Human Rights in Sri Lanka - Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions

The UN Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions has made two visits to Sri Lanka. The report from Philip Alston's visit in November and December 2005 is E/CN.4/2006/53/Add.5. The report from Bacre Waly Ndiaye's visit in September 1997 is E/CN.4/1998/68/Add.2.

Correspondence from 2007

The record of correspondence for 2007 is excerpted from the official United Nations report, A/HRC/4/20/Add.1.

Sri Lanka: Deaths in Pungudutivu and Trincomalee

Violation alleged: Impunity; Deaths due to attacks or killings by the security forces

The Special Rapporteur appreciates the very detailed information provided by the Government of Sri Lanka on the conduct of its investigations into these killings and would request that he be informed of their results.

We would like to draw the attention of your Government to information we have received concerning two incidents of killing of Tamil civilians.

According to the reports received, Ilaiyathamby Tharshini, a woman aged 20 from Pungudutivu, Jaffna Peninsula, was last seen alive on 16 December 2005, when she left her home at 6.15 pm. directed towards the camp of the Sri Lankan Navy in Pungudutivu. On the evening of 17 December 2005, her body was found in a well. It had been weighed down with heavy stones. On the following morning, the body was taken to the Jaffna Teaching Hospital, where a post mortem was performed. The Judicial Medical Officer reportedly found stab wounds in her chest and near her hips and concluded that Tharshini had been raped before being killed. The medical report was submitted to the police, who submitted it to the Magistrate’s Court on 20 December 2005. The Criminal Investigation Department (CID) has been at the crime scene and has heard the victim’s relatives.

On 2 January 2006, around 7.45 pm, Thangathurai Sivanantha, Logithasan Rohanth, Shanmugarajah Sajeenthiran, Manoharan Rajeehar, and Yogarajah Hemachandran, five Tamil youths, were shot in Trincomalee near Dockyard Road. Two other Tamil youths (Pararajasingham Kokilaraj and Yogarajah Pookulanlon) sustained serious injuries in the incident. According to the information received, the young men were chatting on the road-side when from a passing three-wheeler a grenade was thrown at them, injuring them. Immediately thereafter, armed men arrived in a car and shot at five of the young men, three in the head and two in the abdomen and chest, causing their death. Some reports state that the killers arrived on a vehicle of the Sri Lankan armed forces. The dead bodies and the two injured persons were taken to the General Hospital, Trincomalee. The President has appointed a commission to investigate the deaths.

As stated above, we do not prejudge the accuracy of the reports attributing the killings to your Government’s armed forces. Whoever might be responsible, however, international law demands that your Excellency’s Government carry out an impartial, expeditious, and effective investigation into the killings, and that those responsible be held to account under criminal law. Considering the not entirely implausible allegations of involvement of security forces in the killings, it is all the more urgent that the investigations not only are in fact impartial and independent, but also clearly appear to be so in the eyes of all communities in Sri Lanka. Moreover, considering the risk that these killings might lead (or already have led) to further, retaliatory killings, it is of paramount importance that the results of any inquiry be brought to the knowledge of the public expeditiously and in a transparent manner.

With respect to the killing of Tharshini, we note with concern that before the signing of the Ceasefire Agreement there had been a series of incidents in which Tamil women were allegedly raped and killed by the security forces or died in consequence of grievous abuse. These incidents had become a rarity in the last three years. It is therefore all the more imperative that this murder be rapidly and effectively investigated and prosecuted in order to nip any possible re-emergence of this practice in the bud.

It is our responsibility under the mandates provided to us by the Commission on Human Rights and reinforced by the appropriate resolutions of the General Assembly, to seek to clarify all cases brought to our attention. Since we are expected to report on these cases to the Commission, we would be grateful for your cooperation and your observations on the following matters:

In its letter, the Government refered to the joint communication from the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary and Arbitrary Executions, Mr. Philip Alston (AL G/SO 214 (33-23) and the Special Rapporteur on violence against women, its causes and consequences, Ms. Yakin Ertürk (G/SO 214 (89-11) dated 16.01.06 concerning the case of IIaiyatahmby Tharshini.

According to the allegations contained in communication No. G/S0214(33-23)G/SO214(89-11) LKA2/2006 dated 16 January 2003, Ilaiyathamby Tharshini, a woman aged 20 from Punguduthivu, Jaffna peninsula, was last seen alive on 16 December 2005 when she left her home at 6.15 p.m. directed towards the camp of the Sri Lankan Navy in Punguduthivu. Her body was found in a well on the following day. The Judicial Medical Officer had found stab wounds on her chest and concluded that Tharshini was raped before being killed.The initial investigations into this incident was carried out by the Kayts police and later taken over by the Criminal Investigation Division (CID) under the directions of the Inspector General of Police

Initial investigations into the incident were hampered to a great deal due to agitation campaigns covertly organized by the LTTE and the interference by various Cher disruptive elements bringing frivolous and baseless accusations. The police were prevented from guarding the scene until the arrival of the Magistrate due to public agitations which resulted in tampering of evidence at the scene as well as destroying valuable evidence. The Magistrate was able to visit the scene only on 18.12.2005 (day alter the incident). Even at the time the Magistrate visited the scene there was a public agitation covertly organized by the LTTE.

The Magistrate ordered the conduct of a post mortem inquiry and subsequent to this the Police were able to remove the body to the Jaffna Teaching Hospital. The post mortem conducted on the body of the deceased, revealed that death had been caused due to strangulation subsequent to committing vigorous rape. The Judicial Medical Officer, Jaffna, who conducted the autopsy on the body of the deceased, had obtained vaginal, anal and mouth swabs of the deceased as well as her nail clippings and pubic combings for the purpose of forensic examinations.

During the initial investigations, the Kayts police recovered one rubber slipper and subsequently the CID recovered the other slipper in a thicket on the way to the house of the deceased.

The CID during their investigation found the braces used by the deceased at the scene and it was identified by the mother and the relatives of the deceased. The CID recorded statements from a number of witnesses but none of them were able to give any information to the actual incident of rape or murder. Members of the public who were agitating near the scene of the crime had handed over a lady's underwear and a white coloured rope with one end tied to a concrete block as being recoveries made by them at the scene of the crime.A camouflage cap with No. 410836 similar to those used by the security forces had been handed over to the Kayts police by the Magistrate, Jaffna.

Inquiries conducted by the CID with regard to the camouflage cap revealed that the number written in that corresponded to the regimental number of Cpl. W W N A K Weerasuriya of the 8th battalion Gemunu watch of the Sri Lanka Army who is based in Batticoloa. Cpl. Weerasuriya who resides in Gampola had given a statement confirming that one of the two camouflage caps he had in his possession had got lost in November 2005. Cpl. Weerasuriya had admitted that he wrote his regimental number in the camouflage cap. His handwriting has been obtained and submitted for examination to the Examiner of Questioned Documents to confirm if his handwriting corresponded with that of the writing on the camouflage cap allegedly found at the scene of the crime. Inquiries are proceeding to ascertain as to how a camouflage cap issued to a soldier in Batticoloa could surface at the scene of crime in the Jaffna peninsula.

The security situation in the area has restricted the movements of the investigators in gathering of information and intelligence. The lack of cooperation by the public has also hindered the ongoing investigations.

The facts have been reported to the Magistrate Courts, Kayts under case No. B21312005 and the case will be called on 12th July 2006 to report the progress of investigations. A further investigation has been conducted by the Sri Lanka Navy due to public agitation and accusations leveled at the personnel of the Sri Lanka Navy.

Further inquiries are being conducted to identify and apprehend the culprits, in spite of the Jack of public cooperation and in thé midst of campaigns and interferences by various fronts acting at the behest of the LTTE.

According to the allegations contained in communication No. G/S0214(33-23)G/S0214(89-11) LKA2/2006 dated 16 January 2003, refer to the murder of five Tamil youths named Thangathurai Sivanantha, Logithasan Rohanth Shanmugarajah Sajeenthiran, Manoharan Rajeehar and Yogarajah Hemachandran. Police investigations into the incident revealed that on 02.01.2006, at about 1945 hrs. an explosion occurred followed by gunfire at Gandhi Statue Junction bordering Dock Yard Road and Koneswaran Temple Road. Five youths succumbed due to this incident of explosion and gunfire, whilst two other youths received grievous injuries.

Acting OIC/Harbour Police, Inspector of Police (IP) Sawahir visited the scene on receipt of information at about 2010 hrs. followed by Assistant Superintendent of Police (ASP), Trincomalee (1). Detailed observations of the scene have been recorded by the Inspector and also by the ASP. The seven victims were dispatched to the Trincomalee Hospital by Police and of the seven, on admission, five were pronounced dead. The autopsy on the five deceased were conducted by Dr. Gamini Gunatunga, MO/General Hospital Trincomalee. According to the opinion of the doctor who held the post mortem examination the cause of deaths on all five deceased were due to fire arm injuries and there were also multiple blast injuries on their bodies. This confirmed the explosion part and the subsequent shooting.

Police summoned Mr. Ramakamalan Magistrate Trincomalee and he too had made detailed observations of the scene, followed by subsequent several visits to the scene independently. During an extensive search of the scene conducted by the Police initially and thereafter, they recovered seven empty casings of 7.62 caliber, one unexploded hand grenade, the leaver of an exploded hand grenade, a motor cycle, several push cycles and a helmet.

The Govt. Analyst was informed promptly by the Police to visit the scene of crime. From the time of the first visit by the Police until the arrival of the Govt. Analyst for the examination of the scene, the entire scene was placed under police guard. Certain productions from the crime scene relevant to the scientific examinations were taken charge by the Govt. Analyst.

Two special teams headed by the Criminal Investigation Department and the anti Range Crime Division, Trincomalee recorded statements of ten civilians who were living and working in close proximity to the scene of incident. However, they were unable to give any descriptions of the assailants but only confirmed the hearing of an explosion and minutes later sounds of firing.

In addition to above, the investigators recorded statements of 97 witnesses, including security forces and police personnel who were on road block duties along Dock Yard Road, Koneswaran, Temple Road, New Town Hall Junction, other deployments in the town area and the STF team who were the first to visit the scene subsequent to the explosion and sounds of gun fire.

The statements of Tamil speaking witnesses were recorded by police officers who were conversant in Tamil language.

This exercise was done in order to keep the inquiry open and transparent and the opportunity was given to all witnesses to divulge what they fully knew in the language they can read and understand giving an equal opportunity to tell all what they need to mention in their own language freely with no threat, inducement or promise to them. The 13 weapons issued to 12 STF personnel and the police officers were taken charge as it transpired that they were the first to visit the scene of crime, armed with weapons, soon after the explosion and gunfire. This was done as a process of elimination, denoting impartiality and as an exercise of transparency.

The weapons that were issued to the security forces/police personnel who were on road block duties at the far end of Koneswaran Temple Road, Dock Yard Road, UC Junction, were examined for smell of gun powder and found negative.

