H.E. Mrs. Alice Thomas Samaan, Embassy of the Kingdom of Bahrain, United Kingdom

Your Excellency,

I am William Nicholas Gomes, Human Rights Ambassador for Salem-News.com

I came to know about the situation from Front Line Defenders.

I am writing to express my concern and request your intervention in the following case.

On 2 October 2012, six medical professionals and human rights defenders were arrested after their homes were subjected to early morning raids in Bahrain. This followed the decision on 1 October 2012 of the Bahrain Court of Cassation in Manama to uphold the sentences imposed upon nine medical professionals in spite of unfair trials and the use of torture.

The six arrested are Dr. Ali Al Ekri (sentenced to five years); Mr. Ibrahim Al Demistani (three years); Dr. Ghassan Dhaif (one year); Dr. Saeed Al Samahiji (one year); Dr. Mahmoud Asghar (six months); and Ms. Dheya Ibrahim Abu Idris (two months). They were convicted on unsubstantiated charges including promoting the change of the political regime by force, instigating sectarian hatred and illegal detention of persons.

The doctors were detained, tortured and prosecuted together with a group of over 40 medics in 2011 because they provided emergency medical attention to injured demonstrators and because they spoke out about the injuries they had seen. The torture of the doctors and the unfair trials they faced before military courts was documented in the Bahrain Independent Commission of Inquiry (BICI). Following domestic and international protests they were released pending an appeal before civil courts. The appeal process again failed to meet international fair trial standards but did lead to reduced sentences and some acquittals. It is the revised sentences against nine of the medics which were upheld by the Court of Cassation on 1 October.

I strongly condemn the decision to uphold and implement these sentences and express concern at the ongoing harassment of medical professionals in Bahrain. I believe that they have been sentenced and imprisoned solely as a result of their legitimate and peaceful medical and human rights work.

I urge the authorities in Bahrain to:

1. Immediately and unconditionally release all the medical professionals and overturn all their convictions, as it is believed that their sentencing and imprisonment are solely motivated by their peaceful and legitimate medical and human rights work;

2. Take all necessary measures to guarantee the physical and psychological integrity and security of all the medical professionals and their families;

3. Cease targeting all medical professionals and human rights defenders in Bahrain and guarantee in all circumstances that they are able to carry out their legitimate human rights activities without fear of reprisals and free of all restrictions including judicial harassment.

AUTHOR: William Nicholas Gomes
URL: www.williamgomes.org
E-MAIL: williamgomes.org [at] gmail.com

The denial of medical treatment is a way by which Iranian authorities put pressure on political prisoners.

Zanyar and Loghman Moradi are two political prisoners who, under torture, signed a document holding them responsible for the murder of a regime official that took place in a Kurdish city in Iran.

According to a report by Dr. Ahmed Shaheed, the UN Special Rapporteur on Iran, Zanyar and Loghman Moradi been subjected to torture and threatened with rape.

Neither of these two political prisoners have been allowed visits with their families in more than six months.

AUTHOR: Mahmood Amiry-Moghaddam
URL: http://iranhr.net/
E-MAIL: amirymoghaddam [at] gmail.com

Mr. Bijaya Kumar Gacchedar, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Home Affairs, Ministry of Home Affairs, Singha Darbar, Kathmandu, Nepal, gunaso@moha.gov.np

Dear Mr. Bijaya Kumar Gacchedar,

I am William Nicholas Gomes, Human Rights Ambassador for Salem-News.com.

I came to know about the situation from International Secretariat of OMCT that they have been informed by Advocacy Forum (AF), a member organisation of OMCT SOS-Torture Network, about the alleged torture and ill-treatment inflicted by the police on Mr. Khimlal Rijal, a 22-year-old permanent resident of Pwang VDC-6, Rukum district.

According to the information received, Mr. Khimlal Rijal was arrested on 9 September 2012 on charges of snatching a gold chain and taken to the litigation section at Kaksi District Police Office (DPO). At the police office, he was allegedly beaten with plastic pipes on his thighs, back and soles for about five minutes by about six policemen. After being forced to lay down on a table, the policemen rolled an about three meter diameter iron rod on his thighs for about 30 minutes. Afterwards, he was asked to stand up and one policeman grabbed him by his hair and made him rotated for about ten minutes. Mr. Khimlal Rijal was allegedly tortured for about two hours while being interrogated on his alleged invovlement in various theft cases. At about midnight, he was taken to Paschimanchal Zonal Hospital in Kaski district for a medical check up. However, according to Mr. Rijal, the doctor did not ask him questions about the marks on his body.

According to the same information received, on 10 September 2012, four unidentified policemen took Mr. Khimlal Rijal to an under construction building behind the office building of Kaksi DPO. The policemen inserted a stick through his bents knees and handcuffed hands and hanged him in the air. He was then beaten with plastic pipes on his soles, punched and kicked on his body parts for about two hours while again being interrogated. He was later taken to Kaski Distric Court. Although Mr. Rijal reportedly informed the judge of the torture suffered, the judge did not order a medical checkup. He was remanded for seven days.

