalize marital rape in all circumstances. The State party is also urged to initiate awareness-raising campaigns about violence against women.
D. Dissemination of information about the Covenant (article 2)
21. The fifth periodic report should be prepared in accordance with the Committee's reporting guidelines (CCPR/C/66/GUI/Rev.1) and be submitted by 1 November 2007. The State party should pay particular attention to indicating the measures taken to give effect to these concluding observations. The Committee requests that the text of the State party's fourth periodic report and the present concluding observations be published and widely disseminated throughout the country.
22. In accordance with rule 70, paragraph 5, of the
Committee's rules of procedure, the State party should provide information,
within one year, on its response to the Committee's recommendations contained
in paragraphs 8, 9, 10 and 18. The Committee requests the State party to
provide information in its next report on the other recommendations made and on
the implementation of the Covenant as a whole.