Police harassment under check

NPC empowered to act against perpetrators
 

by Jayampathy Jayasinghe

Human rights violations and abuses by the police have been the topic of discussions at seminars and forums of governmental and non governmental organisations in the recent past. Although a chapter on human rights was enshrined in the 72 constitution it became enforceable only after the 1978 constitution was promulgated. When people became aware of human rights violations in the mid eighties they filled fundamental rights applications before the Supreme Court at alarming frequencies.

President Mahinda Rajapaksa, as Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces and Minister of Defence, Public Security Law and Order took cognisance of human rights violations and issued directions to the heads of armed forces and the police to ensure the fundamental rights of persons arrested or detained, to be respected and to be treated humanely.

Director Legal of the Police Department, DIG Jayakumar Thangavelu, said police officers are now aware of human rights violations. They know that if found guilty of human rights violations such as causing torture, the National Police Commission (NPC) has the power to hold up their promotions and investigate such violations. Police officers in the rank of inspectors and below commit torture while in the course of their investigations. However, senior officers above the rank of ASP's are immune to it because they do not get involved in investigative work. Their work is more confined to administrative work.

DIG Thangavelu while addressing more than 100 police Inspectors and Sub -Inspectors involved in criminal investigation work at a workshop on human rights, asked them why they resort to torture. They all replied that circumstances force them to indulge in torture. They said that senior police officers compel them to solve crime cases by resorting to torturous methods. The other reason they said was non availability of resources like vehicles for investigative work. The third reason was the time factor where an accused had to be taken before courts within 24 hours. The second question put to them was why only poor and destitute persons were tortured and not the rich and powerful when extracting confessions. The congregation unanimously agreed that they do not torture the rich due to reprisals.

DIG Thangavelu said that several seminars and workshops were conducted to educate police officers on human rights violations. But due to the apathy shown by senior police officers, human rights violations are not properly monitored. When a case of torture is reported it became the responsibility of an ASP to visit a police station and investigate such violations. But what happens is when torture was reported, the SSP calls for a report from the ASP who in turn calls for a report from the OIC concerned. In such instances the victim is forced to make a statement to the very person who tortured him or her.

The DIG said there were instances where police officers had fabricated evidence and framed charges to substantiate injuries caused to persons in their custody. There had been few instances where the Attorney General (AG) himself had intervened and probed into cases where police officers had fabricated evidence. Under Act No 22 of 1994 -Convention against Torture and Other Cruel Inhuman or Degrading Treatment the minimum punishment is seven years not exceeding 10 years and a fine of Rs. 10,000 which are mandatory. All torture cases are indictable offences tried by High Courts.

Torture cases can be taken up in three different ways, (1) when the victim complains to an Asst. Supdt. of Police or a Senior Supdt. of Police, the police or to the Inspector General of Police (IGP,) but it is seldom done.(2) When fundamental rights cases are filed before the Supreme Court. The court orders compensation to be paid to an aggrieved party and may order the Attorney General (AG) to prosecute the respondent. (3) Instances where the Attorney General (AG) himself takes cognisance of torture and orders the police to investigate and forward the papers to him for action.(4) The police are empowered to investigate torture and forward the papers to the Attorney General for action.(4) The National Police Commission (NPC) has the power to investigate torture and forward the papers to the Attorney General for necessary action.(5) The Human Rights Commission too can investigate cases of torture. (6)Several International Organisations can call reports from the IGP and the Legal Division of the Police.

Meanwhile following the Presidential directive, police Headquarters issued a circular to all police stations to safeguard human rights of suspects taken into custody, on 6 July 2006.

DIG Legal Range, Kayakumar Thangavelu is charged by the Inter Ministerial committee on Human Rights headed by the Minister of Human Rights and Disaster Management. The Minister has appointed a committee headed by DIG Thangavelu and Mrs Sunila Abesekera and Nimalka Fernando human rights activists and Dr. Nesiah to visit police stations to monitor the proper implementation of the Presidential directive.

(1) That every member of the armed forces and of the police to assist and facilitate the Human Rights Commission (HRC) and any persons authorised by the HRC in the exercise of its powers, duties, and functions.

(2) No persons shall be arrested or detained under any Emergency regulation or the Prevention of Terrorism Act No 48 of 1979 except in accordance with the law and proper procedure and by a person who is authorised by law to make such arrest or order such detention.

(3) At about the time of the arrest or if it is not possible in the circumstances , immediately thereafter as circumstances permit:

(a) The person making the arrest or detention shall identify himself to the person arrested or any relative or friend of such person upon inquiry being made, by name and rank.

(b) Every person arrested or detained shall be informed of the reason for the arrest.

(c) The person making the arrest or detention shall issue to the spouse, father, mother, or any other close relation as the case may be a document in such form as specified by the Secretary to the Ministry of the Minister in charge of the subject of Defence, acknowledging the fact of arrest. the name and rank of the arresting officer, the time and date of arrest and the place at which the person will be detained, shall also be specified.

(4) When a child under 18 years or a woman is sought to be arrested or detained, a person of their choice should be allowed to accompany such child or woman to the place of questioning. As far as possible any such child or woman so sought to be arrested or detained , should be placed in the custody of a Women's Unit of the Armed Forces or the Police Force or in the custody of another woman military or police officer.

(5) A statement of person arrested or detained should be recorded in the language of that person's choice who should thereafter be asked to sign the statement. A person who desires to make a statement in his or her own handwriting should be permitted to do so.

(6) The members of the HRC or any person authorized by it should be permitted access to the person arrested or detained under the Prevention of Terrorism Act No 48 of 1979 or under a regulation made under the Public Security Ordinance (Chapter 40) and should be permitted to enter at any time any place of detention, police station or any other place in which such person is detained in custody or confined.

[email protected]