I share my deep concern about the safety and physical and psychological integrity of Mr. Khimlal Rijal. I urge the competent authorities to carry out a prompt, effective, thorough, independent and impartial investigation into the allegations of torture and ill-treatment, in accordance with international human rights standards, the result of which must be made public, in order to bring those responsible before a competent, independent and impartial tribunal and apply penal, civil and/or administrative sanctions as provided by law.

I recall that the authorities have to fulfil their obligations under international human rights law to protect the right not to be subjected to torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment and to bringing to justice those responsible for violating this right.

I recall that Article 11 of the Convention against Torture stipulates that “Each State Party shall keep under systematic review interrogation rules, instructions, methods and practices as well as arrangements for the custody and treatment of persons subjected to any form of arrest, detention or imprisonment in any territory under its jurisdiction, with a view to preventing any cases of torture” and article 15 of the said Convention, “Each State Party shall ensure that any statement which is established to have been made as a result of torture shall not be invoked as evidence in any proceedings (…)”.

I am urging to the Nepali authorities to:

i.   Guarantee, in all circumstances, the physical and psychological integrity of Mr. Khimlal Rijal;

ii.              Carry out a prompt, effective, thorough, independent and impartial investigation into the allegations of torture and ill-treatment, in accordance with international human rights standards, the result of which must be made public, in order to bring those responsible before a competent, independent and impartial tribunal and apply penal, civil and/or administrative sanctions as provided by law;

iii.            Guarantee that no evidence obtained under torture and ill-treatment, or threats thereof, be used in court proceedings against Mr. Khimlal Rijal as stipulated in Article 15 of the UN Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment;

iv.            Order his immediate release in the absence of valid legal charges that are consistent with international law and standards, or, if such charges exist, bring him promptly before an impartial, independent and competent tribunal and guarantee his procedural rights at all times;

v.              Ensure that adequate, effective and prompt reparation, including adequate compensation and rehabilitation, is granted to Mr. Khimlal Rijal;

vi.            Ensure the respect of human rights and fundamental freedoms throughout the country in accordance with national laws and international human rights standards, in particular ensure that all acts of torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment and punishment are clearly defined in law as offences in accordance with the provisions set out in Articles 1, 4 and 16 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment and that they be made punishable with appropriate penalties which take into account the grave nature of the crimes as required (which is not the case under the 1996 Torture Compensation Act).

AUTHOR: William Nicholas Gomes
URL: www.williamgomes.org
E-MAIL: williamgomes.org [at] gmail.com

In process of door to door campaign against torture and organized violence the PVCHR activist together with community leaders will visit each and every family of the targeted marginalized communities in model village for given below reasons:

• Increase public relationship against torture and organized violence
• Inculcate a better strategy with the involvement of the community for developing torture free village
• Linking the torture and organized violence with social and economical rights

They will sensitize them on all the Acts and directive guideline issued by Hon’able Supreme Court, National Human Rights Commission such as D.K Basu guideline, SC/ST (PoA) Act and D.V Act, 2005, RTE Act, Right to Health etc. At last they will gather at one place for developing comprehensive strategy for developing torture free village.

The DDCATOV campaign is divided in four phase:

• First phase: Badagaon block of Varanasi district & Tanda block of Ambedkar Nagar district
• Second phase: Robertsganj block of Sonbhadra district
• Third phase: Pindra block of Varanasi district
• Fourth phase: Domchach block of Koderma district of Jharkhand

For more information about DDCATOV please write to pvchr.india@gmail.com

AUTHOR: Dr Lenin Raghuvanshi
URL: http://www.pvchr.net/
E-MAIL: pvchr.india [at] gmail.com

In March this year IHR and other human rights organizations had warned against execution of five Ahwazi Arab prisoners. Iranian authorities informed the families of five prisoners from the Arab-dominated Ahwaz province that their sons will be hanged in public “within days” for allegedly killing a security member and wounding another in 2011. The detainees included three brothers – Abdolrahman, Taha, and Jamsheed Haidari – and their cousin Mansour Haidari and Amir Moawya. They were arrested under anti-regime protests in Ahwaz in 2011 and were charged with the murder of a security member. Their families say the prisoners confessed to the murder under torture. International attention was probably the reason why they were not executed in March.

On June 10 this year IHR warned once again about the imminent danger of execution of these prisoners and urged the international community to react.

AUTHOR: Mahmood Amiry-Moghaddam
URL: http://iranhr.net/
E-MAIL: amirymoghaddam [at] gmail.com

I am William Nicholas Gomes,Human Rights Ambassador for Salem News.com.

I am writing to express concern regarding yet another case of custodial violence and extrajudicial killing of (i) Mr. Laishram Nobin, (ii) Mr. Ningthoujam Ingocha and (iii) Mr. Irengbam Roshan, allegedly by the 23rd Battalion, Assam Rifles (23AR) under the command of Maj. Hanuman posted near Maphou Dam, Nongdam Village, Ukhrul District, Manipur, India.

On 8 May 2012, Major Hanuman (then Captain) of 23rd AR approached and requested Mr Laishram Shyamkishore (70 years old), village elder of Tunukhong Awang Leikai, Imphal East District, Manipur, to persuade his son, Mr Laishram Nobin (alias Khuman) and his son’s friends to surrender themselves and live in peace. Shyamkishore considered the possibility and secretly made arrangements for his son to surrender himself before the state authorities. It was reported that, at the instructed and arrangement of Maj. Hanuman, Shyamkishore accompanied his son to the meeting place where Nobin was supposed to surrender himself. This meeting did not materialise.

