The Committee against Torture this afternoon
heard the response of Sri Lanka to questions raised by Committee Experts on the
second periodic report of that country on how it is implementing the provisions
of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading
Treatment or Punishment.
Responding to a series of questions raised by the Committee members on Thursday,
10 November, the delegation, which was led by Sarala Fernando, Ambassador and
Permanent Representative of Sri Lanka to the United Nations Office at Geneva,
said human rights cells were set up in the police force to deal with internal
allegations of human rights violations in the force, and for the dissemination
of information in relation to human rights. A confession made by any person to a
police officer as a result of torture or any confession made by any person
whilst in police custody to another under duress was inadmissible under normal
law. On a question on the interpretation in case law on what was considered
bodily harm, humiliation and others, this area of law had received legislative
expression in 1995, and there had only been a few cases, and as a result the
jurisprudential aspect was yet to be developed by the courts.
In conclusion, the delegation said that Sri Lanka had always been mindful of its
obligations, and respected, secured, and advanced human rights to its society.
The Constitution of Sri Lanka confirmed to its people that fundamental rights
would be recognised as an intangible heritage that guaranteed the dignity and
well-being of mankind.
The Committee will submit its conclusions and recommendations on the report of
Sri Lanka towards the end of the session on 25 November 2005.
As one of the 140 States parties to the Convention against Torture and Other
Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, Sri Lanka is obliged to
provide the Committee with periodic reports on the measures it has undertaken to
fight torture.
When the Committee reconvenes at 10 a.m. on Monday, 14 November, it is scheduled
to hear the response of Ecuador to questions posed this morning.
Response of Sri Lanka
Responding to a series of questions raised by the Committee Experts on 10
November, the delegation of Sri Lanka said concerning non-extradition or
refoulement, there was no express provision on the non-extradition of persons on
the grounds of the person being subjected to torture. However, extradition
required a court process, and in their interpretation of extradition law, they
would necessarily give expression to any international agreement to which Sri
Lanka was party, including the Convention. In agreeing on the extradition, the
State would necessarily be guided by its international obligations, in
particular article 3 of the Convention.
Since signing the Peace Agreement, there had been a number of instances when
LTTE leaders had flown in and out of Colombo airport. On the right to try
non-Sri Lankans who had committed crimes outside the country but were in the
country and who had not been extradited, there was no such provision to deal
with this aspect in domestic legislation. Statistics showed, the delegation
said, that there was a vast reduction in the number of cases relating to torture
that had been filed in the courts. The procedure for visits of places of
detention had been agreed upon in consultation with the Human Rights Commission
of Sri Lanka, whose officers could visit, at any time, without notice, any
police station. However, if they were to visit any place within the police
station where the public had no access, the police had been directed to provide
the assistance of a senior police officer to escort the members of the
Commission for reasons of security.
The National Police Commission had been established and could not in any way be
abolished by executive action. On law delays, the delegation said, the
Government and the Chief Justice were presently considering legislative steps as
well as administrative procedures to accelerate the process of the criminal
justice aystem. On language in which statements were recorded, it was conceded
that statements of accused persons as well as witnesses had been in certain
instances recorded in a language other than in the language in which the oral
statement was made. This problem had been recognised and every endeavour was
being made to ensure that the problem was addressed.
Human rights cells were set up in the police force to deal with internal
allegations of human rights violations in the forces, and for the dissemination
of information in relation to human rights. However, the administrative
structure of the police did not require human rights cells to investigate human
rights violations within the police, and the Human Rights Directorate of police
ensured the dissemination of information on human rights to all police stations.
All military personnel and police officers had been fully apprised of the fact
that they were not obliged to follow any illegal orders of a superior officer,
and that such an order made by a superior officer would not be a defence in any
court proceeding or disciplinary inquiry. On how findings of reports of
inspection visits to prisons were communicated to the relevant authorities for
implementation, NGOs would always inform the relevant authorities of their
findings, conclusions and recommendations, if they were of the view that
remedial action was required.
As to why police officers against whom allegations of torture were made were not
immediately interdicted, in practice, it had been found that very often persons
accused of offences made false allegations for purposes of stifling the
investigations that were being conducted against them, the delegation said. In
the circumstances, it would be unfair to interdict a police officer on a mere
allegation; however an officer against whom a prima facie case had been
established would be interdicted by the National Police Commission. On the issue
of the offending party paying compensation in lieu of a prosecution, there was
an earlier practice in the Human Rights Commission in this regard. However, the
Attorney General’s Department had taken up the position that such settlements
did not bind the Attorney General from forwarding indictments against
perpetrators of torture. The present Commission had now discontinued this
practice.
A confession made by any person to a police officer as a result of torture or
any confession made by any person whilst in police custody to another under
duress was inadmissible under normal law, the delegation said.
In terms of the Prisons Ordinance, serious offences such as mutiny, escape from
prison, or causing grievous harm to a prison officer were inquired into by a
prison tribunal chaired by a judicial officer. These tribunals were empowered to
impose punishments of imprisonment in addition to the sentence the offender was
serving. With regard to minor offences arising as a result of violation of
prison rules, the Superintendent of Prisons was empowered to impose punishments
such as solitary confinement and closed confinement, as well as a punishment
diet. All serious offences committed by a prisoner against a fellow prisoner
were tried under normal law, the delegation said.