Several attempts were made immediately to record the statements of the two injured but they refused to make statements to the police until they made statements to the Magistrate. Their statements were recorded by the Magistrate on 8.1.2006 without the presence of the police. It was consequent to this that the police were able to obtain their statements in the presence of two ICRC officiais and their Tamil translator.

These two statements were recorded by the police in Tamil giving an opportunity for them to narrate details of the incident and the events they witnesses, once again displaying transparency and impartiality, leading to the conduct of an independent inquiry.

The police investigators requested the Hon. Attorney General the services of a senior official from the AG's Department to assist the court during the hearing of the inquest proceedings. Hon. Attorney General was represented by Deputy Solicitor General, Mr. Dappula de Livera and Senior State Counsel Mr. Damith Totawatta, during the inquest proceedings which commenced on 16.01.2006 and ended on 18.01.2006.

During the inquest proceedings the Magistrate, solicited evidence of independent witnesses in open Courts and if not willing to do so to come forward to give evidence in camera.

On this request made by the Magistrate, five witnesses came forward and their statements were recorded by the Magistrate in open court. However, they failed to give any material relevant to the identification of assailants and/or provide any eyewitness account corresponding to the explosion or the shooting. Their statements also did not give any clues leading to further probing.

Besides these witnesses, the statements of two injured youths, the Medical Officer and the security forces and police personnel who were manning the road blocks and the STF and police personnel who visited the scene were called by the Magistrate and their statements too were recorded by him during the inquest. On conclusion of inquest proceedings the Magistrate returned an open verdict and directed the police investigators to conduct further investigation.

Statements of 97 civilians, injured persons and STF and police personnel were recorded by the investigating teams during a protracted inquiry. Since some suspicion was cast on the STF personnel and the IP from Trincomalee who accompanied them, all thirteen of them were arrested and were held in detention at the CID for a period of nearly two months. They were questioned at length and their statements verified. The positions taken up by them were that they were on road block duty at a point close to the scene in the Trincomalee town and they rushed to the scene having heard of the explosion and firing. They were detained until the receipt of the Government Analyst's report as the weapons they had at the time were sent to Govt. Analyst through courts. The Govt. Analyst reported that their weapons did not tally with the foreign body recovered from the deceased persons or with the empty casings of 7.62 found at the scene. There was also no other material disclosing their complicity. Hence, the detention orders severed on them were revoked and they were released on 12.04.2006.

Further inquiries are being conducted with the aim of identifying those responsible for the said incident.

The Special Rapporteur regrets that the Government of Sri Lanka has failed to cooperate with the mandate that he has been given by the General Assembly and the Commission on Human Rights.

In this connection, we would like to bring to your to your Government’s attention information we have received concerning Lelwala Gamage Nandiraja, aged 53, a physician. According to the information received,

On 29 May 2005, he was arrested during the night at his home by two police officers wearing uniforms of the Weliweriya police and four other men in civilian clothing. They entered the house and beat him all over his body before dragging him naked from the house to their vehicle. On 30 May 2005, he was reportedly rushed to Gampaha District Government Hospital. He died of his injuries, although it is not clear whether he died before or after arriving at the hospital. According to the information received, it would appear that this is a case of mistaken identity. The police had been looking for a 40 year old man named Lalewela Nandiraja on suspicion of theft and they mistakenly arrested Lelwala Gamage Nandiraja due to the similarities between his name and the name of the suspect.

Without prejudging the facts of the case, we should like to appeal to your Excellency to seek clarification regarding the ill-treatment and death of Lelwala Gamage Nandiraja. In this regard, we would like to draw your Excellency's attention to Article 12 of the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, which requires the competent authorities to undertake a prompt and impartial investigation wherever there are reasonable grounds to believe that torture has been committed. I would also like to draw your attention to Article 7 of the Convention Against Torture, which requires state parties to prosecute alleged offenders. With regard to the alleged killing of Lelwala Gamage Nandiraja, the same obligations arise under Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

We urge your Government to take all necessary measures to guarantee the accountability of any person guilty of the alleged violations ensured. We also request that your Government adopts effective measures to prevent the recurrence of these acts.

Moreover, it is our responsibility under the mandates provided to us by the Commission on Human Rights and reinforced by the appropriate resolutions of the General Assembly, to seek to clarify all cases brought to our attention. Since we are expected to report on these cases to the Commission, we would be grateful for your cooperation and your observations on the following matters:

3. Please provide the details, and where available the results, of any investigation, medical examinations, and judicial or other inquiries which may have been carried out in relation to this case. If no inquiries have taken place or if they have been inconclusive please explain why.

4. In the event that the alleged perpetrators are identified, please provide the full details of any prosecutions which have been undertaken; Have penal, disciplinary or administrative sanctions been imposed on the alleged perpetrators?

5. Please indicate whether compensation has been provided to the family of the victim.

Violation alleged: Death threats and fear of imminent extrajudicial executions

The Special Rapporteur regrets that the Government of Sri Lanka has failed to cooperate with the mandate that he has been given by the General Assembly and the Commission on Human Rights.

I would like to draw the attention of your Government to information I have received regarding death threats against Dr. K. Manoharan and other family members of Manoharan Rajeehar, one of four youths who were allegedly shot by security forces in Trincomalee on 2 January 2006. As your Excellency will recall, I sent a communication to your Government on 16 January 2006 in which I called for an immediate and impartial investigation into these killings. I understand that a ministerial inquiry was set up at the Trincomalee Magistrate court and that it started its investigative work on 10 January 2006.

According to the information received, as soon as Dr. K. Manoharan testified, he began to receive anonymous calls threatening to kill him and his family for having given evidence. Subsequently, unknown people have banged on his door and thrown stones onto the roof of his house. Unknown individuals, their faces concealed by motorcycle helmets, have come to his clinic and requested his services but have then refused to be examined by his wife who is also a medical practitioner. His sons are no longer able to attend school, as members of the security forces have intimidated them by calling them the brothers of the “late kottiya” (Tiger). These threats have compelled him and his family to sleep away from home at different locations. However, since pictures of him and his sons were published in a local newspaper, it appears that even moving to another part of the country would not ensure their safety.

Recent events indicate that these death threats should be treated with the utmost seriousness. In particular, Subramaniyam Sugirdharajan, a journalist from the Tamil-language newspaper Sudar Oli who had taken photos of the five students killed and reported on the incident, was killed on 24 February 2006.

While I do not wish to prejudge the accuracy of these allegations, I would note that they implicate important legal standards. First, human rights law requires States to provide effective protection to those whose lives are in danger. Principle 4 of the Principles on the Effective Prevention and Investigation of Extra-legal, Arbitrary and Summary Executions (Economic and Social Council resolution 1989/65 of 24 May 1989) explains that:

Effective protection through judicial or other means shall be guaranteed to individuals and groups who are in danger of extra-legal, arbitrary or summary executions, including those who receive death threats.

Second, human rights law requires States to effectively investigate extrajudicial executions, and threats against witnesses undermine the effectiveness of investigations by deterring the cooperation of persons with relevant information. Principle 15 elaborates on the measures required to ensure the integrity of such investigations:

Complainants, witnesses, those conducting the investigation and their families shall be protected from violence, threats of violence or any other form of intimidation. Those potentially implicated in extra-legal, arbitrary or summary executions shall be removed from any position of control or power, whether direct or indirect, over complainants, witnesses and their families, as well as over those conducting investigations.

These obligations are part and parcel of the requirement of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights that States ensure the right to life (Articles 2, 6(1)).

I urge your Excellency’s Government to take all measures necessary to safeguard the lives of Dr. K. Manoharam and other family members of Manoharan Rajeehar.

While I do not wish to prejudge the accuracy of these allegations, it is my responsibility under the mandate provided to me by the Commission on Human Rights and reinforced by the appropriate resolutions of the General Assembly, to seek to clarify all such cases brought to my attention. Since I am expected to report on these cases to the Commission, I would be grateful for your cooperation and your observations on the following matters:

1. Are the facts alleged in the summary of the cases accurate? If not, in order to refute these allegations, please provide details of any inquiries carried out.

2. Please provide information on the measures that have been taken to safeguard the lives of Dr. K. Manoharam and other family members of Manoharan Rajeehar.

3. Please provide information on the measures that have been taken to remove persons potentially implicated in the death of Manoharan Rajeehar from any position of control or power, whether direct or indirect, over his family members and other potential witnesses.

4. Please provide the details, and where available the results, of any investigations carried out in relation to these death threats and the details of any prosecutions which have been undertaken against persons responsible for these death threats.

The Special Rapporteur appreciates the preliminary information that was provided by the Government of Sri Lanka in response to his earlier communication, but he regrets that the Government has not provided the results of the judicial hearing and disciplinary proceedings.

Follow-up letter dated 17 October 2006 to a letter of allegation sent on 11 February 2006

I would like to draw your Excellency’s attention to our correspondence, (reflected in my report to the Commission on Human Rights E/CN.4/2006/53/Add.1 p. 217-219), relating to the death threats against Dawundage Pushpakumara and his family.

As indicated in my report, I welcome the information provided by your Excellency’s Government indicating that the accused police officers have been indicted, that their hearing had been postponed to 25 April 2005 and that a disciplinary inquiry against accused Police Inspector Samarakoon was under way. As further indicated in my observations, I would be grateful if your Government could provide me with information relating to the results of the above mentioned judicial hearing and disciplinary proceedings. I would also be grateful if your Government could inform me on measures adopted to ensure the safety of Dawundage Pushpakumara and his family.

Correspondence from 2006

The record of correspondence for 2006 is excerpted from the official United Nations report, E/CN.4/2006/53/Add.1.

Sri Lanka: Killing of Kumaravel Thambiah and Journalist Aiyathurai Nadesan

Violation alleged: Deaths due to attacks or killings by security forces

Subject(s) of appeal: 2 males (1 journalist; 2 members of an ethnic minority)

Character of reply: Largely satisfactory response

Observations of the Special Rapporteur

The Special Rapporteur appreciates the preliminary information provided by the Government of Sri Lanka.� He would appreciate updated information on the investigations into the killing of Aiyathurai Nadesan and Kumaravel Thambiah.

Allegation letter sent on 21 July 2004, reproduced from E/CN.4/2005/7/Add. 1, paras. 669, 670

669. Allegation with the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, 21 July 2004 Mr. Aiyathurai Nadesan, a journalist who had been reporting to the Tamil daily, "Virakesari", International Broadcasting Corporation (IBC) and to some daily electronic media. On 24 May 2004, he was reportedly shot dead by unidentified gunmen believed to be members of the Sri Lankan intelligent service in Batticaloa, while he was going to work on his motorbike. Mr. Nadesan won the North East Sahithya Academy award for his book written in Tamil "History of Ethnic Strife". He also won the best Tamil journalist award in year 2000. He was one of the founder members of Sri Lanka Tamil Media Alliance (SLTMA) and held the post of Vice-President of this association. On 17 July 2001, Mr. Nadesan was interrogated by a military officer of the city of Batticaloa. The officer reminded him that he had to obey them and that he would be arrested if he continued to write critical articles against the military. No investigation had been conducted into his death at the time of writing this communication.