On 9 May 2012 at 7.30am, Shyamkishore, his son and two friends met Maj. Hanuman at Hidalok, which was approximately half a kilometer away from the bus stop at Loupheng village near Maphou Dam under Litan Police Station. They were wearing track suits (civilian clothing). Shyamkishore witnessed the three men hand over an M-16 rifle, one Lethode gun, 50 live rounds of ammunition and three Lethode bombs as a symbol of formal surrender to the 23rd AR. Maj. Hanuman expressed happiness at their peaceful surrender and asked Shyamkishore to return home in peace, so Shyamkishore returned home that same morning.

On 10 May 2012, local daily newspapers reported that three underground suspects had been shot to death in an encounter with 23rd AR personnel. The conflict was stated to have lasted an hour and to have been near Chadong Tangkhul Village under Litan Police Station around 11am. The 22rd AR personnel were reported to have found the three dead bodies in the aftermath of the encounter. The force also recovered an M-16 with a grenade launcher, magazine and 55 live rounds, one 9mm carbine, magazine with three live rounds, one Lethode gun with three rounds and one fire case, one carry bad and one ammunition pouch. The 23rd AR also issued a statement claiming the deceased had been active in and around Maphou Dam, engaging in extortion and deliberately interfering with the construction of the Dam. The three bodies were handed over to the Litan Police Station.

Shyamkishore became suspicious and anxious when he received news of the “encounter”. He immediately went to the Regional Institute of Medical Science (RIMS) Imphal morgue and was shocked to discover the bodies of his son and the two other men he had convinced to surrender to the 23rd AR the previous day. He was further surprised to find that the bodies were not in the dress the three men had been in just the previous morning. Instead of the track suits (civilian clothing), the three men were fitted out in camouflage fatigues. An examination of the bodies further revealed evidence of severe torture. Mr Irengbam Roshan’s body had been badly mutilated; his genitals had been crudely removed. One of Mr Ningthoujam Ingocha’s eyeballs had also been gouged out.

Given the irreconcilability of the official account the 23rd AR had delivered to the media and the physical condition of the three bodies, the bereaved father, Shyamkishore, was convinced that the 23rd AR was responsible for such barbarous, morally reprehensible and illegal acts against his son and his son’s two friends. As such, Shyamkishore demands that stern legal measures should be taken against Maj. Hanuman and the other 23rd AR personnel involved. Shyamkishore demands this not only that justice is served and that the basest of all criminals and crimes are punished, but also that such cruelty does not persist or repeat itself in India. Despite losing so much, Shyamkishore is demonstrating an indefatigable hope and faith in believing his country may yet rise up against such crimes against her children and against humanity.

A follow-up public meeting was held on 12 May 2012 at Tumukhong Youth Social Organisation in condemnation of the extrajudicial killings of these three civilians in the faked “encounter” with the 23rd AR. The community, disgusted with the violence and patent injustice, unanimously resolved to agitate against the AR in a show of solidarity with Shyamkishore. The meeting condemned the abuse of power and authority by the AR and its practices of torture and extrajudicial executions in the name of countering insurgencies. It denounced the deceitful and dishonorable dealings of the AR in first requiring the surrender of insurgents in the name of peaceful co-existence only to turn viciously on the men at their most vulnerable. Such practices breed distrust and moral contempt of the AR and only fuels existing tensions within the community. Demands were made at the meeting that Maj. Hanuman and other members of the 23rd AR responsible for these crimes be booked immediately and penalized according to the most stringent legal mechanisms available.

The 23rd AR has in the meanwhile clarified that the media reports were all false and baseless. If this is true, the media has to also be investigated for fabricating stories and giving out misleading information. In any event, a full inquiry will have to be made into uncovering the exact events leading up the torture and death of these three men. The investigation should also consider that the three men had formally been in the custody of the 23rd AR since their surrender on the morning of 9 May. It is distressing to note the approximate coincidence between the inventory of items declared in the media and the arms the three men had surrendered in the morning on 9 May. It is even more disturbing to consider the possibility that the 23rd had thought it ethical to lure the men out with promises of peace and then mete out maltreatment and murder.

Shyamkishore believed he was doing the right thing for the sake of the community, for justice and peace and for his son’s future when he reasoned with the three men to turn themselves in. He probably prevailed on them to do so out of their trust in and respect for Shyamkishore. The three men were ready to submit themselves to the law, to surrender also their weapons and to be held in custody; this also required respect for and immense faith in the judicial system. What was so particularly perverse was that Shyamkishore was instead unknowingly made complicit in his own son’s torture and murder, and the murder of his son’s friends. This utter betrayal by the very people who should be moral exemplars to civil society should trouble and grieve the Central Government over and beyond the dubious methods employed by the AR personnel, because the motivation, means and ends of law enforcement have been polluted by impunity and fear of such.

