Untitled - International Commission of Jurists

sexual intercourse […].” 177 He did find several injuries consistent with the allegations
of torture. Police investigations commenced and twelve police officers and two navy
officers were arrested but were later released on bail. 178
The women were intimidated repeatedly by the police and the trial was fixed not in
Vavuniya, a Tamil area, but in Anuradhapura, a mainly Sinhalese area, at the request
of the accused. It was not until 25 August, 2005, more than four years after the crime
but closely following a rights petition filed with the Supreme Court, that an
indictment was filed in the Anuradhapura High Court. The accused included three
CSU police officers and nine Navy officers. The trial is still pending. Unable to bear
the pressure after so many years, one of the complainants fled to India. 179
These cases share elements of a common pattern. The possibility of successful
prosecutions is slim.
4.3. Cases of Mass Killings of Civilians
This section examines what is now referred to as the ‘old cases’ of killings during
conflict in order to demonstrate a common feature in all these cases, namely the
failure of the investigative and prosecutorial machinery to secure justice for the
victims, in addition to clear indications of a ‘cover-up’ in many instances. The post-
2005 cases which were the subject of inquiry before the 2006 Commission of Inquiry
to Inquire into Serious Human Rights Violations are not dealt with in this analysis as
they are recent in their occurrence with the relevant court cases still in a preliminary
stage of inquiry.
From data made available for this research, certain patterns are evident in the handling
of these cases. In the majority of cases, when pressed by public opinion or external
pressure, the most that has been done is to hold a military inquiry in the course of
which the offender is warned, in some cases discharged and in one or two instances,
sentenced to a short term of imprisonment. In the rare cases that were taken to court,
proper procedures have not been adhered to: identification parades have not been
held, forensic procedures not followed, and the chain of custody compromised.
Though suspects of junior rank have been arrested, they have been almost
immediately released on bail. Meanwhile, the trial has dragged on for years with the
witnesses being threatened and further, compelled to travel to Colombo consequent to
the transfers of their cases from the courts of the North and East upon application of
the accused.
The nature of the cases is also relevant. The Kumarapuram Case (1996), the
Thambalagamam Case (1998), and the Mylanthanai Case (1992) were reprisal killings
in which members of the Sri Lankan army massacred civilians following the killings
of fellow soldiers by the LTTE. The Kokkadicholai Case, which became the subject
of a commission of inquiry examined in the next chapter, is another example of such a
reprisal massacre.
177 Amnesty International, ‘Sri Lanka; Rape in Custody,’ AI Index, ASA 37/001/2002, 2002.
178 ibid.
179 University Teachers for Human Rights (Jaffna), ‘From Welikade to Mutur and Pottuvil: A
Generation of Moral Denudation and the Rise of Heroes with Feet of Clay,’ Special Report, No. 25,
2007.
59