670. Mr. Kumaravel Thambaiah, a senior lecturer at the Eastern University was reportedly shot dead by members of the Sri Lanka intelligent agency, while he was at home in Batticaloa on 24 May 2004. No investigation has been conducted into his death till the filling of this report.�

Response of the Government of Sri Lanka dated 24 March 2005

Concerning the death of Mr. Aiyathurai Nadesan (parag 669): Mr. Alyathural Nadesan was a Senior lncome Tax Officer in Batticaloa and used to write newspaper articles on current political issues. The deceased had also written several articles to Tamil newspapers condemning the activities of �Karuma Faction", which is a group loyal to former LTTE member, Karuna who defeated with his troops breaking away from the LTTE main group. Mr. Nadesan had written an article condemning the assassination of Lecturer Thambiah by an unknown gunman, a week prior to Mr. Nadesan being killed.

The Investigation conducted by the CID revealed that the deceased was shot dead on his way to office on his motor cycle on 31.05.2004 at about 0915 hrs.

Batticaloa Police visited the scene immediately and conducted Investigations. Police have found two empty casings at the scene. There were no eye witnesses to this incident A post mortem examination was also conducted by the JMO/Batticaloa who reported that the death was due to gun shot injuries causing multiple fracture on ribs, laceration of let lung, resulting shock and hemorrhage. The Magistrate of Batticaloa also had visited the scene and returned the verdict of Homicide. The facts of this crime have also been reported to Magistrate Court Batticaloa under case No. B 553/2004 having held an identification parade. The witnesses did not identify any of the suspects at the identification parade. It is presumed that the death of deceased Nadesan had been caused as he had written several articles condemning the activities of "Karuna Faction" and the assassination of the Lecturer Kumaravel Thambiah in the Tamil newspapers. A statement from the wife of the deceased was also recorded with regard to the allegations raised against the intelligence Officers of the Government. She has stated that she did not suspect any of the government officers nor has she made any allegation against anyone. The CID is conducting further investigation after which notes of investigation will be submitted to the Attorney General.

Concerning the death of Mr. Kumaravel Thambiah (parag 670): The CID conducted an investigation into the murder of Mr. Thambiah on the direction given by the Inspector-General of Police. Mr. Kumaravel Thambiah was a Lecturer of the University of Eastern Province. The Investigation conducted by the CID revealed that around 1615 hrs, the assailant had come into this house and wanted to speak to Mr. Thambiah. Immediately when Mr. Thamblah came out, the assailant had shot Mr. Thambiah and escaped. Batticaloa Police visited the scene immediately and conducted investigations. Police have found a pair of slippers near the scene and sniffer dogs had been deployed to crack down the suspect but without a success. A postmortem examination was also conducted by the Judicial Medical Officer of Batticaloa who reported that the death was due to gun shot injuries resulting fracture on left side fifth rib, damage to Spiral Code resulting shock and hemorrhage. The Magistrate of Batticaloa also visited the scene and returned the verdict of homicide. The facts of this crime have also been reported to the Magistrate Court-Batticaloa under case No. B 519/2004. The witnesses did not identify any of the suspects at the Identification parade conducted by the Magistrate. A statement of the wife of the deceased has also been recorded with regard to the allegations raised against the Intelligence Officers of the government. She has stated that she did not suspect any of the government officers nor has she made any allegation against anyone. The CID is conducting further investigation after which notes of Investigation will be submitted to the Attorney General.

With regard to the above two cases, the Government of Sri Lanka also wishes to state the following:� there have been infighting between groups loyal to LTTE leader V. Prabakkaran and Chose loyal to former LTTE member Karuna who defeated with his troops, breaking away from the LTTE main group. Since then there have been a number of killings where both parties accuse each other for such killings. Intelligence information received during investigation points out that the above-mentioned killings too may have been motivated by the above.

Sri Lanka: Death in Custody of Herman Quintus Perera

Violation alleged: Death in custody

Subject(s) of appeal: 1 male

Character of reply: Largely satisfactory response

Observations of the Special Rapporteur

The Special Rapporteur appreciates the preliminary information provided by the Government of� Sri Lanka regarding the death in custody of Herman Quintus Perera.� The SR would appreciate updated information on the prosecution of the alleged perpetrators.

Allegation letter sent on 21 December 2004

Mr. Herman Quintus Perera, (aged 40) was killed on 3 October 2004 by the Pollonnaruwa police while in custody. It is alleged that two police officers came by motorcycle to the restaurant where Mr. Quintus Perera was manager and asked for a bottle of liquor. Mr. Perera explained that he could not accommodate their request as it was a Poya Day (World Temperance Day) on which the sale of liquor is prohibited by law. The two police officers then left the restaurant. They soon returned with a large number of other officers in a police jeep. They reportedly assaulted Mr. Perera. The police then put Mr. Perera and three other workers into the jeep and took them away. Allegations indicate that in the morning of October 4, Mr. Perera was not in the police cell of the Polonnaruwa Police Station and that his body was found at the morgue. An Assistant Superintendent of Police (ASP) allegedly claimed that the victim was killed during a fight when the police raided his restaurant. They alleged that M. Quintus was selling illicit liquor.

Response of the Governemnt of Sri Lanka dated 24 March 2005

Initial investigation into this incident revealed that 1^st� October 2004 had been declared as a temperance day where the sale of liqor was prohibited. The police anti-vice squad having received information of the sale of liqor on this day at the restaurant had proceeded to conduct a search with a search warrant issued by the Court. The staff of the restaurant had resisted the search and a scuffle had arisen between the police search party and the staff of the restaurant. Four person including the deceased were arrested and brought to the police station where the deceased had fallen ill and was taken to the hospital where he died. During the search, the police also arrested a prostitute which gave rise to the suspicion that the restaurant was also being used as a brothel.

The investigation into the death of Mr. H. Quintus Perera was investigated into by a special team under the supervision of DIG/NCP (Anuradhapura) appointed by the Inspector General of Police. Four police officers from the Polonnaruwa Police have been identified as the alleged perpetrators and they were produced before the Magistrate�s Court Polonnaruwa, The perpetrators have been remanded and this case is in progress.

Sri Lanka: Death Threats Against Dawundage Pushpakumara and His Family

Violation alleged: Death threats and fears for safety

Subject(s) of appeal: 1 male (minor) and his family

Character of reply: Cooperative but incomplete response

Observations of the Special Rapporteur

The Special Rapporteur appreciates the information provided by the Government of Sri Lanka and will request the results of the judicial hearing and disciplinary proceedings to which it refers.� However, the SR must reiterate the Government�s obligation to ensure the safety of the victim and his family.

Urgent appeal sent on 11 February 2005 with the Special Rapporteur on torture

Mr. Dawundage Pushpakumara was reportedly severely tortured by the then Officer-in-Charge and other officers of the Saliyawewa Police Post in Putlam on 1 September 2003, when the boy was aged 14. After he filed a complaint and the investigations started, the police officers have been constantly threatening him and his family and even tried to prevent him from getting medical treatment. The Child Protection Authority intervened and took him to Colombo for treatment.� Due to the fear for his life, he never returned home and was given protection at a nearby technical centre where he stayed since. Complaints regarding the threats have been made to the National Police Commission and the National Human Rights Commission and the Attorney General of Special Rapporteuri Lanka. However, it is alleged that no effective action has yet been taken to guarantee the security for this family.� Dawundage Pushpakumara�s case was the object of a previous communication sent by the Special Rapporteur on Torture on 25 September 2003 to which the Government responded that the Special Investigation Unit commenced an investigation and, upon completion, forwarded extracts of the investigation notes to the Attorney General's Department on 13 November 2003, where it was under consideration. I have been informed that his family has recently received further threats by the accused police officers in an attempt to force them to withdraw their complaints. The threats allegedly became even more serious as the case was to be heard for the first time at the Chilaw High Court on 9 February 2005 (Case No. H.C.24/2004/Chilaw High Court under CAT Act No. 22 of 1994).� Reports indicated that, on that day, the Court was informed about the death threats made to the victim and his family. Consequently, a group of human rights activists took the family back to their home, where they live in a defenseless position whereas D. Pushpakumara was taken back to the training centre near Colombo.

Concern is heightened by recent reports indicating that the hearing has been postponed as the accused police officer did not attend the court, transmitting a medical report as a justification. The next hearing of the case was set to 25 April 2005 and this period could be critical for the victim and his family if adequate protection is not provided to them.

It is my understanding that the indictments for torture cases are filed after the Attorney General, on behalf of the State, is satisfied that there is substantive evidence to proceed against the perpetrators for offenses under the Convention Against Torture (CAT) Act of Special Rapporteuri Lanka (Act No. 22 of 1994). It is alleged that the prospect of the seven years mandatory sentence for torture under the CAT Act often leads the alleged perpetrators to threaten the complainants and their families, as demonstrated by several previous cases brought to the attention of the Inspector General of Police, the Attorney General, the Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka and the National Police Commission.�� I would like to underline the fact that, once such indictments have been filed, the State is under an obligation to protect the complainants. This is underscored by the standards contained in a number of applicable international instruments which provide for an obligation on the part of the State to provide protection.� In this connection, I would like to refer Your Excellency's Government to the fundamental principles set forth in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Articles 3 and 6 of these instruments, respectively, provide that every individual has the right to life and security of the person, that this right shall be protected by law and that no one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his or her life. More specifically, principles 4 and 9 to 19 of the Principles on the Effective Prevention and Investigation of Extra-legal, Arbitrary and Summary Executions, Economic and Social Council resolution 1989/65 of 24 May 1989 oblige Governments to guarantee effective protection through judicial or other means to individuals and groups who are in danger of extra-legal, arbitrary or summary executions, including those who receive death threats. A thorough, prompt and impartial investigation of all suspected cases of any such executions or death threats must be carried out and its results shall be made public. I have been informed that, despite several previous warnings to the Sri Lankan authorities regarding the risks encountered by complainants when similar torture cases are soon to be heard by the High Court, the Government has reportedly failed to establish an "effective witness protection program". Without in any way prejudging the facts of the case, I would respectfully urge your Government to take all measures necessary in order to protect the lives of D. Pushpakumara and his family. I also urge you to promptly order an investigation into the allegations of death threats to the victim and his family. I would be grateful if your Excellency could provide me with information on the results of the investigation as well as on the steps undertaken in order to bring the alleged perpetrators to justice. Finally, I would request your Government to seriously consider establishing an effective witness protection program to protect �at-risk� witnesses in criminal trials and to provide me with the relevant information on the progress made towards this objective. I would greatly appreciate receiving shortly information from Your Excellency�s Government in response to these concerns.

Response of the Government of Sri Lanka dated 24 March 2005

The Special Investigation Unit (SIU) of Sri Lanka Police who conducted an investigation into this allegation has reported that the accused police officers have been indicted under the Act No. 22 of the 1994 on Convention on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. The hearing has been postponed for 25.04.2005. Furthermore, action has been taken by the Police Department to inititate disciplinary inquiry against accused Police Inspector Samarakoon.