The above case highlights several systemic faults in the administration of Manipur, and may be useful in pointing out larger issues plaguing India’s criminal justice system:
1. A non-compliance with state-wide Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) and international standards governing the duty of law enforcement officers and agencies to treat prisoners humanely;
2. A lack of transparency and accountability in police proceedings against suspects that exposes civilians to human rights abuse (torture, summary executions/extrajudicial killings);
3. The shocking illegality and impunity which characterises the actions of law enforcement personnel in Manipur and many other states and districts in India;
4. Complicity of state-endorsed forces in crimes against humanity and human rights abuses, which in turn suggests:
5. Either an inability and/or unwillingness of the central government to control their paramilitary forces (due to lapses in communication or weaknesses in the chains of command issuing from the centre)

The possibility for “effective remedy” has been seriously stymied with the extinguishing of the lives of these three men. Their most basic right to life has been irreversibly taken from them. Yet there is so much the authorities can do to bring closure to a grieving father and disillusioned community and to prevent such tragic events from repeating themselves.

The Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) and other NGOs have documented substantial number of cases from India over the years that reflect critical fault lines in the face of India’s judiciary. Our argument is also that often, criminal investigation in India begins and ends with a forced confession extracted from a person in custody that then permits the law enforcement personnel and agencies to execute all manner of unreasonable, illegal or morally unconscionable acts of “punishment” against the victims. These acts usually include, but are not limited to, torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, illegal detention for extended periods of time, extortion, rape and bodily mutilation. Such violent behaviour not only results from existing social tensions but is encouraged by immunity given by flawed statutes, such as the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958. The widespread and systemic infringement of human rights by law enforcement officers across India breed a brutish brood of embittered bodies and constitute crimes against humanity. This bodes ill for India’s central government and future.

The international arena is another area in which India is likely to suffer the consequences of not responding to human rights abuse. India has done a commendable job of ratifying a number of conventions – the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) in 1979, for instance. Article 6(1) asserts a fundamental human right to life which emphasises unequivocally the right to life first explicitly expressed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and emphasises the essentiality of law in enforcing and protecting this inherent right of man. Article 7 of the ICCPR also clearly says that the state has an obligation to ensure every man has a right against torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. Article 4(2) specifically lists these two rights among only seven that cannot be derogated from under any conditions. Insofar as the judiciary in India is not fully functional or, in certain cases, completely dysfunctional, the Indian state cannot hope to fulfill what was a binding agreement to uphold these basic rights.

Unfortunately, India is still not a party to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT). Ratifying the CAT would be another way the Indian state can express its commitment to protect the rights and liberties of its own people. It would also make India’s current resolutions and its membership to the ICCPR more credible to the international community.

While civil society has already begun agitating on Shyamkishore’s behalf, little tangible difference can be made without the urgent intervention of the Central Government and from international actors.

I therefore demand that:

1. The statement of Mr Laishram Shyamkishore is immediately taken and acknowledged by the relevant police authorities;
2. An immediate Judicial Inquiry or CBI Inquiry regarding the three victims’ deaths in accordance with the standing instructions of the National Human Rights Commission;
3. The Central Government assents to and initiates impartial prosecution in accordance to law of the accused AR officers;
3. Maj. Hanuman is tried separately for increased culpability as the leader of the 23rd AR;
4. The bodies of the three victims are released to their families for a proper burial at the earliest possible moment;
5. The 23rd AR subsequently issues a formal public apology for whatever misdeeds they have committed against the victims’, the victims’ families and the community;
6. Mr Laishram Shyamkishore is given some sort of compensation as further acknowledgement of Shyamkishore’s loss as well as to admit the injustice and violence committed against his son and the other two men;
7. Mr Laishram Shyamkishore is given protection against possible attack by personnel of the 23rd AR in light of the accusations he is bringing against them;
8. Shyamkishore, his family and the other two victims’ families receive a credible commitment from authorities to be protected against future violence and harassment;
9. The Union Home Minster and the Manipur Home Minister instruct all security forces, including the paramilitary, in Manipur and elsewhere to adhere strictly to the Supreme Court and National Human Rights Commission guidelines concerning “encounter killings”.

AUTHOR: William Nicholas Gomes
URL: www.williamgomes.org
E-MAIL: williamgomes.org [at] gmail.com

Ms. Mamata Banerjee, Chief Minister, Government of West Bengal, cm_wb@nic.in

Re: INDIA: Brutal custodial torture by West Bengal Police of a young couple

Dear Chief Minister of West Bengal,
Names of the victims:
1. Mr. Firoj Ahmed aged 23 years, son of Mr.Faijjur Ahmed residing at Srikati village, North 24 Parganas district, West Bengal,India
2. Ms. Achma Bibi wife of Mr. Firoj Ahmed residing at Srikati village, North 24 Parganas district, West Bengal,India

Names of alleged perpetrators: The inspector and other police officers from Basirhat police station serving on duty on 7 February 2012
Date of incident: 7 February 2012
Place of incident: Srikati village and at Basirhat police station, North 24 Parganas district, West Bengal

I am writing to express my concern regarding yet another case of brutal torture committed by officers from Basirhat Police Station. In this case the victims are a husband and wife, whose house was raided by the police in the middle of the night, both husband and wife tortured and later the husband arrested and taken into custody, allegedly on fabricated charges.

