Font size: 
A former officer in charge of the Crime Division at the Narahenpita police station, Police Inspector Shelton Saley, and Constable Stanley Tissera were convicted by Colombo High Court Judge Upali Abeyratne.
In this case, Angalin Roshana complained that she was arrested by Saley at about 8:00 p.m. on Dec. 3, 2000, that she was detained in police custody until she was produced before a magistrate shortly before noon on Dec. 5, 2000, and that she was tortured while in custody.
The police officer had arrested her on the basis of a complaint made by an affluent family for whom Angalin Roshana worked as a part-time domestic helper. The complainant, a lawyer, sought the help of the police regarding the loss of a gold watch valued at 500,000 rupees (US$5,000) which she believed Angalin Roshana had stolen.
Saley, together with the complainant, went to Angalin Roshana's house and searched the premises but was unable to find the watch. The policeman then took her to the complainant's house, where she was held for four hours and told to find the watch.
Because she pleaded innocent to the accusation, the complainant handed her over to the police for interrogation. Angalin Roshana gave evidence that she was held at the police station overnight and was threatened, beaten severely and was told to reveal where the gold watch was hidden. Her pleas of innocence went unheard.
Because of the interventions of her family, several people visited her while she was in custody, and legal assistance was provided. A lawyer appeared for her when she was produced before the magistrate and promptly informed the court of the torture that had taken place at the police station. On the magistrate's order, she was examined by a judicial medical officer, who issued a medical report.
The medical report showed numerous injuries. The medical officer testified that they had been caused by assault with a blunt object, were about two to four days old and were consistent with the claims of assault by Angalin Roshana.
At the trial, Angalin Roshana and several other people gave evidence. The police officer also gave evidence, admitting to the arrest but denying the use of torture. The trial went on for almost six years, but eventually the High Court judge held that the charges were proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
This is now the third conviction under the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment Act of 1994, which prescribes a mandatory seven years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of 10,000 rupees (US$100) on conviction. The act defines torture as follows:
"'[T]orture' with its grammatical variations and cognate expressions means any act which causes severe pain, whether physical or mental, to any other person, being an act which is (a) done for any of the following purposes, that is to say, (i) obtaining from such other person or a third person any information or confession; or (ii) punishing such other person for any act which he or a third person has committed, or is suspected of having committed; or (iii) intimidating or coercing such other person or a third person, or done for any reason based on discrimination, and being in every case an act which is done by, or at the instigation of, or with the consent or acquiescence of, a public officer or other person acting in an official capacity."
Prior to the criminal case in the High Court, Angalin Roshana appealed to the Supreme Court in which a three-bench court, presided over by Justice Mark Fernando, held in June 2002 that the police inspector had violated the rights of the petitioner by torture and illegal detention and ordered compensation of 100,000 rupees (US$1,000).
In retaliation, the police filed charges in the magistrate's court against Angalin Roshana for the theft of the gold watch. However, the case was dismissed as there was no evidence brought against her.
The judgment in this case exposes some of the paradoxes in the criminal justice system of Sri Lanka. It is quite well known that the use of torture is endemic within the police investigation system in Sri Lanka. Radhika Coomaraswamy, the former chairperson of the Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka, observed:
"Over the last two years, we have had an increase in the daily number of torture complaints. I don't know whether this is due to an increase in the actual number of torture cases taking place or because of an increase in the reporting of such cases as there are a number of very active international and national NGOs in Sri Lanka now working in this area. Either way, we felt that we should urgently respond to this situation so we adopted a zero-tolerance policy on torture.
"Furthermore, our discussions with the police and other individuals and agencies have revealed that the police had not really been trained in basic investigative skills. For some reason, the training was more of a paramilitary nature. Torture is often a shortcut to getting information; and as a result, it is systematic and widespread . . . We are not talking about isolated cases of rogue policemen: we are talking about the routine use of torture as a method of investigation. It requires fundamental structural changes to the police force to eradicate these practices."
Regrettably, the police hierarchy has not taken any steps to stop the practice of torture. In fact, it considers torture a necessary element in the investigation of crimes. On the other hand, the law in Sri Lanka treats torture as a crime, and, at least in some cases, like that of Angalin Roshana, police officers are sent to jail for a period of seven years for committing this offense. However, the deterrent effect that such punishment should have will not be felt when just a few officers are punished for a practice which is endemic and practiced daily in all police stations in Sri Lanka.
Such paradoxes can only be resolved by a conscious effort to end the widespread use of torture on the part of the Ministry of Justice and Law Reforms, the judiciary and the prosecution branch in the country, which is represented by the attorney general.
--
(Basil Fernando is director of the Asian Human Rights Commission based in Hong Kong. He is a Sri Lankan lawyer who has also been a senior U.N. human rights officer in Cambodia. He has published several books and written extensively on human rights issues in Asia.)