Sri Lanka: Inquiry Regarding the Death Penalty

Violation alleged: Non-respect of international standards relating to the imposition of capital punishment

Subject(s) of appeal: General

Character of reply: No response

Observations of the Special Rapporteur

The Special Rapporteur appreciated the conversations concerning the death penalty that he had with Government officials during his visit in November � December 2005.� However, the SR did not have the occasion to make extensive inquiries on this issue and would appreciate a response to the questions posed.

Communication sent on 2 August 2005

In this connection, I would like to seek information from your Government in relation to reports stating that � in reaction to a series of particularly heinous crimes that have shaken your country recently � Sri Lanka will reactivate capital punishment.

To my knowledge, the last time the death penalty was executed in Sri Lanka dates back to June 1976. Since then, consecutive presidents have commuted all death sentences. In March 1999, amid reports of rising crime, the Government announced that death sentences would no longer be automatically commuted when they came before the President. In practice, however, death sentences continued to be commuted in all cases. According to information brought to my attention, in recent months high-ranking officials of your Government have again announced the resumption of executions. On 20 November 2004, the Office of the President stated that �the death penalty will be effective from today for rape, murder and narcotics dealings�. The Justice Ministry and the Attorney General have reportedly recommended that the death sentences be imposed in a notorious rape and murder case (the killing of Rita John) be carried out.

I am of course aware of the fact that Sri Lanka has acceded to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), but is not a Party to the Second Optional Protocol thereto, aiming at the abolition of the death penalty. International law does therefore not preclude your Government from having recourse to the death penalty. The Commission on Human Rights has, however, consistently requested me and my predecessors as Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions to monitor the implementation of all standards relating to the imposition of capital punishment.

At present, I would like to highlight four of these standards relating to the imposition of capital punishment:

(i) the �sentence of death may be imposed only for the most serious crimes� (Article 6(2) ICCPR);

(ii) �in capital punishment cases, the obligation of States parties to observe rigorously all the guarantees for a fair trial set out in Article 14 of the [ICCPR] admits of no exception� (Little v. Jamaica, communication no. 283/1988, Views of the Human Rights Committee of 19 November 1991, para. 10);

(iii) �anyone sentenced to death shall have the right to seek pardon or commutation of the sentence.� (Article 6(4) ICCPR);

(iv) the obligation to disclose the details of the application of the penalty (see my Report to the Commission on Human Rights, E/CN.4/2005/7, para. 58, and Commission on Human Rights Resolution 2005/59, OP 5(c) and (d)).

In order to carry out the mandate entrusted to me by the Commission on Human Rights, i.e. in order to be able to effectively monitor the implementation of the mentioned standards, I would be grateful for your responses in relation to the following matters:

(a) Assuming that your Government intends to change the policy that has resulted in the commutation of all death sentences in the course of the last three decades, I would like to know if this decision is in the remit of the President alone, or is a matter for the Cabinet, or for the attorney general? In what form would such a decision be taken?

(b) ��For which offences does the law currently provide for the imposition of the death penalty? Does your Government envisage introducing legislation to change the list of offences punishable by death?

(c) Are there any specific procedural guarantees applying in criminal cases in which the death sentence is or could be sought, e.g. in relation to the right to legal counsel or in the area of evidentiary standards?

(d) Which courts can impose the death sentence? Which appeals and extraordinary remedies are available to a person sentenced to death?

(e) Please provide a complete list of the persons currently in detention under a death sentence, with the dates of their sentence, the offences of which they were found guilty, and the remedies used by them as well as those still available to them. Please also provide a list of the currently pending criminal cases in which the prosecution intends to seek the death sentence.

In view of my official visit to Sri Lanka scheduled for the month of December, I would like to ask your Government to provide the information requested by 1 November 2005, so as to allow me to adequately prepare for a constructive continuation of this exchange.

By way of conclusion, let me assure you, Excellency, that I am fully aware of the deeply troubling nature of the crimes that have led to calls for the resumption of executions in Sri Lanka. As stated above, I also recognise that under international law your Government enjoys the option of retaining the death penalty in the legal system and of resuming executions. Nonetheless, the question of adequate safeguards is of the highest importance in this situation.

Sri Lanka: Impunity for the Bindunuwewa Massacre

Violation alleged: Impunity; Deaths in custody

Subject(s) of appeal: 27 males (members of an ethnic minority)

Character of reply: No response

Observations of the Special Rapporteur

During his visit to Sri Lanka in November � December 2005, the Special Rapporteur discussed this case with Government officials, the mothers of victims, a survivor, and an attorney for the families. The SR would emphasize that there is no justification for the impunity that has prevailed in the Bindunuwewa case and would appreciate being informed of any progress that might be made.

Communication sent on on 10 August 2005

Communication sent regarding recent developments in the criminal proceedings concerning the killing of 27 Tamil detainees at the Bindunuwewa Rehabilitation Centre on 25 October 2000. It would appear that, as a result of a judgment of the Supreme Court of Sri Lanka of 27 May 2005, the only five men ever held accountable for the murders were acquitted.

As your Excellency will recall, my predecessor as Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions wrote to your Government in this matter on 31 October 2000. Your Government replied on 10 November and 6 December 2000, as well as on 9 March and 9 July 2001. In these communications your Government provided detailed information about the incident itself, the autopsies conducted on the bodies of the victims, the first steps in the investigations, arrests carried out (among both villagers and police officers) disciplinary measures provisionally imposed, and compensation paid to the families of the victims. Your Government also transmitted to my predecessor copies of two particularly useful documents: the Interim Report on the Incident at the Bindunuwewa Rehabilitation Centre , Bandarawela � 24 & 25 October 2000 of the Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka of 1 November 2000, and an (undated) Communication received from the Attorney General�s Department on the developments with regard to the judicial investigation into the incident relating to the killing of the inmates at the Bindunuwewa Rehabilitation Centre.

I consider the following statements in these two documents particularly significant:

- �� all the information we have been able to gather so far does not suggest that what occurred on the 25^th was an unpremeditated eruption of mob violence caused by the provocation of the inmates. It is more consistent with a premeditated and planned attack.� (Human Rights Commission Interim Report, p. 16);

- �� it is clear that the police officers, approximately 60 in number, have been guilty of a grave dereliction of duty in not taking any effective action to prevent the acts of violence that resulted in the deaths of 26 inmates �� (Human Rights Commission Interim Report, p. 12);

- �The autopsies were accordingly conducted by the Judicial Medical Officers. Causes of deaths were identified as Cardio Respiratory Failure due to Shock and Hemmorrhage resulting from injuries caused by Sharp and Blunt Weapons. � [V]erdicts of homicide were pronounced. This was followed by overt and covert investigations, which enabled the police initially to arrest 56 suspects� (Attorney General�s Communication, p. 4);

- �Having regard to the magnitude of the crime, the Attorney General opined that the criminal trial should be held before a Trial-at-Bar, a special trial procedure where a preliminary inquiry is dispensed with and the trial is expeditiously conducted by three judges of the High Court�; (Attorney General�s Communication, p. 5)

- �the Attorney General has now contemplated a total of 83 counts (Charges) to be included in the proposed indictment upon which the trial is intended to proceed. These Counts include those of Murder punishable with Death relating to the 27 deceased inmates and of Attempted Murder punishable with terms of 20 year rigorous imprisonment and fines in respect of the injured inmates� (Attorney General�s Communication, p. 5).

I regret that since 9 July 2001 no further information has been received from your Excellency�s Government regarding the progress made in the prosecution of the inquiries and criminal proceedings. However, according to information brought to my attention by other sources:

On 8 March 2001, the government established a Commission of Inquiry into the killings. The Commission faulted the local police commanders (identified by their rank and name) for failing to protect the detainees from the attack in spite of prior knowledge of a planned demonstration by local villagers in front of the detention centre, and for their failure to take any disciplinary action against their subordinates for failing to protect inmates under their control. However, to date, the two officers have neither been disciplined nor criminally prosecuted.

Following police investigations, the prosecution charged 41 persons with various crimes, including murder. Of those, 23 were subsequently released on the grounds that there was no case to answer. By the end of the trial, 13 of the remaining 18 were also acquitted for lack of evidence. On 1 July 2003, the Colombo High Court found the remaining five individuals guilty and sentenced them to death. On an unspecified date, the Supreme Court quashed the conviction of one of the five, a police subinspector from Bandarawela, on grounds of �lack of evidence�. By judgment of 27 May 2005, the Supreme Court acquitted the last four accused in the case, again citing lack of evidence. Reportedly, during the Supreme Court hearing the justices were openly hostile to the prosecution. One justice publicly reminded those present in the courtroom that the killed inmates were members of the LTTE, suggesting that this might mitigate the guilt of the accused.

To sum up, close to five years after the murder of 27 boys and young men detained by your Government for purposes of rehabilitation, no one has been found guilty of their deaths and been subjected to punishment.�

�

In this respect, I would like to recall that, as reiterated in Commission on Human Rights Resolution 2005/34 on �Extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions� (OP 4), all States have �the obligation � to conduct exhaustive and impartial investigations into all suspected cases of extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, to identify and bring to justice those responsible, � and to adopt all necessary measures, including legal and judicial measures, in order to bring an end to impunity and to prevent the recurrence of such executions�. This obligation, affirmed also in the jurisprudence of the Human Rights Committee (see, e.g. the Committee�s views in Arhuacos v. Colombia, Communication no. 612/1995, � 8.8.), is indeed part and parcel of the obligation to respect and protect the right to life enshrined in Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

I therefore urge your Government to persist in and step up the efforts to bring to justice those responsible for the Bindunuwewa massacre, particularly police officers and other public officials, whatever their hierarchical level and their role in the events.

Sri Lanka: Death Threats Against Lawyer W.R. Sanjeewa

Violation alleged: Death threats and fear of imminent extrajudicial execution

Subject(s) of appeal: 1 male (lawyer)

Character of reply: Cooperative but incomplete response

Observations of the Special Rapporteur

The Special Rapporteur regrets that the Government of Sri Lanka has not conducted an investigation into alleged threats against W.R. Sanjeewa and notes that the information required to conduct such an investigation was previously communicated to the Government.� The SR has received copies of correspondence indicating that the necessary information regarding W.R. Sanjeewa was communicated to the Inspector General of Police in October 2005.� A letter from the Attorney General to the Inspector General of Police dated 18 October 2005 requested that the IGP �take necessary steps to ensure his safety so that he will be able to discharge his professional functions without fear or undue interference� and included a copy of a letter from the complainant.� Similarly, a letter from the Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka to the IGP dated 19 October 2005 requested that he �investigate into this matter and provide necessary protection to him� and included a fax from the complainant.� The SR reiterates his request that an investigation be conducted and that its results be communicated to him.

Urgent appeal sent on 2 November 2005 with the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression and Special Representative of the Secretary-General on the situation of human rights defenders

Urgent appeal sent concerning death threats against W.R Sanjeewa, a lawyer representing victims of torture and extrajudicial killings. According to the information received:

Mr. W.R. Sanjeewa is a lawyer appearing on behalf of a number of Sri Lankans claiming to be the victims of torture by police officers in cases currently pending before various courts in Sri Lanka.