I am informed that a fact-finding undertaken by MASUM concerning the case has revealed the following details. On 7 February 2012 at about 2.30 am, a team of 16 police officers reportedly from Basirhat Police Station, raided the house of the victims at night. The police assaulted the victims at their house and later arrested Firoj. The police kicked Firoj and hit him with their riffle butt and wooden batons. Firoj sustained severe injuries in the incident and is reported to be unable to stand or walk.

When Achma Bibi, wife of Firoj, tried to save her husband from the brutality of the police, they assaulted her as well. The police assaulted Achma on her left hand with wooden baton; kicked and thrashed her on the ground. The officers verbally abused the victims in filthy language. The officers did not offer any reason whatsoever for the search or arrest. The police complied with no mandatory procedures at the time of the search and arrest, and no memo of arrest was issued. The officers did not inform the victims where Firoj is taken to or why he is arrested.

On the next day Achma Bibi and relatives went to the local police station to meet Firoj expecting that he would be at Basirhat Police Station. They were at the station at about 10 am. They requested permission to meet Firoj at the station. At this, the officer in charge of the police station once again abused them using filthy language and did not allow them to meet Firoj. After several and repeated requests the police allowed them to meet Firoj.

At the station they found that Firoj had suffered fractures on his fingers on his left hand from torture. The police however had denied any medical treatment to the victim. It is reported that the police also refused to properly feed Firoj while he was in custody. Later they came to know that the police had accused Firoj of having committed offenses under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. A crime is registered against Firoj as crime number 24 of 2012 under Section 20 (b) of the Act. Firoj is still in custody.

Seeking the legal action against the incident on 20 February 2012, Achma Bibi lodged a written complaint before the Additional Superintendent of Police, Barasat, North 24 Pargans district. But until now no action is taken regarding the above-mentioned complaint.

This is not the first case that the AHRC and MASUM have reported concerning custodial violence perpetuated by Barasat police. A former Urgent Appeal, AHRC-UAC-030-2012 issued on 22 February 2012 speaks about similar facts. In that case however the police were demanding bribe from the accused for not falsely implicating him criminal cases.

The practice of torture is widespread in India. Unchallenged and unopposed, it has become a normal and legitimate practice for the law enforcement agencies in the country. Torture in custody is reported regularly in India and the instances of custodial torture and other forms of violence are at an alarming rate in the country. Reports allege that between 2001-10 more than 14,231 persons have died in police and judicial custody in the country. This means that during the past ten years on an average four persons dies every day while in custody.

In a democratic society, the role of the police is to protect the rights of the citizens. However, in India it is well known that the police systematically abuse their authority and employ custodial torture as part of their investigation and fabricates false cases against persons as they wish. The poor, the deprived, women and children and political activists are mostly the victims of police violence.

The barbarity of incarceration is validated by the popular retributive-deterrent philosophy, which is the current sentencing norm in many criminal jurisdictions and India is no exception to this. Fabrication of false cases, custodial violence, including torture and death in police/judicial custody strikes a blow at the rule of law, which demands that the powers of the executive should not only derive from law but also that the same should be limited by law. In this scenario, the lacking of a proper law that criminalises torture creates a congenial environment for the law enforcement agencies to continue with their criminal acts with impunity. Section 54 of the code of the criminal procedure,1973 that mandates examination of an arrested person by a medical officer is essential which has also not complied in this case. Mr.Firoj was denied of medical treatment, which is nothing but the denial of the right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and the legal rules laid down of the Supreme Court of India.

The mandatory requirements prescribed in the Cr.P.C concerning arrest, medical examination and also the rules issued by the Supreme Court in the D.K.Basu vs State of west Bengal 1997 (AIR) SC 610 are not been complied by the police officers in this case.

Section 120B(1) of the Indian Penal Code 1860 mandates; punishment for criminal conspiracy – whoever is a party to criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years or upwards, shall where no express provision is made in this code for the punishment of such conspiracy, be punished in the same manner as if he had abetted such offence.

Section 354 of the code mandates; punishment for assault or criminal force to woman with intend to outrage her modesty -whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any woman intending to outrage or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby outrage her modesty, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extended to two years, or with both.

Section 384 of the code mandates; punishment for extortion that whoever commits extortion shall be punished with imprisonment for a term, which may extend to three years or with fine or with both.

Section 458 of code mandates; punishment for lurking house trespass or house breaking by night after preparation for hurt, assault, or wrongful restraint – whoever commits lurking house by night or house breaking by night having made preparation for causing hurt to any person or for assaulting any person, or for wrongfully restraining any person, or for putting any person in fear of hurt, or assault, or wrongful restraint, shall be punished with imprisonment for life either description for a term which may extend to fourteen years and shall also be liable to fine.

Section 326 of the Code mandates; punishment by way of imprisonment for a term of ten years to a person who voluntarily causes hurt by dangerous weapons or means.

Section 144 of the code mandates: Joining unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapon.-Whoever being armed with deadly weapon or with anything, which used as a weapon of offence is likely to cause death. Is a member of unlawful assembly, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term, which may extend to two years or with fine, or with both.

Article 39A of the Constitution mandates equal justice and free legal aid … the state shall secure that the operation of the legal system promotes justice, on a basis of equal opportunity, and shall in particular provide free legal aid by suitable legislations or schemes or in any other way, to ensure that opportunities for securing justice are not denied to any citizen by reason of economic or other disabilities. Under section 18(3) of the protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 the National Human Rights Commission is mandated to advance the cause of compensatory justice to the victims of torture.

