Return to War - Human Rights Watch
Return to War - Human Rights Watch Return to War - Human Rights Watch
These are important principles and the government presented the reissued directives as a sign of its commitment to human rights. 151 But the directives, originally issued on July 7, 2006, merely instruct the security forces to respect fundamental due process rights already enshrined in Sri Lankan and international law. The fact the president had to issue them twice suggests that members of the military and police were frequently violating the law and that the government lacked the will to hold those responsible for abuses accountable. Without concrete action, including prosecutions of those arbitrarily arrested by the security forces, the directives appear aimed more at assuaging international opinion than holding accountable police and soldiers who commit crimes. Unauthorized places of detention The use of unauthorized places of detention has become a source of enormous anxiety for the families of detainees. Often families don’t know where a relative is being held and the authorities are reluctant to give information. Under the Emergency Regulations, there is no requirement to publish the places where people are held. In 2007, around 100 people were reported held in detention at the Boosa detention centre in Galle on Sri Lanka’s southern tip. 152 Lawyers and human rights activists told Human Rights Watch that they believed the government was also holding individuals under the Emergency Regulations in other places, including in Kandy and the Pollunaruwa district, but Human Rights Watch did not confirm these claims. 153 Human Rights Watch asked the Sri Lankan government where it was holding those arrested under the Emergency Regulations. The government did not provide this requested information, saying it was being tabulated by the police. 154 151 In a March 2007 statement about abductions and “disappearances,” for example, the government highlighted the Presidential Directives as evidence of its efforts to promote and uphold the rule of law. See SCOPP, “Baseless Allegations of Abductions and Disappearances.” In July 2006 a ministerial body had issued a statement calling for the implementation of the presidential directives. Government of Sri Lanka, Inter-Ministerial Committee on Human Rights, “Implementation of Presidential Directives on the Arrest or Detention of Persons,” July 19, 2006. 152 “Fury at Detentions Under Sri Lanka Anti-terror Rules,” Reuters, February 21, 2007. 153 Human Rights Watch interviews with human rights activists, Colombo, February 2007. 154 Sri Lankan government response to Human Rights Watch, July 12, 2007. 77 Human Rights Watch August 2007
Various United Nations principles including the UN Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment (principle 12) and the UN Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (rule 55), lay down that “[A]ll detainees should only be kept in recognized places of detention.” Such places of detention should be visited regularly by qualified and experienced persons appointed by, and responsible to, a competent authority distinct from the authority directly in charge of the administration of the place of detention. Disposal of bodies without public notification Under the current Emergency Regulations, the authorities may dispose of bodies without public notification. 155 The deputy inspector general of the police has the authority to cremate bodies and thereby destroy potential evidence prior to inquest proceedings. This is particularly problematic in cases of alleged torture of a detainee who then dies while in custody. It is not known in how many cases the authorities have disposed of a body. Emergency Regulation (Prevention and Prohibition of Terrorism and Specified Terrorist Activities) No. 7 of 2006 On December 6, 2006, President Rajapaksa promulgated an additional set of emergency regulations called the Prevention and Prohibition of Terrorism and Specified Terrorist Activities, No. 7 of 2006. The broad, sweeping language of several of these provisions has also given rise to serious concerns. 155 Regulation 56 of the Emergency (Miscellaneous Provisions and Powers) Regulations No.1 of 2005 published in Gazette Extraordinary 1405/14 of August 13, 2005, states, “(1) The Magistrate shall, upon receipt of the report of the facts by the Inspector-General of Police, or the Deputy Inspector-General of Police as the case may be under regulation 55: (a) direct the Government Medical Officer to forthwith hold a post-mortem examination of such body and may direct that the dead body if it has already been buried, be disinterred; and (b) make an order that at the conclusion of the post-mortem examination that the dead body be handed over to the Deputy Inspector-General of Police for disposal. (2) The Deputy Inspector-General of Police to whom the body is handed over the dead body [sic] to any relations who may claim the dead body, subject to such conditions or restrictions as he may deem necessary in the interest of national security of [sic] for the maintenance or preservation of public order; Provided, however, that the Deputy Inspector-General of Police may in the interest of national security or for the maintenance or preservation of public order, authorize the taking possession of and effecting the burial or cremation of the dead body in accordance with such steps as he may deem necessary in the circumstances.” These provisions had been removed from the previous set of regulations on May 3, 2000. Return to War 78
- Page 29 and 30: in which an LTTE cadre shot and kil
- Page 31 and 32: the Savukady camp in Batticaloa to
- Page 33 and 34: they would no longer be responsible
- Page 35 and 36: In mid-May the government began a n
