Acquiescence

IN an important decision on 4 April in the struggle against torture, the Sri Lankan Supreme Court awarded compensation of Rs 800,000 ($8,420) and medical costs for illegal detention and torture. The highest court in the island said that the number of credible complaints of torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment whilst in police custody shows no decline. In June 2002, Gerald Perera had suffered severe torture endangering life, at the police station in Wattala, four miles north of Colombo. The court held that failure to provide him prompt medical attention amounted to cruel and inhuman treatment. The officer in charge of the police station was also found guilty, although he did not participate, on the ground that torture occurred with his knowledge and acquiescence.

The court ruled that the Inspector General of Police was also liable in cases of torture by his subordinates. The duty imposed by Article 4 (d) of the Constitution, to respect, secure and advance fundamental rights, including freedom from torture, extends to all organs of government, and the head of the police can claim no exemption. At least, he may make arrangements for surprise visits by specially appointed police officers or representatives of the Sri Lankan Human Rights Commission to report on the treatment and conditions of prisoners. The court viewed prolonged failure to give effective directions designed to prevent torture and to ensure proper investigations, as justifying the inference of acquiescence and condonation.

Human rights agencies have urged dismissal of the police officers involved and have called on the Attorney-General (AG) to prosecute them under the Torture Act. Since the Act was introduced in 1994, no one has been convicted of the crime of torture, although the AG claims to have filed cases against some offenders.


Next article.
Back to Sri Lanka Monitor Index page
Back to The Refugee Council Welcome page