- Failure to recommend action against State and non-State perpetrators
The Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka (HRCSL) conducted an investigation into the Digana anti-Muslim riots in 2018. Its findings were published seven years later in the Report of the Inquiry into Violent Events in Digana and Environs in the District of Kandy in March 2018.
The complaints filed by most victims and complainants were not only against thugs armed with clubs, but also against the Special Task Force (STF) for serious unlawful acts including criminal intimidation and coercion, torture, and arbitrary arrests based on cooked up charges.
A.C.M. Irfan who appeared in a documentary released last year (2024), questioning the delay in releasing the HRCSL report on the Digana racist attacks, had both his legs broken during the riots.
According to a complaint lodged by one individual, when he left the Hijrapura mosque after evening prayers with around 40-50 other devotees on 4 March 2018, a group covering their faces, arrived in a vehicle resembling an STF jeep, and assaulted him and several others with gun barrels and clubs.
Evidence
“According to the complainant, a vehicle resembling an STF jeep had suddenly stopped in front of the mosque. The passengers had their faces covered, were carrying poles and were in uniforms wearing caps emblazoned with the STF emblem.”
Corroborating the original complainant’s statement, another who was present in the Mosque had complained to the HRCSL that STF soldiers had assaulted a group including himself and escorted them about 50 metres away from the Mosque.
According to the third complaint, when the complainant and another were at home, a group of people clad in STF soldiers garb resembling the STF had broken into the house, beaten them with batons, and had taken both men to a nearby Christian church.
Confirming this complainant’s statement, his friend who had been with him in the house also gave evidence before the HRCSL.
“This complainant had at this point been bleeding from a head injury. After the injury was pointed out, the complainant had received some ice from the STF officers. The two persons were taken to the Theldeniya Police Station around 6 p.m. to record their statements. The third complainant had thereafter been transferred to the Theldeniya Base Hospital. This complainant presented photographs of his injury to the officers of the HRCSL.”
Corroborating his statement, the other person who was with him in the house also gave evidence before the HRCSL.
“He also said that the STF officers had made him put some bottles in a bag and carry them all the way to the Digana church, which he did. The complainant stated that he had lodged a complaint against the STF with the Police on 13 March 2018. This complainant had also been charged with the possession of petrol bombs.”
Stating that the charges were false and malicious, the Theldeniya Court acquitted and released the two individuals from the case filed against them for allegedly possessing petrol bombs. However, the HRCSL report released seven years later is silent about this.
According to the testimony of the Assistant Superintendent of Police A. Ranasinghe of the Gampola STF Camp, he was the one who deployed a group of soldiers to the Hijrapura Mosque in order to ‘contain’ the Muslims there. This deployment was based on information provided by a Grama Niladhari ‘over the phone’, claiming that Muslims were congregating at the Hijrapura Mosque to attack Sinhalese coming from Digana. When the injured stated that they had been assaulted by those soldiers, the commanding officer had protected his troops by denying the allegations before the HRCSL. Even though the HRCSL quoted Ranasinghe’s statement, the report does not indicate whether he was cross examined about its veracity.
Video footage released by the Journalists for Democracy in Sri Lanka (JDS) website at the time showing STF soldiers assaulting Muslims near the Mosque were circulated via various media outlets over the past seven years. While the complainants had provided these visuals to the HRCSL’s investigation team, it is clear that no further action was taken in this regard.
ICCPR Act against doctors
The HRCSL report has also downplayed the racially biased conduct of Sinhalese doctors when the aforementioned complainants were taken to the Theldeniya Hospital to obtain treatment for head injuries caused by STF soldiers’ assaults.
According to the HRCSL report, the doctor who provided initial treatment at the Hospital had told the complainant in Sinhala, “you should have been put in a cell, not in a Hospital.”
However, the report does not mention what action, if any, the HRCSL took regarding these doctors. Haven’t those doctors intentionally violated the law as well as medical ethics? They have also deliberately insulted patients on the basis of their ethnicity and religion. Should the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) Act not be enforced against such individuals? If doctors act based on a person’s ethnicity, it is professional misconduct. Did the HRCSL inform the health authorities or the Sri Lanka Medical Council about this? At the very least, were these doctors summoned before the investigation committee?
The HRCSL claims that it did not properly receive the written and electronic evidence sought from the complainants. What is this trying to show? That is also what we are trying to point out – that is the extent of the HRCSL’s irresponsible and watered down policy. The HRCSL has the power and right to directly call any form of evidence, be it written, oral or electronic. Why put the burden of proof on the already traumatised victims themselves?
It is a well-known fact that in Sri Lanka, patients’ records – especially those of patients undergoing judicial medical examinations – are not directly handed over to the patients. Even Police officers in charge of investigations do not have the authority to directly obtain such reports in Sri Lanka.
It is a complex and time-consuming process. Judicial medical reports are submitted to the courts. It does not appear that the HRCSL's investigation team were unaware of this. Are Muslim victims expected to obtain medical reports from the Sinhala doctors themselves who suggested that they should be "in cells without receiving treatment?"