Several police officers accused of torturing Mr. W.R. Sanjeewa�s clients have approached him, personally or by phone, requested him move his clients to withdraw their torture complaints, and threatened him and his clients. On 22 October 2005, Mr. Sanjeewa lodged a formal complaint which was recorded at the police headquarters in Colombo. He had previously written a formal letter to the Inspector General of police with copies to the Attorney General regarding the threats received. We understand that Mr. Sanjeewa�s report to the police of 22 October 2005 identifies the names of the police officers who have attempted to intimidate him and the names of the cases the threats refer to. These names are on record with us as well. However, the police appear not to have taken any action to investigate the threats or to protect Mr. Sanjeewa.

The threats against Mr. Sanjeewa and the alleged inaction by the police in response thereto give rise to the preoccupation that his life might be at risk. These concerns are reinforced by the fatal shooting of torture victim Gerald Marvin Perera, who had insisted on legal action against the policemen who tortured him notwithstanding threats aimed at making him desist, and by the recent arson attack against the Human Rights Commission�s headquarters in Colombo.

Since we are expected to report on these cases to the Commission, we would be grateful for your cooperation and your observations on the following matters:

1.�� Are the facts alleged in the above summary of the case accurate?

2.�� Please provide the details, and where available the results, of any investigation, judicial or other inquiries carried out in relation to this case. If no inquiries have taken place or if they have been inconclusive please explain why.

3.�� Please provide the full details of any prosecutions which have been undertaken? Have penal, disciplinary or administrative sanctions been imposed on the alleged perpetrators?

We undertake to ensure that your Government�s response to each of these questions is accurately reflected in the reports we will submit to the Commission on Human Rights for its consideration.

Response of the Government of Sri Lanka dated 23 January 2006

In relation to the alleged death threats against Mr. W.R. Sanjeewa, the Special Investigations Unit (SIU) of the Police in Sri Lanka has informed the Ministry of Foreign Affairs that Mr. W.R. Sanjeewa has not made a complaint to the Police Headquarters on 22 October 2005 as stated in the urgent appeal. In the circumstances, the SIU has requested the Foreign Ministry to obtain Mr. Sanjeewa�s address in order to record a statement.

Sri Lanka: Deaths in Police Custody

Violation alleged: Deaths in custody

Subject(s) of appeal: 13 males

Character of reply: No response (recent communication)

Observations of the Special Rapporteur

The Special Rapporteur studied the problem of deaths in custody during his visit to Sri Lanka in November � December 2005 and appreciates the open and constructive attitude taken towards his visit by the Government of Sri Lanka.� However, the SR looks forward to receiving a response concerning these allegations.

Allegation letter sent on 22 November 2005

Since assuming this mandate, I have received numerous reports of death as a result of ill-treatment in police custody in Sri Lanka, as did my predecessor as Special Rapporteur. This matter is therefore one of the most pressing issues I would like to discuss with your Excellency�s Government in the course of my upcoming visit to Sri Lanka. In order to prepare the ground for a positive dialogue with the Government during my visit, I would like to share with your Government a summary of the information received.� I do not intend to prejudge the accuracy of these reports, but rather to use them as the basis for our discussions in Colombo.

In the annex to this letter, I list the cases of alleged death in police custody brought to the attention of your Excellency�s Government by my predecessor and myself in the course of the last five years. I further attach information received with regard to two recent cases of death in custody.

All the cases mentioned in the annex share certain elements: persons placed under arrest by the police were allegedly subjected to severe ill-treatment and died as a result of that treatment, either in custody or shortly after release. In a majority of the cases, the ill-treatment appears to have been motivated by the intention to extract a confession from a criminal suspect. A further common aspect of these cases is that, on the basis of both information provided by your Excellency�s Government and by other sources, it would appear that none of the police officers responsible have been held criminally accountable. Even disciplinary sanctions against the perpetrators appear to constitute an exception.

In this context, I would like to assure your Excellency that I am aware of significant steps taken by your Excellency�s Government in recent years to address this problem. In 1997, the Human Rights Commission (HRC) was established. It enjoys the power to launch investigations into cases of police conduct violating human rights. Reportedly, in the course of the present year the HRC has become considerably more pro-active and increased the use of its powers vis-�-vis the Attorney General and the Inspector General of Police. Furthermore, in 2002, the Seventeenth Amendment to the Constitution of Sri Lanka established the National Police Commission (NPC), an independent body with vast powers regarding appointments, promotions, and disciplinary measures, the investigation of allegations of police misconduct, as well as recruitment, training, and codes of conduct for the police. A Disappearances Investigation Unit (DIU) and a Prosecution of Torture Perpetrators Unit (PTPU) were established in the Attorney General�s Office (AG). The Attorney General has recently become more active in prosecuting torture cases, resulting in forty torture prosecutions currently pending and two convictions. The Supreme Court, finally, hears fundamental rights cases brought by victims and has awarded compensation to the families of persons who died as a result of ill-treatment suffered in police custody.

On the basis of the information I have received, it would appear that various shortcomings in the system continue to lead to the prevalence of severe ill-treatment of detainees in police custody and � as a consequence � a high incidence of deaths in custody. In particular, reports indicate that:

-�� HRC officers are empowered to pay unannounced visits to police stations. Ill-treatment of detainees, however, often takes place not in the police station itself but in adjoining buildings, such as garages or barracks. HRC officers are allowed to visit these facilities only with the prior agreement of the Attorney General and the Inspector General of Police, which considerably reduces the effectiveness of this oversight mechanism.

-�� The central register of detainees was either never established or is not in function.

-�� Support for effective prevention and monitoring at the political level is ambiguous. The Inspector General of Police in many instances has justified police ill-treatment of detainees as necessary under the circumstances, and a senior cabinet member has recently proposed weakening the independence of the NPC vis-�-vis the Inspector General of Police.

Disciplinary procedures for the police, as established in the Sri Lankan Establishment Code, do not contain sufficient safeguards of impartiality to inspire trust in victims and the public. All parties to inquiries into police conduct are police officers, and the hearings take place in police premises. Sometimes civilian observers are invited, but they are not allowed to intervene in the inquiry proceedings.� Disciplinary inquiries take many years and less than ten percent are actually ever completed. Neither the victim nor the public is informed of the outcome.

-�� The NPC has been unable to assert its constitutional prerogatives concerning transfers, promotions, and disciplinary measures. The NPC is so severely understaffed and underfunded that it cannot carry out its own investigations into allegations of torture or killings by the police. As a result, it has to rely on investigations by police of the same district or even the same police station as those alleged to have engaged in torture.

-�� While disciplinary or criminal proceedings regarding torture (whether with or without lethal outcome) are pending against a police officer, the officer generally remains in service at the same police station. This situation, coupled with the absence of a witness protection program, exposes victims, witnesses and family members to intimidation by the alleged perpetrators.

-�� Notwithstanding the progress noted above, prosecution of torture in police custody and of cases of death in custody remains the exception. Judicial medical officers are scarce and all too ready to accept the explanations of the police regarding cases of death in custody. Prosecutors have to rely on the police, often the unit accused of torture or killing, to investigate the crime. The year-long delays in bringing cases to trial, the absence of a witness protection program, and the failure to obtain the attendance of witnesses in court mean there have been relatively few convictions of police officers on charges of torture and killings.

-�� Finally, there appears to be unwillingness to hold police officers with command responsibility accountable for torture and killings engaged in by their subordinates.

In connection with these allegations, I would like to refer Your Excellency's Government to the fundamental principles applicable to such incidents under international law. Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights provides that no one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his or her life. The obligations arising for State Parties from Article 6 with regard to incidents of death in custody have been spelled out by the UN Economic and Social Council in resolution 1989/65 of 24 May 1989, recommending the adoption of the Principles on the Effective Prevention and Investigation of Extra-legal, Arbitrary and Summary Executions. They include preventive measures, such as

-�� ensuring strict control, including a clear chain of command, over all officials responsible for apprehension, arrest, and custody (Principle 2);

-�� holding detainees in officially recognized places of custody, and making accurate information on their custody and whereabouts promptly available to their relatives and lawyer (Principle 6);

-�� inspections to places of custody by qualified inspectors, including medical personnel, on a regular basis but including unannounced inspections, with full guarantees of independence and unrestricted access to all persons in such places of custody, as well as to all their records (Principle 7).

The Principles further provide guidance with regard to the duty to thoroughly, promptly and impartially investigate all suspected cases of extra-judicial, arbitrary and summary executions, and to bring those suspected of being responsible for the death of persons in custody to trial (Principles 9 and following). This duty is indeed part and parcel of the obligation to respect the right to life enshrined in Article 6 ICCPR. Effective measures against impunity of course also have a powerful deterrent � and thus preventive � effect.

In preparation for my meetings with officials of your Excellency�s Government in the course of my visit to Sri Lanka, I would like to raise the following questions with regard to the information received:

(i)�� Are the allegations summarized above concerning shortcomings in the system for the prevention, investigation and prosecution of cases of death in custody accurate?

(ii)�� What steps does your Government intend to adopt in order to improve the system of registration of all arrests, detentions at police holding facilities, transfers and releases of detainees?

(iii)�� What steps does your Government envisage to strengthen the capacity of the HRC to receive complaints, to investigate them forcefully and independently, and to ensure that its recommendations are taken into serious consideration?

(iv)�� What steps does your Government envisage to put the NPC in a position to fully live up to its constitutional mandate?

(v)�� What steps does your Government intend to adopt in order to ensure that police disciplinary proceedings are impartial and perceived to be impartial by victims and their family members?

(vi)�� What steps does your Government envisage to ensure that police officers accused of assaulting persons in custody are not in a position to contact, intimidate, threaten and assault again those who complain about ill-treatment in custody?

(vii)�� What steps does your Government intend to adopt at the level of the criminal justice system in order to improve the prospects for successful prosecution of police officers guilty of ill-treating and torturing detainees, often with deadly outcome, particularly with regard to effectiveness of the prosecution service, witness protection, forensic medicine, and command responsibility?

Annex

Allegations of death in police custody

My predecessor as Special Rapporteur and I sent you communications regarding the reported death in police custody, allegedly due to ill-treatment, of the following persons:

Uchita Thussara Kumaea, communication sent on 30 August 2001 (E/CN.4/2002/74/Add.2, p. 114); a reply from the Government was received on 8 April 2002, stating that a criminal investigation had been initiated (E/CN.4/2003/3/Add.1, p. 133)

W.A.P. Jayaratne, W. Sujeewa Priyadarshana, Mullakandage Lasantha Jagath Kumara, and Jayakodige Anura Wijeseri, communication sent on 2 September 2002 (E/CN.4/2003/3/Add.1, p. 130-131); on 4 December 2003, the Government replied with regard to the cases of W.A.P. Jayaratne, Mullakandage Lasantha Jagath Kumara, and Jayakodige Anura Wijeseri (E/CN.4/2004/7/Add.1, p. 131-132). The reply indicates that in the first two cases criminal proceedings are pending, while in the third case the Attorney General is taking no action as the post-mortem report indicates that it is a case of suicide. No response has been received with regard to the case of W. Sujeewa Priyadarshana.