- Page 37 and 38: On May 29, UNHCR commented on the g
- Page 39 and 40: Grama Niladari Divisions (the small
- Page 41 and 42: The salvos landed in and around the
- Page 43 and 44: didn’t take him to the hospital b
- Page 45 and 46: While describing the loss of civili
- Page 47 and 48: saw no weapons, no bunkers or artil
- Page 49 and 50: V. Enforced Disappearances and Abdu
- Page 51 and 52: months of 2007. 84 A government com
- Page 53 and 54: In one illustrative case documented
- Page 55 and 56: The Valvettiturai police registered
- Page 57 and 58: would send him by bus or train to T
- Page 59 and 60: wife tried his cell phone several t
- Page 61 and 62: then that his brother had paid, alt
- Page 63 and 64: as the disseminators of “LTTE pro
- Page 65 and 66: It is evident that many of the [dis
- Page 67 and 68: The government’s lack of commitme
- Page 69 and 70: A lodge-owner who had 29 out of 36
- Page 71 and 72: arguing that evicting Tamils from C
- Page 73 and 74: VII. Emergency Regulations In Augus
- Page 75 and 76: Given the wide ranging powers provi
- Page 77 and 78: Large-scale arrests of Tamil youth
- Page 79: held, how many had been charged wit
- Page 83 and 84: In addition, the regulations establ
- Page 85 and 86: individuals and groups working to r
- Page 87 and 88: At a public meeting on April 6, 200
- Page 89 and 90: On April 30, 2007, unidentified gun
- Page 91 and 92: “We have blocked it as per a gove
- Page 93 and 94: conference said they had already ca
- Page 95 and 96: astards with the law we need to use
- Page 97 and 98: humanitarian worker with direct kno
- Page 99 and 100: The government dismissed the allega
- Page 101 and 102: With the change of administration i
- Page 103 and 104: IX. Karuna Group and State Complici
- Page 105 and 106: stating that it “has no complicit
- Page 107 and 108: of the government commission lookin
- Page 109 and 110: Over the past 18 months, the govern
- Page 111 and 112: Lack of witness protection A key pr
- Page 113 and 114: president cannot appoint any commis
- Page 115 and 116: Watch asked the Sri Lankan governme
- Page 117 and 118: persons and refugees, and SLMM in r
- Page 119 and 120: 7. Death of 51 persons in Naddalamo
- Page 121 and 122: Members of the IIGEP have also expr
- Page 123 and 124: In the current context, in particul
- Page 125 and 126: domestic and international criticis
- Page 127 and 128: To the Liberation Tigers of Tamil E
- Page 129 and 130: • Urge the Sri Lankan government
These are important principles and the government presented the reissued directives<br />
as a sign of its commitment <strong>to</strong> human rights. 151 But the directives, originally issued<br />
on July 7, 2006, merely instruct the security forces <strong>to</strong> respect fundamental due<br />
process rights already enshrined in Sri Lankan and international law. The fact the<br />
president had <strong>to</strong> issue them twice suggests that members of the military and police<br />
were frequently violating the law and that the government lacked the will <strong>to</strong> hold<br />
those responsible for abuses accountable. Without concrete action, including<br />
prosecutions of those arbitrarily arrested by the security forces, the directives appear<br />
aimed more at assuaging international opinion than holding accountable police and<br />
soldiers who commit crimes.<br />
Unauthorized places of detention<br />
The use of unauthorized places of detention has become a source of enormous<br />
anxiety for the families of detainees. Often families don’t know where a relative is<br />
being held and the authorities are reluctant <strong>to</strong> give information. Under the<br />
Emergency Regulations, there is no requirement <strong>to</strong> publish the places where people<br />
are held.<br />
In 2007, around 100 people were reported held in detention at the Boosa detention<br />
centre in Galle on Sri Lanka’s southern tip. 152 Lawyers and human rights activists <strong>to</strong>ld<br />
<strong>Human</strong> <strong>Rights</strong> <strong>Watch</strong> that they believed the government was also holding individuals<br />
under the Emergency Regulations in other places, including in Kandy and the<br />
Pollunaruwa district, but <strong>Human</strong> <strong>Rights</strong> <strong>Watch</strong> did not confirm these claims. 153<br />
<strong>Human</strong> <strong>Rights</strong> <strong>Watch</strong> asked the Sri Lankan government where it was holding those<br />
arrested under the Emergency Regulations. The government did not provide this<br />
requested information, saying it was being tabulated by the police. 154<br />
151 In a March 2007 statement about abductions and “disappearances,” for example, the government highlighted the<br />
Presidential Directives as evidence of its efforts <strong>to</strong> promote and uphold the rule of law. See SCOPP, “Baseless Allegations of<br />
Abductions and Disappearances.” In July 2006 a ministerial body had issued a statement calling for the implementation of the<br />
presidential directives. Government of Sri Lanka, Inter-Ministerial Committee on <strong>Human</strong> <strong>Rights</strong>, “Implementation of<br />
Presidential Directives on the Arrest or Detention of Persons,” July 19, 2006.<br />
152 “Fury at Detentions Under Sri Lanka Anti-terror Rules,” Reuters, February 21, 2007.<br />
153 <strong>Human</strong> <strong>Rights</strong> <strong>Watch</strong> interviews with human rights activists, Colombo, February 2007.<br />
154 Sri Lankan government response <strong>to</strong> <strong>Human</strong> <strong>Rights</strong> <strong>Watch</strong>, July 12, 2007.<br />
77<br />
<strong>Human</strong> <strong>Rights</strong> <strong>Watch</strong> August 2007
Change language