Loyal to the security forces?
The policy employed with regard to soldiers and Police officers is also clearly evident. Had the HRCSL wanted, it would have been possible to identify the offending soldiers by consulting the camp commanders in charge. The HRCSL is surely in a position to officially find out which soldiers were on duty during the times in question and who commanded them.
When the HRCSL report was delayed for seven years, Muslim victims repeatedly expressed doubts stating that the HRCSL was delaying the report because it was unable to reveal that the attacks involved both civilians and the security forces. Seven years later, the report seems to prove the victims right.
According to the former Senior Deputy Inspector General of Police in charge of the Central Province, S.M. Wickramasinghe, there had been early reports of an organised attack on Muslims. However, noting that the Police force in the area lacked the manpower to control the situation owing to the number of violent people who had entered the area, Wickramasinghe said that even the two riot control units deployed by the Police Headquarters were unable to control the situation.
However, the wife of the Head of the Sinhala extremist outfit ‘Mahason Balakaya,’ Amith Weerasinghe, the only person identified by the HRCSL as having led anti-Muslim violent acts, and Buddhist monk Ampitiye Sumanarathana of Batticaloa allege that the Police officer was behind the attacks. However, the HRCSL appears indifferent to it. There is a question as to what sort of intervention the HRCSL made when a person facing so many allegations was later appointed as the Ombudsman for Public Grievances. The HRCSL should have at least questioned it in the report.
At the same time, when Weerasinghe contested the Kundasale Pradeshiya Sabha in his usual racist stance during the last Local Government Elections, did the HRCSL take any action based on the presumption that further anti-Muslim violence could occur? As far as we are aware, no action was taken. It should be noted that despite the fact that Divisional Secretaries (DSs) and even priests of other religions in the area had informed the HRCSL of his racist practices, he was allowed to freely contest the Elections as a public representative due to the HRCSL’s laidback policy.
The HRCSL has also obtained evidence from people in the public administration sector such as DSs. However, when looking at the evidence, it seems that it does not reveal the truth about the violence unleashed against Muslim victims. Instead, it is confined to statements relevant to certain administrative fields including matters such as social welfare and compensation following the attacks.
Administrative issues are more important to the HRCSL than racism
The HRCSL seems to have paid extensive attention to these issues. It has, in particular, gone to lengths in its recommendations over resources available to the fire brigade, issues concerning their deployment for duties, administrative crises, and limitations of manpower.
Although all of these factors are important when it comes to containing riots and violent acts, the HRCSL should have considered them as secondary while giving priority instead to the accountability concerning the attacks. Had it done so, information about the implicated members of the security forces and Government officials would have come to light, and the necessary background could have been created to enforce the law against them. That is also what victim-complainants and witnesses expected from the HRCSL.
After a long list of excuses for delaying the report, the HRCSL has published it last September, limiting itself to a handful of very run of the mill recommendations.
Almost all the recommendations presented for the Ministries of Law and Order, Youth Affairs, Sports, Women and Children, and Public Administration and Management are not new submissions. Supplementary recommendations include implementing the recommendations issued by the Supreme Court and the HRCSL with regard to Section 3 of the ICCPR Act. Apart from these, the only noteworthy supplementary recommendation is the proposal to establish an authority to prosecute serious HR committed by public officials.
At the end of the day, this is what we have to say to the HRCSL Chairperson at the time, and the head of the investigation team Prof. Deepika Udagama and the then HRCSL Commissioner, attorney Ghazali Hussain: the Muslim victims appeared before your committee amidst numerous distressing circumstances, threats and intimidations, provided credible evidence, and expressed their grievances with the hope of obtaining justice, and not expecting a report that whitewashes the real perpetrators.
It would not be surprising if someone were to go to court against the HRCSL regarding the report’s recommendations, as well as the report itself not being published in the languages spoken by the victims or by the majority of the country’s population, and seek that it be declared a violation of fundamental rights.
“The Parliamentary Select Committee to Study and Report to the Parliament its Recommendations to Ensure Communal and Religious Harmony in Sri Lanka” established in 2019 under the Chairpersonship of the former Speaker of the Parliament Karu Jayasuriya, states the following about anti-Muslim violence: “The recent incidents of serious violence in the Kalutara, Galle, Ampara and Kandy Districts have exposed the Police Department’s inexcusable delays to enforce the law and the Attorney General’s failure in most instances to prosecute the perpetrators of violence. Weaknesses in law enforcement can encourage further conflict and must be addressed as urgent measures are required to ensure that the alleged complicity of law enforcement officers are investigated and dealt with by an independent institution such as the HRC.”
Did the HRCSL pay attention to any of this? How powerful and important are the above-mentioned lines from the Parliamentary report, even nominally, compared to the entire report published by the HRCSL on anti-Muslim violence in the Kandy District?
(The writer is a freelance journalist)
–-------------------------------
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author, and do not necessarily reflect those of this publication