S.L. Kulatunga, communication sent on 23 March 2004 (E/CN.4/2005/7/Add.1, p. 243, � 649); a reply from the Government was received on 29 November 2004, stating that a criminal investigation had been initiated (communication sent on 2 September 2002 (E/CN.4/2005/7/Add.1, p. 244, � 651).

Dehiwatte Gedera Jayathilaka, Muthuthanthrige Chamal Ranjith Corrad and Senarath Hettiarchilage Abeysinghe, communication sent on 13 July 2004 (E/CN.4/2005/7/Add.1, p. 248-250, � 661-663); the Government replied on 20 July 2004 stating that there was insufficient information to investigate these three cases (E/CN.4/2005/7/Add.1, p. 248, � 664).

Moreover, the following two recent cases have been reported to me. According to the information received:

On 13 July 2005, the police took Hettiarachchige Abeysiri, aged 52, to the Peliyagoda Police Station on suspicion of having stolen a telephone.� There he was tortured by several officers in front of a member of his family who had accompanied him. Unable to watch the assault, his relative left after a while. Upon the relative's return about half an hour later, Mr Abeysiri was being carried by four policemen in civilian clothes. He was taken to a hospital, where he died. When his family visited the mortuary, they saw injuries on his body; a subsequent postmortem confirmed that the death was due to injuries caused by blunt instruments.

On the evening of 10 October 2005, A.D. Lalantha Fernando was forcibly taken from a relative�s house by two policemen driving a white van (the name of one of the police officers and the license plate number are on record with me). The vehicle left in the direction of Koswatte.� Later that evening, Lalantha's relatives were guided by the police to a place in Tunmodera, where they found Lalantha lying semi-conscious on the ground with the marks of many injuries on his body. His family immediately took him to the Marawilla Hospital, from where he was then transferred to the National Hospital in Colombo. Notwithstanding being placed in the intensive care unit for treatment, he died at National Hospital on 19 October 2005.� The Judicial Medical Officer who conducted the post mortem informed the family that the victim had died due to attacks with a blunt instrument to his head, chest and kidneys.� Parts of the body were sent to medical laboratory for examination. Lalantha�s death has sparked strong protest amongst the local population and the media. As a result, one police sub-inspector has been transferred out of his station pending enquiries, but the other policemen involved have neither been charged nor sanctioned and continue to report for duty as usual.

Correspondence from 2005

The record of correspondence for 2005 is excerpted from the official United Nations report, E/CN.4/2005/7/Add.1.

Type, date and summary of communication: Allegation sent with Special Rapporteur on violence against women, and the Special Rapporteur on torture, 2 September 2002. See E/CN.4/2003/3/Add.1, para 464-467.

Government reply: Response dated 24 December 2003. Allegation concerning Ms. Jehanthi Weerasingham (parag 465). The Government of Sri Lanka informs that the investigation was carried out by the Special Investigation Unit. The post mortem examination carried out by Dr. Mrs Pasupathyrajah, District Medical Officer of Vavuniya on the victim�s body confirmed that she had died from swallowing cyanide. There was no evidence of sexual assault, nor evidence of torture. However, four bruises were found on the victim�s cheeks, as a result of an attempt to prevent Ms. Jehanthi Weerasingham to swallow cyanide. Accordingly, the Magistrate confirmed the verdict of suicide on 28 November 2001.

Observation of the Special Rapporteur: The Special Rapporteur thanks the Government for its reply. He would appreciate further details on the investigations relevant to the other cases referred in the allegation letter sent to the Government.

Type, date and summary of communication: Urgent appeal sent with the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, See E/CN.4/2003/3/Add.1, para 526.

Government reply: Response dated 23 March 2004. The Governement of Sri Lanka indicated that an investigation has been initiated by the Legal Department of the Sri Lanka Police Headquarters. After being contacted, Mr Wickramatunga declared that he did not lodge a complaint, and therefore will give a statement by the end of March. In these circumstances, the Legal Department will assign the Special Investigation Unit of the Police to inquire into this case.

Response dated 2 December 2004. The Special Investigation Unit of Sri Lanka Police initiated an inquiry into the matter. It was reported that Mr. Wickramatunga has not made a complaint to the police. It is further reported that when asked to record a statement, Mr. Wickramatunga claimed that he did not want an investigation into the incident. He also stated that there was no personal threat to him. Accordingly, the police terminated the investigation.

Response dated 6 December 2004. The government of Sri Lanka sent a copy of the statement of Mr. Lasantha Wickramatunga in the police station recorded by Sub Inspector Dileepa and Sub women Police Sergeant Nilani on 20 May 2004. In this statement, Mr. Wickramatunga declares that he does �not intent to take further action on this matter� and that �there are no personal threats to me�.

Observation of the Special Rapporteur:The Special Rapporteur thanks the Government for its replies.

Type, date and summary of communication: Urgent appeal sent with Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression and Special Rapporteur on torture, 16 February 2004 Michael Anthony Emanuel Fernando was reportedly admitted unconscious to the Kalubowila Hospital on 2 February 2004 after he was sprayed in the face with chloroform. Mr. Fernando had complained on several occasions about serious threats to his life in reprisals to the complaints of human rights violations he has made to Sri Lankan courts as well as to the United Nations Human Rights Committee. Indeed, on 9 January 2004, the Committee has issued interim measures requesting the State party, while the communication is under consideration by the Committee, �to adopt all measures necessary to protect the life, safety and personal integrity� of Mr. Fernando and his family members �so as to avoid irreparable damage to them�. According to the information received, Mr. Fernando was discharged from the hospital on 7 February 2004. He was reportedly accompanied home by the two armed policemen who were guarding him in the hospital under orders from the Sri Lankan Ministry of Defense. However, a request for further protection made on his behalf to the President has reportedly yielded no outcome. As a result of the reported failure of the relevant authorities to provide him with adequate protection, he was reportedly forced into hiding.

Government reply: Response dated 2 December 2004: Upon receiving the communication, the Government of Sri Lanka directed the police to investigate the complaint and also to take the necessary measures to ensure the safety of Mr. Fernando. During the investigation into the alleged assaults on Mr. Fernando on 2 February 2004, the police have recorded a statement from him pertaining to the incident. In his statement, Mr. Fernando was unable to either name the suspects or provide the police with the numbers of the vehicule that the alleged assailants came in. The investigations are in progress and steps will be taken to inform Mr. Fernando of the outcome of the said investigation. If the investigations reveal any credible evidence that the alleged threats were caused by any person to subvert the course of justice, the State would take steps to file action for contempt of court against any such person responsible for such acts. With regards to his security, a police patrol book was placed at the residence of Mr. Fernando and police patrols, both on foot and mobile, were directed to visit his residence day and night and to record those visits in the police patrol book. In addition, his residence was kept under surveillance by plain-clothes policemen. It has been noted that Mr. Fernando is currently living in Honk Kong and has applied for political asylum in Hong Kong. It is pertinent to note that there heve been cases in the past where complaint of security threats were made by asylum seekers to bolster asylum outside Sri Lanka.

Observation of the Special Rapporteur: The Special Rapporteur thanks the Government for its reply.

Type, date and summary of communication: Allegation, 23 March 2004 S.L. Kulatunga, who was arrested with another person by the Nivithigala police and then hospitalized with serious head injuries. He allegedly died at the General Hospital of Colombo on 12 November 2003. He and another person had been arrested by the Nivithigala police for reasons that are not currently known. Reports indicate that Mr. S. L. Kulatunga died as a result of torture he was subjected to by members of the police. According to the information received, the police authorities have transferred four police officers and promised to make an investigation into the incident.

On 10 January 2004, the Gampola police shot into a crowd, resulting in the death of Dissanayake Mudiayanselage Suranga Sampath. According to the information received, a clash took place between two groups of young people who had gone to see a musical show that night at the paddy field of Mahara, Angammana, Gampola. Police officers, who were reportedly attached to the Gampola police station, moved in and allegedly assaulted a large number of spectators, later detaining and beating some of them. Meanwhile, the spectators who were not arrested decided to sit at the junction to the new Gampola Bridge until the detained were released. A quarrel erupted and the police reportedly tried to disperse them with the help of about ten persons, in uniform as well as civilian clothing, with firearms. The police got to the musical show, where Dissanayake Mudiayanselage Suranga Sampath and the others were and fired tear gas. Suranga fell on the ground struck by a bullet fired by the police. He was taken to the Gampola hospital, where he was pronounced dead. The post mortem was conducted in Kandy on 12 January 2004 after which the body was handed over to Suranga's family.

Government reply: Response dated 29 November 2004. The Government provided information concerning the death of Mr. S.L. Kulatunga: The Director of the Special Investigation Unit has initiated an investigation as ordered by by the Inspector General of Police. According to statements received on 12 November 2003, Mr. S.L. Kulatunga was arrested by Sergeant Siripala on charges of drunk and disorderly conduct. While being taken to the hospital, he jumped out of the jeep and sustained head injuries. The medical examination was conducted by the Judicial Medical Officer D.I.D. Ratnayake of Colombo General hospital and has been received by the Special Investigation Unit. The relevant file will be forwarded to the Attorney General for consideration of criminal charges against the persons responsible for causing the death of Mr. Kulathunga. Providing compensation to the victim or hiss/her family has to be decided by a judicial authority. Imposition of penal or disciplinary sanctions will be decided on the completion of the inquiry.

Concerning the death of Mr. Dissanayake Mudiayanselage Suranga Sampat: The Permanent Magistrate of Gampola, Mr. K.N.S. Dissanayake conducted an inquiry which included the statements of 23 police officers and 19 witnesses. The post mortem examination was carried out by Judicial Medical Officer Kandy. The investigation concludes that the clash occurred between two groups of young people and the police had to intervene. Subsequently, a crowd of 150 to 200 people gathered demanding the relased of those taken into custody. The crowd started assaulting the police, throwing bricks, damaging private lorry and injuring police officers. The police had to fire at the crowd to break the unruly mob. The Magistrate, after the inquiry, concluded that the evidence did not disclose any criminal liability on any person.

Observation of the Special Rapporteur: The Special Raporteur thanks the Government for its reply. In the case of Mr. Kulatunga , the Special Rapporteur would appreciate receiving further information on the outcome of the criminal charges initiated and in relation to any decision of the granting of compensation to the victim�s family.