The outcome of police disciplinary inquiries was not made public, the delegation
said. However, if such disciplinary procedure was based on a complaint made by
any person, the complainant had the right to know the outcome of the
disciplinary inquiry. There were no statistics on compensation awarded to
victims at this time. On a question on the interpretation in case law on what
was considered bodily harm, humiliation and others, this area of law had
received legislative expression in 1995, and there had only been a few cases,
and as a result the jurisprudential aspect was yet to be developed by the
courts. In all reported cases of custodial rape that had been committed before
2002, the Attorney General had examined the available material, and initiated
criminal proceedings in all cases where there was sufficient evidence.
With regards to a question on whether there was any mechanism within the LTTE to
deal with human rights violations, considering the flagrant violations of human
rights by the LTTE, it was inconceivable that there were any mechanisms within
the LTTE to deal with these, the delegation said. On whether there were
statistics of discontinued cases against police officers, the delegation noted
that there had been such cases on applications made by the victims, although no
statistics could be provided. In all cases where the State had been ordered to
pay compensation, this had been paid on the due date. However, in cases where
public officers were directed by the Court to pay compensation personally, the
Court could grant sufficient time to make such payments.
In conclusion, the delegation said that Sri Lanka had always been mindful of its
obligations, and respected, secured, and advanced human rights to its society.
The Constitution of Sri Lanka confirmed to its people that fundamental rights
would be recognised as an intangible heritage that guaranteed the dignity and
well-being of mankind.
ANDREAS MAVROMMATIS, Committee Expert serving as Rapporteur for the report of
Sri Lanka, said most of his questions were either partly or fully answered.
However, three cases had been mentioned. Sri Lanka had done a lot of work to
comply with recommendations made the previous time, and had done many other
things in compliance with the recommendations of other United Nations bodies,
and yet the number of credible complaints of torture or cruel and inhuman
treatment whilst in police custody showed no decline. It was clear that
something therefore remained to be done to reduce the incidents of torture. The
Human Rights Commission appeared to have identified something that was of
concern in this regard, and that was the pervading culture of impunity. The
Government had to look into the causes for the continuing situation in greater
detail, and to ensure that this was the case from the highest levels of the
police force, right down to the most local of police officers in each little
village. On the question of the National Human Rights Commission and the
National Police Commission, which were statutory bodies, when these were not
appointed, there was a need to clarify who took over their tasks.
OLE VEDEL RASMUSSEN, Committee Expert serving as co-Rapporteur, said that
all questions had been answered, but he had a few comments, in particular with
regard to the argument against the suspension of police officers in the case of
allegations of torture, and Mr. Rasmussen suggested that this be reconsidered.
It was up to the police force to conduct an investigation and get rid of rotten
apples within its ranks. Further information was required on the maximum length
of solitary confinement, and the suppression of the punishment diet was also
suggested. Further information on convictions and those still on remand was also
required, as this would help to clarify problems related to the numbers of those
convicted.
Other Committee Experts then made further comments and raised questions. An
Expert noted that a question on monitoring and follow-up measures that prevented
sexual violence had not been answered. Sexual violence was also not exclusively
carried out by men against women, an Expert reminded the delegation, and that
persons in custody were often subject to abuse, including from other detainees,
and asked whether there were any laws or provisions to prosecute such crimes.
Responding briefly, the delegation said the Attorney-General’s office had a
public complaints section, to which the public were entitled to write and
complain about any offence or mistreatment that they had received at the hands
of any public servant. If these matters were brought to the attention of the
Attorney-General and he was informed that the police were trying to sweep such a
matter under the carpet, then he would investigate them thoroughly. With regards
to close confinement, this was for three days, and normal confinement was for a
maximum of 14 days. As far as the prisons were concerned, there were both
convicted and remanded persons in their walls, but they were confined to
separate sections. Remand was the exception, generally speaking. On laws on
sexual harassment that took place in prisons, there was a law on sexual abuse as
well as harassment. With regards to rape, it only applied to women. The
Constitutional Council had not been disbanded, and could not be disbanded, but
there had been a delay in its constitution. The Human Rights Commission had no
right to order compensation, as it was involved in the monitoring of human
rights, and compensation was a matter for the courts.
In concluding remarks, Sarala Fernando, Permanent Representative of Sri Lanka
to the United Nations Office at Geneva, said that Sri Lanka had made great
progress since the signing of the Ceasefire Agreement in 2002, and there was
broad international recognition that a better human rights situation prevailed
in the country. There had been no allegations of disappearances, extra-judicial
killings or torture against the security forces. The police was also in the
process of transition from a force that had to combat a brutal insurgency into a
community-oriented civilian police force operating under normal law. Sri Lanka
welcomed all international assistance provided for human rights education,
civilian police training and national capacity building. It was only through
strengthening national capacities that Sri Lanka would achieve the final goal of
safeguarding all human rights for its people. There was no impunity for torture
or any other human rights violation in Sri Lanka, and it was in this spirit that
the country welcomed the dialogue with the Committee.
For use of the information media; not an official record
CAT05027E
Back to ALRC Alternative Report to Committee against Torture on Sri Lanka