|
To
Ms. Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga
President
Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka
Presidential Secretariat
Colombo-1, Sri Lanka
Fax: +94 11 2 333 703
Honorable President,
SUB : Urging President Chandrika Bandaranaike
Kumaratunga of Sri Lanka to make public massacre report
|
 Urging
President Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga of Sri Lanka to make public
massacre report |
|
The
Asian Centre for Human
Rights has appealed to Sri Lankan President Chandrika Kumaratunga to
make public the report on the Bindunuwewa massacre in which 28 Tamils in
the protective custody of the State were killed.
In its report on the massacre, which was handed over to the Sri Lankan
High Commission here [coinciding with the visit of Ms. Kumaratunga to
India on her 3 day visit to New Delhi starting from 02-06-2005], the ACHR
expressed serious concern over the acquittal of the accused in the
massacre. It said the fact that not a single person could be held guilty
for the mass murder would further increase the distrust of the moderate
Tamil minorities in the democratic institutions of Sri Lanka. Describing
the massacre case trial as "operation whitewash," the report said the Sri
Lankan President ordered a Commission headed by Justice P.H.K. Kulatilaka
but failed to make public its report.
The human rights panel urged Ms. Kumaratunga to instruct the island
Government to make public the report and file a petition in the Supreme
Court seeking review of the judgment. It also urged the United Nations
High Commissioner for Human Rights to study all judgments relating to the
massacre and consider appointing a high level panel of inquiry into the
massacre.
Manitham alongwith the Asian Centre for Human Rights, creates Urgent
Appeal in web for public participants. |
"At no time there were any incidents among the detainees and the
management. There were no incidents with the neighbours either…. It is clear
from the information now received by the authorities that provocation from
external forces had led to this situation," - thus spoke President Chandrika
Kumaratunga immediately following the Bindunuwewa massacre and forewarned the
acquittals of the accused.
On 27 May 2005, a five-member bench of the Supreme Court of Sri Lanka comprising
of Justices T.B. Weerasuriya, Nihal Jayasinghe,
N.K. Udalagama, N.E. Dissanayake and Raja Fernando acquitted all the four
accused convicted by the Trial-at-Bar of the High Court on charges of mass
murder of 28 inmates and attempted murder of 14 others at the Bindunuwewa
Rehabilitation Centre on 25 October 2000. Majority of the victims were children.
Nestled in the mountains of central Sri Lanka, the Bindunuwewa Rehabilitation
Centre was intended as a showpiece for the outside world where former rebels of
the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) were rehabilitated rather than
punished.
Immediately following the massacre, a team of the Sri Lankan Human Rights
Commission visited the massacre site on 27 October 2000. Despite the evidence of
the policemen’s direct role in the massacre, the SLHRC essentially exonerated
them, only charging them with dereliction of duty and set the tone for the final
acquittal. President Chandrika Kumaratunga immediately rushed two investigation
teams to counter any international fall out.
When the trial began in 2000, there were forty-four suspects in the case, among
whom nineteen were policemen. On 25 March 2002, the prosecution filed indictment
before the Trial-at-Bar against 41 accused who were charged on 83 counts
including unlawful assembly, committing the murders of 28 persons and attempted
murder of 14 others at the Bindunuwewa Rehabilitation Centre.
After more than a year trial, Trial-at-Bar convicted two police officers - Senaka Jayampthay Karunaratne, former officer-in-charge of the Bindunuwewa
Police and Tyronne Roger Ratnayake, and three Sinhalese civilians - Sepala
Dissanayake, M.A.Sammy and R.M.Premananda and sentenced them to death on 1 July
2003.
In its judgement on 27 May 2005, the Supreme Court judges held that “the
Trial-at-Bar had totally misdirected itself by holding that the police had
removed the detainees bodies from the scene to destroy the evidence since the
evidence of ASP Dayaratne revealed that it was so done as instructed by the DIG
to preserve peace in the area as there was a large concentration of Tamil estate
workers in the surrounding area”. The court also acquitted the three villagers,
M.A. Samy, D.M.S. Dissanayake and R.M. Premananda.