Type, date and summary of communication: Allegation, 6 April 2004 Bellanavithanage Sanath Yasaratne, aged 22, from Gorakagahagodella, Bellana, Agalawatte, who was reportedly shot by the police from the Baduraliya Police Station on 22 February 2004. According to the information received, he was involved in a quarrel between some of his family members at his sister's house. A complaint was made and four police officers, led by Sub Inspector Dammika, came to the house to investigate this matter, but they reportedly found nobody. While returning to the police station, they recognized Bellanavithanage Sanath Yasaratne and began to interrogate him about the incident. He tried to escape when one of the officers, namely P.C. Suriyyarachi, began beating him with a baton. One of the other officers then fired two shots at him which made him fell to the ground. He died on the same day as a result of gun shot injuries while he was transferred from Wattaewa Hospital to the general hospital in Colombo for an operation. Indeed, the Judicial Medical Officer of Nagoda Hospital, who conducted a post-mortem inquiry, confirmed the cause of his death. It is further alleged that no official legal inquiry has yet been held.

Government reply: Response dated 29 November 2004. According to the Government, the Criminial Investigations Department (CID) commenced investigations after a complaint was made in this regard by the deceased�s brother.The CID has already completed the investigations and judicial proceedings have been filed at the Magistrates Court Matugama when the investigation was completed against Reserved Police Constable Dandeniya of Baduraliya Police. Actions have been taken to initiate a disciplinary inquiry against the perpetrators. Witnesses have identified the perpertrators including reserved Police Constable Dandeniya as the person who allegedly shot the deceased. The Medical examination conducted by the Judicial Medical Officer Dr. Sunil Kumara of General Hospital, Kalutara confirmed that the cause of death was due to excessive bleeding following injury to the femoral artery of the left groin, caused by a discharge of a rifled weapon. Compensation to the victim�s family has to be decided by judicial authority.

Observation of the Special Rapporteur:The Special Rapporteur thanks the Government for its reply. He would appreciate receiving further information relating to the current judicial proceedings and in relation to the compensations granted to the victim�s family.

Type, date and summary of communication: Urgent appeal sent with the Special Rapporteur on torture, 8 July 2004 Koralaliyanage Palitha Tissa Kumara, (whose case was included in a joint urgent appeal sent with the Chairperson-Rapporteur of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention and the Special Rapporteur on the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health on 3 May 2004). According to the new information received a fundamental case is now pending before the Supreme Court concerning his torture, illegal arrest and detention. However, the alleged perpetrator continues to work at the Wellipena Police Station. On 16 June 2004, Koralaliyanage Palitha Tissa Kumara was informed that he would receive 500,000 rupees from the police if he withdrew his complaint about the treatment he received while in custody. He also received another message according to which his wife and child would be crushed to death by a vehicle if the complaint was not withdrawn. On 4 July 2004, a police constable believed to belong to Wellipena Police Station went to his house and told his wife to withdraw their complaints against the police or they would not live very long. The NPC and the NHRC have been informed about these reported threats. In the light of these allegations and in view of the fact that he was to appear for a number of inquiries in the coming days, concern were expressed for the the life of Koralaliyanage Palitha Tissa Kumara and his family if immediate and adequate measures were not taken to guarantee their protection.

Type, date and summary of communication: Allegation sent with the Special Rapporteur on torture, 13 July 2004 Mr. Dehiwatte Gedera Jayathilaka, a 45-year-old man from Golangala Village, Egodamulla, Devilla, Yatawatte. He was arrested on 9 March 2004 by police officers from Yatawatte Police Security Darrier led by a Sub Inspector (SI). He was accused of possessing illegal liquor and taken to Mahawela Police Station. Some hours later, his son went to the police station to pay the bail. Dehiwatte Gedera Jayathilaka told him that he had been severely assaulted while in custody and that he was suffering from severe pain. He died some hours after his release. His body was taken to Kandy Hospital, where a Judicial Medical Officer (JMO) certified that some ribs were broken and that bruises were found on his body. A complaint was made at the Mahawela Police Station but it reported that his statement was not properly recorded.

Mr. Muthuthanthrige Chamal Ranjith Corrad, a 30-year-old man from Egodauyana, Moratuwa, and a labourer at timber sawmills in the area. He was arrested on suspicion of theft on 17 April 2004 and taken to Modera (Moratatuwa) Police Post. At the police post he was subjected to severe torture before being handed over to Moratuwa Police Station, where he was severely beaten and kicked. On 18 April 2004, he was brought before a judge and transferred to Welikada Prison, where he was assaulted again. He did not receive medical treatment. He was released on bail on 19 April 2004. As he was in a critical condition, his relatives immediately took him to Panadura Government Hospital. However he died on the way. On the following day an autopsy was conducted at Panadura Government Hospital. According to the postmortem report, he died as a result of the assault. A man named Dinesh was taken to Mortuwa Police Station at the same time as Muthuthanthrige Chamal Ranjith Corrad. He reportedly witnessed the above-described assaults against and was himself subjected to a similar treatment. Concern has been expressed that Dinesh may be subjected to pressure to withdraw statements and to deny what he witnessed.

Mr. Senarath Hettiarchchilage Abeysinghe, aged 39. He was allegedly tortured by his colleagues at Trimcomalee Police Station and subsequently admitted to a hospital for treatment. He had made a statement to that effect to the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC). However, he died allegedly under suspicious circumstances on 17 May 2004. He was buried without an autopsy. On 23 June 2004, a judge from Trincomalee ordered the exhumation of his body with a view to conducting a post-mortem inquiry on the causes of his death.

Government reply: Response dated 20 July 2004. The Government of Sri Lanka informed that in order for the relevant auhtorities in Sri lanka to conduct investigations, it would be necessary to receive full and correct information, such the full name of the sub-inspector known to the SR in the case of Dehiwatte Gedera Jayathilaka. Also in the case of Muthuthanthrige Chamal Ranjith Corrad, the Government of Sri Lanka.would appreciate receiving the full name of �a man named Dinesh�. The Government also requested a contact number or complaint number tobe provided in the case of Senarath Hettiarchchilage Abeysinghe. The Governemnt requests this informationa as �there are inordinate delays simply to trace these cases without precise information�.

Observation of the Special Rapporteur: The Special Rapporteur thanks the Government for its reply:

Type, date and summary of communication: Allegation, 14 July 2004 Mr. Madugoda Ralalage Don Saman Priyantha Guneratna, a 29-year-old businessman, who was killed on 30 May 2004 by the officers from the Welipenna Police Station. He was shot dead with a T56 while returning home by car. The police claimed that they shot him because he did not follow their order to stop his car as he was transporting illicit timber. Eyewitnesses said that his vehicle was empty at that time. The two police officers were in civilian clothes and they were using a private motorcycle. They tried to escape after the shooting. The police had not recorded the testimonies of many eyewitnesses who had come forward to give evidence. The reason of the murder is that Sub Inspector Silva of the Welipenna Police Station at Kathutrara District, Sri Lanka, wanted revenge for the fact that he had earlier been refused several times by the murdered victim�s fianc�e. It is indeed reported that, on refusal, she was harassed by way of night visits and other unsolicited approaches by Mr. Silva. Despite complaints to the police against this behavior, no action has been taken. The above matters were brought to the attention of the inquiring magistrate, but the magistrate did not make any orders or observations on these matters. The Assistant Superintendent of Police (ASP), Mr. Kalutara is in charge of the collection of evidence at the inquiry but the victim's relatives said that the police inquiry was not conducted in a fair manner and on the contrary they were attempting to fabricate the facts to get a verdict of justifiable homicide.

Government reply: Response dated 2 December 2004. The Special Investigation Unit of the Sri Lanka Police conducted an investigation into the death of Mr. Madugoda Ralalage Don Saman Priyantha Guneratne. According to the results of the investigations, Mr Madugoda Ralalage Don Saman Priyantha Guneratna was conducting his car when Sergeant N.D. Premasi Jayarathne and Police constable Vincent Wijerathne have ordered him to stop but he did not obey. The police then opened fire at his car. The victim died as the result the shots. The aforesaid police officers have been remanded and indictment has been filed against them under section 296 read with section 32 of the Penal Code. The trial started on 29 November 2004. In the statement made by the deceased�s fianc�e, Ms. Sunethra Malkanthi, she told the Sub-Inspector Silva had no connection with the murder.

In view of the above, the Government claims that the fact that the inquiry was not conducted in a fair manner cannot be substantiated.

Observation of the Special Rapporteur: The Special Rapporteur thanks the Government for its reply. He would appreciate receiving information relating to the outcome of the judicial proceedings against the incriminated police officer and in relation to any compensation granted to the victim�s family.

Type, date and summary of communication: Allegation with the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, 21 July 2004 Mr. Aiyathurai Nadesan, a journalist who had been reporting to the Tamil daily, "Virakesari", International Broadcasting Corporation (IBC) and to some daily electronic media. On 24 May 2004, he was reportedly shot dead by unidentified gunmen believed to be members of the Sri Lankan intelligent service in Batticaloa, while he was going to work on his motorbike. Mr. Nadesan won the North East Sahithya Academy award for his book written in Tamil "History of Ethnic Strife". He also won the best Tamil journalist award in year 2000. He was one of the founder members of Sri Lanka Tamil Media Alliance (SLTMA) and held the post of Vice-President of this association. On 17 July 2001, Mr. Nadesan was interrogated by a military officer of the city of Batticaloa. The officer reminded him that he had to obey them and that he would be arrested if he continued to write critical articles against the military. No investigation had been conducted into his death at the time of writing this communication.

Mr. Kumaravel Thambaiah, a senior lecturer at the Eastern University was reportedly shot dead by members of the Sri Lanka intelligent agency, while he was at home in Batticaloa on 24 May 2004. No investigation has been conducted into his death till the filling of this report.

Government reply: Response dated 29 November 2004. According to the Government of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka, the Criminal Investigations Department has initiated an investigation of the deaths of Mr. Aiyathurai Nadesan and Mr. Kumaravel Thambiah, as ordered by the Inspector General of Police. The investigations are in progress.

Observation of the Special Rapporteur:The Special Rapporteur thanks the Government for its reply. He would appreciate receiving information relating to the outcome of the investigation.

Type, date and summary of communication: Urgent appeal sent with the Special Rapporteur on torture, 8 November 2004. Hikkaduwa Liyanage Sandun Kumara, aged 17, and his mother, who reside at 16 Temple Road, Pitiwella, Boossa. They have been the subject of an urgent appeal by the Special Rapporteurs on torture, and extrajudicial, summary, or arbitrary executions (E/CN.4/2004/56/Add.1, para. 1512), for which no response has been received. According to recent information, the fundamental rights application by Hikkaduwa Liyanage Sandun Kumaraagainst against the police officers allegedly responsible of torture is scheduled to be heard on 10 December 2004 by the Supreme Court. It is reported that the threats on her son and family members have intensified by the perpetrators recently, who are pressuring the family to withdraw the case against them. In view of the allegations of torture and threats against Hikkaduwa Liyanage Sandun Kumara and his family, concern is express for their physical and mental integrity."Accordingly, we would be grateful for any information you may be able to provide as to steps taken to ensure that his life is not at risk as a result of these developments

Correspondence from 2004

The record of correspondence for 2004 is excerpted from the official United Nations report, E/CN.4/2004/7/Add.1.