Article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) incorporated the right to protection against torture and the same has been sought to be achieved through declaration of the Fifth United Nations Congress held in 1975. UN Convention against torture provides for redress and compensation to the victim. Article 14 of the convention categorically emphasizes that every state party to the convention must ensure that the tortured victim is provided fair and adequate compensation and rehabilitation. The right to be free from arbitrary detention is a fundamental right. Even though the India has not rectified the convention, India torture is a subject of ius cojens that mandates the state to ensure that the torture is prevented in all jurisdictions.

The Supreme Court in Sunil Batra vs. Delhi Administration reported in 1978 (4) Supreme Court Cases 494 has ruled that prohibition against torture is absolute in India. The Supreme Court did not find itself handicapped by the absence of specific provisions against torture in the constitution and gathered support from Article 14 and 19 in holding against the permissibility of torture vis-Ã -vis persons suspected and accused of crime. In Khatri vs. State of Bihar reported in 1981 All India Reporter (Supreme Court) p. 928 is a case where the Court said how cruel and in-human treatment to the prisoners insolates the sprit of constitution and human value as well as Article 21 as far as persons in custody is concerned. The court had held that these rights are available even for prisoners.

In A. Nallassivan vs. State of Tamil Nadu and others reported in 1995 Criminal Law Journal 2754 (Madras) 90 women and 28 children from a village were detained in the office of forest range officer for a night. The court held the detention is illegal, offending fundamental rights and directed enquiry by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) India. The court further added that if a police officer acted contrary to the proviso to Section 160(1) of the Cr.P.C, such deviation should be reason for prompt punishment, since the policemen may not become a law unto themselves while expecting others to obey the law. The supreme court of India in Aravinder Singh Bagga vs. State of Utter Pradesh reported in All India Reporter 1994 laid down that the state shall pay compensation to all persons illegally detained and humiliated for no fault of theirs.

The victim in this case is still in prison and denied of bail, while bail is the rule and committal to jail an exception. In the words of Justice V.R. Krishna Iyar “…the issue is one of liberty, justice, public safety, and burden of public treasury all of which insist that a developed jurisprudence of bail is integral to a socially sensitized judicial process.” The Supreme Court of India in Moti Ram vs. State of MP Supreme Court Cases p. 47, held that the consequences of pretrial detention are grave. Defendants presumed innocent are subjected to psychological and physical deprivation in life during their time in jail. Conditions during pretrial detention in India are sometimes worse than those imposed upon convicted defendants. The jailed defendants loose their job, if the person has one, and is prevented from contributing to the preparation of his defence. Equally important, is the burden of rescuing the person from detention falls heavily on innocent members of his family.

Had the police in West Bengal been operating in compliance with the law, incidents as reported in this case would not have happened. It shows that discipline and commitment to duty is not ensured within the rank and file in the force. Violence by the police against the poor and other forms of corruption and crimes committed by the police with impunity is a threat to the the rule of law. Such a force is a threat to the entire country.

I therefore request you:

1. That the complaints of custodial torture in this case be investigated by an independent agency;
2. That the statements of the victims recorded immediately by a judicial officer;
3. The alleged officers placed on immediate suspension;
4. The victims should be produced before appropriate medical officer for treatment;
5. The victims and the witnesses shall be provided adequate protection immediately;
6. The victim released on bail without further delay;
7. The entire investigation supervised by a judicial officer and the victim or a member of their family is informed about the progress of the investigation:
8. The government pay an interim compensation to the victim pending the final disposal of their complaints by a court of law.

AUTHOR: William Nicholas Gomes
URL: www.williamgomes.org
E-MAIL: williamgomes.org [at] gmail.com

Re: SRI LANKA: Former army officer arbitrarily detained and tortured without trial

Dear Attorney General of Sri Lanka,

Name of the victim: Mr. R D Wickramasinghe (51) of No: 30/A, “Srikatha”, Yatihalagala, Kandy
Alleged perpetrator: Officers attached to the CID of Sri Lanka Police
Date of incident: 26 June 2006
Place of incident: CID of Sri Lanka Police

I am writing to express my serious concern over the case of Mr. R D Wickramasinghe (51) of No: 30/A, “Srikatha”, Yatihalagala, Kandy. Mr. Wickramasinghe has been arbitrarily detained in an unknown location for four years and eight months without trial. He is married and the father of three teenage children.

Mr. Wickramasinghe is a graduate of the University of Peradeniya. He was a captain in the Sri Lankan Army until 2003 when he resigned from his post to become a teacher. He started work at the Gurudeniya Maha Vidiyalaya in the district of Kandy teaching political science and economics, in addition to being the official cadet officer at the school. His wife, Ms. Chandrika Jayaratne is also a teacher; she works at Ambathenna Primary School.

On 26 June 2006 Mr. Wickramasinghe received a phone message from a person who identified himself as Fernando. The caller asked him to meet him at Dambulla. Since Mr. Wickramasinghe has a friend named Fernando, he thought he would be meeting his friend. Accordingly, Mr. Wickramasinghe went to the Dambulla bus stand to meet his friend. As he was waiting, a group of people approached him and pushed him into a van. Later, he learnt that his friend, Fernando, had been arrested and blackmailed so that he would leave the phone message.