Any court is as good as the prosecution. In Sri Lanka where the independence of
judiciary under Chief Justice Sarath Nanda Silva, former Attorney General of
Kumaratunga government is seriously under question, the role of the
investigators and prosecutors becomes more important. However, from day one, the
investigators and prosecutors worked in tandem to systematically destroy the
evidence.
The five judges bench brushed aside a number of issues which were critical for
conviction of the accused.
a. Organised massacre: Posters that were ignored
That Bindunuwewa massacre was an organized massacre was completely overlooked by
the prosecution and the Supreme Court. The Sri Lankan Human Rights Commission
reported that “a large number of posters had appeared in Bandarawela town,
allegedly on the night of the 24th inciting people to violence against the
inmates and the rehabilitation camp”. It further stated, “a statement made by
one of the suspects who has been arrested had identified and named some of the
persons who were responsible for the posters. He has further identified those
who instigated the violence and led the attack on the camp”.
The Sri Lankan Human Rights Commission strongly recommended that this line of
investigation be pursued. … “as all the information we (SLHRC) have been able to
gather so far does not suggest that what occurred on the 25th was an
unpremeditated eruption of mob violence caused by the provocation of the
inmates. It is more consistent with a premeditated and planned attack”.
But the investigators never followed up this particular aspect.
b. Complicity of the police
"If not for the complicity of police officers, this would have been
avoided….When the victims went running to policemen seeking protection, they
were fired at by the police." – stated Chairman of the three-judge bench of the
Trial-at-Bar, Sarath Ambepitiya, in a 94-page judgement.
Nothing could be more emphatic about the complicity of the police.
During his examination by the state counsel before the Trial-at- Bar, one of the
survivors, Thambirajah Nawarajah stated that he was hacked by an axe inside the
police canter by a group of about 7 persons. Two or three police personnel were
only a few yards away from where he was standing.
The police claimed that they had fired to stop the rioters. However, the fact
remained that not a single Sinhalese was found injured, let alone killed in
police firing.
c. Identification of the culprits
During the identification parade that was held in the last week of November 2000
before the Bandarawela magistrate, survivors identified three teacher trainees
from the Bindunuwewa teacher training college who had been allegedly involved in
the massacre. This was ignored too.
d. Destruction of evidence
There have been systematic efforts to destroy evidence. Immediately following
the massacre, the police arrested about 250 innocent villagers. These people
were released only after sit-down protests by other villagers at the front of
the police station.
Mr. Premaratne, the Senior Superintendent of Police of Bandarawela commenting on
the action taken, admitted before the Sri Lankan Human Rights Commission that
“the manner in which large numbers of villagers resident in the neighbourhood of
the camp had been arrested had only had the effect of thwarting any purposeful
process of investigation”.
During the investigation, it transpired that bullets had been removed from the
body of a victim. The police investigators failed to find or locate the bullets
or its source during the course of investigation.
The Trial-at-Bar held the police responsible for removing the detainees’ bodies
from the scene of the massacre to destroy the evidence. Yet the Supreme Court
held that the Trial-at-Bar was misdirected “since the evidence of ASP Dayaratne
revealed that it was so done as instructed by the DIG to preserve peace in the
area as there was a large concentration of Tamil estate workers in the
surrounding area”. The Supreme Court in effect justified destruction of evidence
on the ground of socalled preserving the peace.
e. Identifying the real culprits – the chain of command
There were about sixty fully armed policemen present at the site of the massacre
who did nothing try to stop the rioters who were armed with poles, clubs, axes
etc. The investigation never sought to find out as to who had ordered these
policemen to be present there.
The chain of command responsible for organizing the massacre that resulted in
the failure to prevent it was never investigated.
If the ethnic problem in Sri Lanka is to be resolved, the Sri Lankan government
must do some soul searching on the mass acquittal of the Bindunuwewa massacre
case. Blaming the lack of evidence – which is primarily the failure of the
prosecution that systematically destroyed evidence from day one - is unlikely to
assuage the sentiments of the victims and ethnic Tamil minorities. The ongoing
reconciliation process has as much to do with finding a solution with the
Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) as it has to do with restoring the faith
of the ethnic Tamil minorities. The administration of President Chandrika
Kumaratunga has abysmally failed on that account. [Click
to read FULL REPORT in .pdf format]
- 02/06/2005
|