On 7 August 2003, the Special Rapporteur as well as the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression sent an urgent appeal to the Government of Sri Lanka regarding the case of Lasantha Wickrematunga, editor of the weekly The Sunday Leader. Reports indicated that on 27 July 2003, the Fisheries Minister, Mahinda Wijeskera, threatened Wickrematunga in front of several witnesses, including Water Management Minister Lakshman Seneviratne. The Minister's death threat followed the newspaper�s publication of articles accusing him of corruption. It was reported that Minister Wijeskera claimed that he had the Prime Minister's support in making the threat. Mr. Wickrematunga and The Sunday Leader, which often investigates corruption, have been the targets of frequent harassment and numerous libel suits since 1995.

On 30 October 2003, the Special Rapporteur, jointly with the Special Rapporteur on torture and the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on human rights defenders, sent an urgent appeal to the Government of Sri Lanka in connection with information received regarding Chamila Bandara, aged 17, and his family, whose case was included in an allegation letter sent by the Special Rapporteur on torture on 25 September 2003. Policemen threatened to kill Chamila Bandara who was allegedly on his way to Geneva, Switzerland, in connection with the current proceedings of the United Nations Human Rights Committee and with the support of human rights non-governmental organizations. According to the information received, in July 2003, Chamila Bandara was strung up by his thumbs and beaten by officers of the Ankumbura police station, Kandy, resulting in a permanent disability. Since he filed a complaint of torture, he has reportedly been forced into hiding. His mother also reportedly received death threats on 29 October 2003 from a group of police officers who intercepted her as she was going to the magistrate's court where her son�s case was being heard.

On 6 November 2003, the Special Rapporteur, jointly with the Special Rapporteur on torture, sent an urgent appeal to the Government of Sri Lanka concerning Hikkaduwa Liyanage Saundun Kumara, aged 16. He reportedly went to Rathgama police station on 12 September 2003, as he had learned the police were looking for him. He was questioned for several hours about goods which were allegedly stolen from his employer. He was reportedly released and told to come back the following day. On 13 September 2003, the relatives of his employer took him back to the Rathgama police station and handed him over to a sub-inspector, whose name is known to the Special Rapporteur. Hikkaduwa Liyanage Saundun Kumara was reportedly severely tortured for three days. His mother was reportedly allowed to see him for the first time since his arrest on 17 September 2003. According to the information received, he could hardly walk, and he had a black eye, swollen feet and wounds on his elbows and knees. His mother�s request for medical assistance for him was reportedly denied. Later that day, he was allegedly beaten and kicked again. He reportedly appeared before a court on 19 September 2003 and was sent to the Kithulampitiya Remand Home. He was transferred to the Karapitiya Teaching Hospital on 21 September 2003. Upon appearing before the Galle Magistrate�s Court on 24 September 2003, he was released on bail and he and his family reportedly filed complaints with the National Human Rights Commission and the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court allegedly gave leave to proceed and ordered the National Police Commission to conduct a disciplinary inquiry into the case. Since then, he and his family have been receiving death threats from the alleged perpetrators. Officers alleged to have been involved in the events continue to serve at the same police station. Fears were expressed for the life and physical integrity of Hikkaduwa Liyanage Saundun Kumara and his family if no adequate measures are taken to ensure their safety.

On 17 October 2003, the Special Rapporteur sent a communication to the Government of Sri Lanka regarding the following individual cases.

T.A. Premachandra, a 46-year-old man was reportedly shot and killed on 1 February 2003. He was allegedly driving his vehicle home from work with two companions in the back seat when two officers of the police traffic unit, Kalutara South, riding on a motorcycle, reportedly overtook the vehicle on the left and shot him in the head at close range with a T56 handgun, resulting in his death. He allegedly died instantly. His body was reportedly taken to the hospital and the two injured men were taken to the police station and arrested. Acting Superintendent of Police Jayantha Kulathilaka took charge of the case on the orders of Acting Magistrate Siri Perera. He headed the post-mortem investigation and, in an effort to justify the killing, he allegedly said that it was perfectly within the law to act as the police did. The two police officers allegedly responsible for the killing said that the driver was shot because of his refusal to stop the vehicle when ordered to do so. They also reportedly stated at the post-mortem investigation that they had fired at the tyre of the vehicle but because of the ruts on the road it went astray, and that they had no intention of killing anyone.

Yoga Clement Benjamin, a 47-year-old Catholic Tamil of Hillview Road, Pannila, Kalutara South in Sri Lanka was reportedly shot and killed by police officers of the Kalutara South Police on 26 February 2003. It is reported that until April 2002, he illicitly sold alcohol and was believed to have bribed police officers from the Kalutara South Police Station in order to have been able to continue his illegal activities. In addition, he had a farm with over 40 pigs and ran a vehicle repair shop in his garage. According to the information received, even after he had abandoned the sale of illicit alcohol the police did not stop claiming bribes from him. In June 2002, a policeman said to be known as Perera, unsuccessfully demanded a free supply of the product from Mr. Benjamin. After this incident, Mr, Benjamin reportedly decided to sell his farm. He then started receiving several death threats from the police and was also beaten. His wife and daughter repeatedly tried to file a complaint to the police authorities in February 2003. Mr. Benjamin subsquently got involved in a land dispute with a neighbour who reportedly lodged a complaint with the police. The police reportedly arrived at Mr. Benjamin�s house, with the neighbour in a van. After the vehicles left the scene, his neighbour scolded him and coaxed him out of his house. Once he appeared, police personnel who were reportedly hiding in the neighbour�s house emerged and fatally shot him while his son managed to escape the scene. The police claimed that they had fired in self-defence. However, it is reported that Mr. Benjamin was unarmed and never used a gun. According to information received, the officials from Kalutara South Police threatened to harm anyone who had any information about this incident.

On 16 December 2002, the Government of Sri Lanka responded to a communication sent by the Special Rapporteur, jointly with the Special Rapporteur on torture and the Special Rapporteur on violence against women, regarding the case of Sarathambal Saravanabavananthakurukkal who was allegedly raped and murdered allegedly by members of the army. In its response, the Government stated that the Criminal Investigation Department of the Sri Lanka Police (CID) had conducted a comprehensive investigation into the alleged incident. The Government reported that the investigations conducted so far had not borne any fruit in terms of positively identifying the perpetrators of the crime. On 17 August 2002, the Attorney-General�s Department advised CID that a criminal prosecution could not be launched and that there would be no need to conduct further investigations into this case. However, CID was further advised that if any new information on other material relating to the perpetration of this offence was received, investigations should be recommenced.

On 3 January 2003 the Government of Sri Lanka replied by letter to a joint appeal dated 13 September 2002 sent by the Special Rapporteur, along with the Special Rapporteur on torture, the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers and the Chairperson-Rapporteur of the working group on arbitrary detention, regarding the case of Nandani Sriyalantha Herath, who was arrested by the Wariyapola Police on 8 March 2002 and was tortured while in custody. This letter followed interim observations transmitted by the Government on 10 October 2002. The Government reported that on 21 June 2002, the CID ordered an investigation of the case. The police officers responsible were subsequently identified while Nandani Herath was examined by a judicial medical officer. The Attorney-General also instructed CID to conduct criminal investigations into the alleged threat to Priyantha Gamage, Ms. Herath�s counsel, and the alleged assault of Nishanta Kumara, human rights activist, by the Wariyapola Police. The Government stated that the Attorney-General was considering the possibility of filing criminal charges against those responsible for the alleged torture of Herath.

On 1 December 2003, the Government of Sri Lanka responded to a communication sent jointly by the Special Rapporteur, the Special Rapporteur on torture and the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on human rights defenders on 30 October 2003, and regarding the case of Chamila Bandara Jayaratna, his cousin Upali, as well as Bandula Padmakumara, who were subjected to torture by police personnel attached to the Ankumbura Police Station after being taken into custody on suspicion of theft. The Government reported that the Special Investigation Unit (SIU), which is a specialized unit of the Sri Lanka Police established to investigate allegations of torture, had conducted an investigation into the allegation. The Government informed the Special Rapporteur that, after being released on bail, Jayaratne was admitted to the Kandy General Hospital on 31 July 2003 and received treatment for six days. The Judicial Medical Officer of Kandy Hospital who examined him allegedly reported to SIU that the patient had grievous injuries caused by a blunt weapon. Finally, the Government submitted that SIU had almost completed its investigations and that it would forward extracts of the investigation notes to the Attorney-General�s Department for further action. The Government further indicated that, in the interim, upon a complaint received, an inquiry was conducted by the regional office of the National Human Rights Commission in Kandy where the incident took place. The inquiry officer�s finding was that the complaint was unfounded. Subsequently, representations were made on behalf of the victim to the Chairperson-Rapporteur and she ordered a fresh inquiry, which was in progress at the time of the communication.

On 4 December 2003, the Government of Sri Lanka responded to the communication jointly sent by the Special Rapporteur and the Special Rapporteur on torture on 2 September concerning the following individual cases.

W A P Jayaratne, reportedly died during interrogation by the military police. The Government�s response indicated that Mahawela police conducted investigations into the incident based on information provided by Dr. Rajakaruna (female) of the Nalanda Hospital that a person wearing an army uniform and several others brought a body to Nalanda Hospital on 20 June 2001, without introducing themselves or disclosing any details as to the cause of death. The deceased was in army uniform and there were injuries to the body. Mahawela police duly reported the incident to Magistrate Paldeniya on 21 June 2001 and a post-mortem was conducted on his order. The Government reported that five army personnel who were on duty at the Koholanwala army camp on the day of the incident were subsequently arrested by police and made to appear before the Magistrate�s Court. They were charged under case No. 15 519 at the Paldeniya Magistrate�s Court and were later indicted in the High Court for murder.

Kandaiyan Udayakumaran, was reportedly taken into custody by the Navy on 28 February 2001 and whose body was taken to Mannar Hospital on 1 March 2001. SIU conducted investigations into the incident, and the Government reported that Udayakumaran had been taken into custody by the Navy to be questioned in connection with terrorist activities. He was taken to Mannar Hospital by navy personnel and pronounced dead upon arrival. Mannar police initiated investigations into the incident and a magisterial inquiry was held subsequently. The District Medical Officer of Mannar who conducted the post-mortem examination on the order of the Mannar Magistrate reported that death was caused by strangulation. The Magistrate accordingly returned a verdict of homicide and ordered the police to arrest the suspects and bring them before the Mannar Magistrate�

Sri Lanka: Visits & Communications

Country Visits

Correspondence from 2007

Sri Lanka: Deaths in Pungudutivu and Trincomalee

Correspondence from 2006

Sri Lanka: Killing of Kumaravel Thambiah and Journalist Aiyathurai Nadesan

Sri Lanka: Death in Custody of Herman Quintus Perera

Sri Lanka: Death Threats Against Dawundage Pushpakumara and His Family

Sri Lanka: Inquiry Regarding the Death Penalty

Sri Lanka: Impunity for the Bindunuwewa Massacre

Sri Lanka: Death Threats Against Lawyer W.R. Sanjeewa

Sri Lanka: Deaths in Police Custody

Correspondence from 2005

Correspondence from 2004