Mr. Wickramasinghe was taken to an old building where he was arbitrarily held in the basement, blindfolded and with his hands tied behind his back. After two days, he was transported to the Criminal Investigation Division (CID) office where he was forced to translate a Tamil letter and rewrite it in Sinhala. According to Mr. Wickramasinghe, the letter was about five policemen. Mr. Wickramasinghe believes that he was forced to translate this letter so that that his abductors could file fabricated charges against him. He was also asked to sign a number of documents. When he refused, the officers threatened to rape his wife and daughter.

Since Mr. Wickramasinghe went missing, his family members have been frantically searching for him. Eleven days after he disappeared, Mr. Wickramasinghe contacted his family to let them know that he was being detained at the CID office in Colombo. Ms. Chandrika, Mr. Wickramasinghe’s wife, was called to the fourth floor of the CID and questioned on two occasions. She was asked whether she and her husband had provided shelter to any suspected LTTE terrorists. She denied all the allegations. A few days later, Chandrika went to the CID office again to enquire after her husband. She was allowed to meet him, but they were not allowed to speak in private.

Despite the lack of privacy, Mr. Wickramainghe told Ms. Chandrika that he was being held by an unknown group which he suspected to be a paramilitary group. Since he was blindfolded, he could not tell her of his location. He went on to reveal that he had been detained without proper food and had been severely tortured. At one point, he said that he had begged his abductors to kill him because he could not endure the pain they were subjecting him to. After about twelve days, the suspected paramilitary group handed him over to the CID. He was detained for three months at the CID office. During this time, he was forced to sign several documents which he had not been allowed to read.

He was finally brought before the Colombo magistrate and detained at the Colombo Remand Prison (CRP) at Welikada. He was made to appear before the Colombo Magistrate Court every fourteen days. Wickramasinghe was then transferred to Bogambara Remand Prison in December, 2010. He is now set to appear in the Kandy High Court.

Mr. Wickramasinghe and his family state that his basic human rights enshrined in the Constitution of Sri Lanka were violated. They call for his immediate release and rehabilitation.

Sri Lanka signed and ratified the CAT (Convention Against Torture) on 3 January 1994. Following state obligations, Sri Lanka adopted Act No. 22 of 1994. This law adopted by the Sri Lankan parliament makes torture a crime that is punishable for a minimum of seven years and maximum of ten years if the suspect is proven guilty. The Attorney General of Sri Lanka is supposed to file indictments in cases where credible evidence is found of torture by state officials.

Please note that I have also written a separate letter to the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment on this regard.

I request your urgent intervention to ensure that the authorities listed below instigate an immediate investigation into the allegations of illegal arrest, illegal detention, torture by the police perpetrators, and the prosecution of those proven to be responsible under the criminal law of the country for misusing powers of state officers and for wrongful prosecution. The officers involved must also be subjected to internal investigations for the breach of the department orders as issued by the police department.

Yours sincerely,

AUTHOR: William Nicholas Gomes
URL: www.williamgomes.org
E-MAIL: williamgomes.org [at] gmail.com

Honorable Foreign Ministers,

I have the honor of writing you in the name of the victims of the former Chadian dictator Hissène Habré, accused of committing thousands of political killings and systematic torture between 1982 and 1990. The victims have been fighting for more than twenty-one years to bring Habré to justice, and a number of survivors have already died.

As you know, in July 2006, the heads of state and governments of the African Union gave hope to the victims when they mandated Senegal “to prosecute and ensure that Hissène Habré is tried, on behalf of Africa, by a competent Senegalese court with guarantees for fair trial.” More than five years later, Senegal has yet to execute this mandate and has now informed the African Union that Habré will not be tried in Senegal.

Following the refusal of Senegal to prosecute Habré, the Chadian government took the responsible decision on 22 July 2011 to ask Senegal to extradite Habré to Belgium, a country which had already sought his extradition in 2005. Senegalese courts recently declared a Belgian extradition request inadmissible on technical grounds, but Belgium has said it will file a new extradition request by late January. On 4 January 2012, Senegalese President Abdoulaye Wade announced that he will extradite Habré to Belgium if the courts approve the request.

I support this option as time is the critical factor in this case. Extraditing Habré to Belgium is the most practical and timely option to ensure that he responds to the charges against him with all the guarantees of a fair trial.

In Belgium, a trial could be organized quickly. A Belgian investigating judge, with the assistance of police detectives specialized in the prosecution of crimes against humanity, examined the charges for four years. The team visited Chad in 2002, interviewing Habré’s former accomplices and victims of his regime and analyzing thousands of documents from the archives of Habré’s political police. This strong evidence allowed a Belgian judge to indict Habré on charges of crimes against humanity, war crimes, and torture.

I take note of the willingness of Rwanda to organize this trial in response to an inquiry from the African Union. This offer brings honor to Rwanda, which has also suffered from atrocities committed on its territory.

However, we believe that pursuing this option would call into question the African Union’s efforts to see Habré tried within the strict confines of the law, meaning that the fate of the case should be decided by the courts in accordance with Senegal’s international legal obligations. The law offers a clear response to Senegal’s refusal, for more than five years, to discharge the African Union’s mandate: the extradition of Habré to Belgium.

