- Casual Killings: Seven People Shot Dead by Police within
70 Days - Asian Human Rights Commission
[18 March 2004, AS-08-2004]
A Statement by the Asian Human Rights Commission - AHRC
SRI LANKA: Casual Killings: Seven People Shot Dead by Police within
70 Days
Within the first 70 days of the year 2004, the number of people shot
dead by the police in Sri Lanka came to seven - an average of one
person every 10 days. All of these shootings have taken place during
peacetime policing, and all of the victims were civilians. None of
the deaths suggest that there was a life-threatening situation
requiring such drastic action. The casual and carefree way that guns
are being used by law enforcement officers is shocking and points to
the breakdown of disciplinary control within the policing system.
The names of the people who were recently shot to death are:
Dissanayake Mudiayanselage Suranga Sampath a 17-year-old student
from Gampola who was attending a musical show on Jan. 10, 2004. The
police allegedly shot into the crowd, and the victim was later found
dead;
Jayasiri Sanjeewa Perera of Madiwela, Kotte, was shot dead on Jan.
25, 2004, during an attempt to arrest a person. The police claim
that, due to a possible attack by a person inside the house with a
bomb, they opened fire;
Ajit Rohana, 26, was shot dead allegedly by an officer of the
Wennappuwa police force while allegedly the victim was travelling in
a van with some friends. The police version is that the vehicle
proceeded after ignoring their signals to stop and that they
followed it and shot at it. The death was the result of this
shooting;
Mohamad Naushad, 26, was shot to death on Feb. 13, 2004. The police
claim that while they were trying to arrest him the victim allegedly
tried to stab an officer and, therefore, they opened fire on the
victim;
Bellanavithanage Sanath Yasaratne, 22, was shot dead by an officer
from the Baduru-eliya police force in the course of their
investigation into a minor family quarrel. The magistrate court
inquiry has concluded that the death was a homicide caused by the
shooting;
Ranjit Lilaratne was shot to death on March 10, 2004, at the police
post at Walkada Jadawa, Kathigollya, Anuradapura. The police version
is that the victim was shot while he was trying to escape after
being arrested;
H. M. Nirosha, 30, was shot to death on March 10, 2004, allegedly by
officers of the Haldumwal police. The police maintain that, while
they were shooting at a mad dog with a T-56 semiautomatic rifle, she
was hit accidentally.
Can any of these shootings be considered justifiable? What is the
criterion in judging such justifiability? What guidelines have the
police been given for the use of firearms in the course of their
normal duties? What level of evidence is sought by the magistrates
before they are satisfied that the shooting was justifiable? All of
these questions are vital and need to be answered by the Sri Lankan
authorities in relation to these shootings.
In an initial examination of these cases, all of these incidents
seem to be trivial and the shootings so casual. The failure to
observe a traffic signal by a passing vehicle, an alleged attempt by
a criminal to harm a police officer in the course of arrest, the
fear that someone may be in possession of a bomb, attempting to stop
a minor clash during a musical show and killing a passerby in trying
to shoot a mad dog are the alleged reasons given for shooting people
to death.
In all of these deadly incidents, it is not even alleged that
warning shots were fired prior to the use of deadly force by the
officers or, if the shooting was required at all, that the
precaution was taken to shoot below the knees in order to disable
the alleged culprit and, thereby, do everything possible to prevent
serious harm to the victim.
The unavoidable conclusion arising from these cases is that firearms
are being used in the most casual manner. The officers who have
allegedly engaged in these shootings are not high-ranking officers.
However, this fact does not exonerate high-ranking officers for
their liability in their failure to effectively supervise the use of
firearms by the rank and file. Given the admittedly low
qualifications of the rank and file of the Sri Lankan police, the
liability for allowing such casual use of firearms falls heavily on
these officers.
What makes the situation even worse is that there is no special
investigation procedure for the use of firearms. Any objective
criteria would require that a serious internal inquiry would be held
within the police department itself when such incidents are
reported. Instead, the officers who have allegedly done the shooting
and made up a story about how it happened are allowed to go and
narrate such stories at the initial inquiries in courts. The
high-ranking officers, except in some exceptional cases, help cover
up the story rather than investigate the matter thoroughly. It is
also a requirement within a law enforcement agency that officers who
are alleged to have caused a death are suspended from duty until
proper internal inquiries are held.
It is the duty of the National Police Commission (NPC) and the
inspector general of police (IGP) to lay down strict procedures
regarding the use of firearms by the police and also to ensure that
the procedures laid down are strictly observed. These casual
killings by police officers suggest that the supervision exercised
over them is also very casual.
The attorney general of the country also has a duty to ensure that
law enforcement agencies are not allowed to abuse their powers by
the casual use of firearms. It falls on the attorney general to
enforce the law strictly on this matter. This can be done only if
there are proper and serious inquiries into these deaths. It is also
the duty of the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), as the
watchdog institution of human rights in the country, to be more
seriously involved in ensuring an end to this police practice of
casually using firearms.
|
