The question of torture
Those in authority in Sri Lanka have long known that torture is a
problem that needs addressing. This is not unique to Sri Lanka, and
indeed our record is comparatively good as compared with what is done in
countries that are critical about us. Some of those countries engage in
contortions to convince themselves that they are not really evil, as
with the American efforts to justify waterboarding - which is not
perhaps the worst excess they indulge in. Others simply farm out their
dirty work, as we have seen in the blind eyes turned to the programme of
secret renditions on which the nastier aspects of the Western War on
Terror relied so heavily.
Reading Craig Murray's 'Murder in Samarkand', and his description of
the hypocrisy of his colleagues in the British Foreign Office, as well
as the then Home Secretary Charles Clarke, who fought to subvert a
principle of British justice and allow material obtained under torture
to be used in prosecutions, was extremely illuminating. But the fact
that others engage in mischief is no excuse whatsoever, and it is
important that Sri Lanka address the question and ensure remedial action
to prevent any repetitions of aberrations - whilst also dealing through
a transparent judicial process with such aberrations.
|

US Forces in Afghanistan |
Positive spirit
Both the government consultation, and the informal one I had
conducted some weeks earlier, approached the problem in a positive
spirit, looking at the difficulties Police faced as well as the need to
institutionalize safeguards. One problem brought to our attention is the
inability to use statements made to the Police in evidence. It seems -
and I am subject to correction, for the whole area seems obscure - that
this was a provision made by the British, but it does not in fact obtain
in most jurisdictions. I should have thought this needs to be changed,
so that material obtained through skilful interrogation is admissible -
while of course there should be provisions for lawyers to be present
during such interrogations.
In this regard perhaps the best remedy, which is now being discussed,
is a system of duty attorneys attached to each Police station, so that
anyone brought in is immediately registered with a lawyer. This will
allow for any complaint to be investigated, while setting up a nexus
with judicial medical officers so that their relationship is not only
with the Police. A professional safety net, of doctor and lawyer,
working in collaboration rather than either collusion or confrontation
with the Police, will immeasurably increase the protection available to
those taken in by the Police.
Private practice
Another problem we face is the paucity of specialist JMOs, and the
inadequate training of those who have to do the job without being
specialists - as happens to be the case in most parts of the country.
One reason for the paucity is that this is not a specialization that is
lucrative - obviously private practice is limited, since the subjects of
specialization are not in a position to seek further advice. It would
therefore make sense for government to develop a scheme of incentives
for such specialists - or at least ensure an effective component in
general training that will allow non-specialists to do a better job.
One area in which better training is imperative is the psycho-social,
since JMOs or those acting as JMOs should be able to see not only the
physical signs of torture, but also symptoms of mental stress. This goes
back of course to a point I have been making constantly in this series,
namely the need for better counseling and psychological support. We need
to make sure, and not only in the case of victims of torture, that we
see the signs of suffering early, and have systems of relief in place.
In addition to those officially responsible for those taken into
custody, the actual Police officials and the medical personnel and I
hope soon a resident lawyer, we also need to make sure that monitoring
mechanisms are effective. There are two principal agencies in this
regard, the judiciary and the Human Rights Commission. Both have
statutory obligations in this regard, but it seems that, while a few
magistrates are very conscientious, the vast majority do not make
regular visits to the Police stations (nor to the remand homes to which
they commit people). This must be remedied, and the Judicial Services
Commission should be encouraged to make this a requirement to be
regularly reported on for all those appointed to positions of
magisterial responsibility.
Human Rights Commission
The problem with the Human Rights Commission, in its admirable
current form, is a paucity of personnel and resources. This needs to be
swiftly remedied, and a running theme of the entire Human Rights Action
Plan is the need to strengthen the HRC. That body has been required to
make suggestions, and I hope these are done soon, and taken forward by
someone with both responsibility and authority.
Sadly that may be difficult in the current situation where there is
no Ministry of Human Rights. As I have noted before, it was a great
mistake to have done away with that ministry - as indeed with the
Ministry of Policy and Plan Implementation, as is clear now when
government is trying to reintroduce the policy of results based
management, which that ministry had put in place, only to have it
forgotten in the last two years.
I believe I have done reasonably well in the current round of
coordination, and I am grateful to the officials, many of them
Secretaries, with perhaps a sense of fellow feeling to a former
colleague, who have expressed appreciation of what we have been able to
achieve together. But the next stage requires executive action, and that
requires a ministry with a dedicated Secretary. I hope that will be
created soon. |