Moreover, we are particularly concerned that additional years may be needed for Rwanda to enact a legal framework allowing its courts to prosecute crimes that have no direct link to the country, to secure financing for the trial, to restart a complex transnational investigation, and finally to request Habré’s extradition. These are years in which more survivors are likely to die.

I understand and share the desire to see Habré tried in Africa. More than anyone, I have relentlessly attempted to bring about such a trial for years. Despite our efforts, the time has come to face the fact that the justice tirelessly sought by the victims has not been forthcoming and that, since 1990, the victims have been subjected to what Archbishop Desmond Tutu and 117 groups from 25 African countries denounced in July 2010 as an “interminable political and legal soap opera.”

In July 2011, Navi Pillay, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, reminded Senegal that “it is a violation of international law to shelter a person who has committed torture or other crimes against humanity, without prosecuting or extraditing him.” In November 2011, the UN Committee against Torture also reminded Senegal of its obligations under the Torture Convention to either prosecute Habré or extradite him to another country which has sought his extradition – in this case Belgium.

Today the most realistic option to avoid impunity for the mass crimes allegedly committed by Hissène Habré, and the option supported by Chad, is to extradite him for trial to Belgium.

I call on the African Union to support this option so that the victims can finally obtain justice.

I thank you in advance for your attention to this matter and kindly request that you accept my highest consideration.

Sincerely,

AUTHOR: William Nicholas Gomes
URL: www.williamgomes.org
E-MAIL: williamgomes.org [at] gmail.com

Ms. Eva Wanasundara, Attorney General, ag@attorneygeneral.gov.lk

Re: SRI LANKA: Former soldier arrested and arbitrarily detained

Dear Attorney General of Sri Lanka,

Name of the victim: Mr. Saman Sampath Rajapakse (34) of No: A/182/24, Adurapotha, Kegalle
Alleged perpetrator: Officers attached to the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) of the Sri Lanka Police
Date of incident: 5 February 2008
Place of incident: Custody of the CID Police of Sri Lanka

I am writing to express my serious concern over the case of Mr. Saman Sampath Rajapakse (34) of No: A/182/24, Adurapotha, Kegalle. Saman was a soldier attached to the Commando Regiment of the Sri Lanka Army. He was married to Ms. Jayanthi Wickramasinghe with whom he had two daughters. At the request of his family members, Saman resigned from the Army and began work as a self-employed painter.

On 5 February 2008 as Saman was doing his work, he was arrested in Rambukkana by a number of police officers who had arrived in a white van. They claimed to be from Colombo. Saman was brought to the police station in Colombo and then handed over to the Petta Police Station, where he was detained for almost two weeks. The reasons for his arrest and detention were never revealed to him.

Mr. Saman was then handed over to the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) of Sri Lanka by the Petta Police Station on 26 February 2008. As he was being transferred, he was told that he was being detained for further investigations. He was detained for over a year at the CID office in Colombo. During this time, he was questioned and severely tortured on a regular basis. He was hung from the ceiling, covered with an empty petrol bag and severely beaten. He was refused medical treatment. The police officers questioned him about a Tamil woman named Vadani. Saman clearly stated that he had no knowledge of such a woman. He was also accused of attempting to murder Ministers Keheliya Rabukwella and Ranjith Siayabalapitiya; accusations which he denied. He explained that he had never committed a crime, and maintained that to his knowledge, a legal complaint had never been filed against him. Mr. Saman categorically denied all the allegations laid against him. He said that the police officers refused to reveal motives, facts or circumstances surrounding these supposed crimes.

The CID officers forced Saman to sign a number of blank papers for reasons that were not explained to him. He explained that he signed because he was afraid that he would be tortured if he did not sign the papers. He was refused legal counsel or the opportunity to speak with a senior police officer about his situation. He was not produced before any doctor or any senior police officers or judicial officer before signing the blank papers.

Saman was produced before the Magistrate of Colombo and remanded at the Colombo Remand Prison on 29 January 2009. Later, he learned that he had been accused of committing a crime under the Prevention of Terrorism Act, but a detailed chargesheet had yet to be filed. He also learned that the CID officers had filed two cases against him; one in the Magistrate Court of Kegalle under case No: B/1197/11 and another in the High Court of Kegalle under case No: 3059/11. He is to appear before a judge for both cases on 8 May 2012. Soon after, Saman was transferred to Bogambara Remand Prison. His remand number is No: 658.

Mr. Saman believes that he was arrested and arbitrarily detained by the CID officers as punishment for resigning from the Army. He has been detained for more than three years. He calls for his immediate release and the guarantee of his basic rights enshrined by the Constitution of Sri Lanka.

I request your urgent intervention to ensure that the authorities listed below instigate an immediate investigation into the allegations of illegal arrest, illegal detention, torture by the police perpetrators, and the prosecution of those proven to be responsible under the criminal law of the country for misusing powers of state officers and for wrongful prosecution. The officers involved must also be subjected to internal investigations for the breach of the department orders as issued by the police department.

Yours sincerely,

AUTHOR: William Nicholas Gomes
URL: www.williamgomes.org
E-MAIL: williamgomes.org [at] gmail.com