Archives

(Dr. Neelan Tiruchelvam's death anniversary falls today. We reproduce here his speech in Parliament on the Emergency Debate on June 15, 1999)

I wish to point out that we have consistently appealed to both sides to end the war and do revive political negotiations. When the cessation of hostilities ended in May 1995, we expressed our dismay and drew attention to the terrible consequences war would have on ordinary people.

Dr. Neelan Tiruchelvam

Since that day, no other political formation has been as consistent and persistent as in our appeal to both sides to bring an end to the human suffering, displacement, destruction and senseless loss of lives, both of combatants and of civilians. In the event that there are any ambiguities or uncertainties on this issue, I was to reiterate that non-violence is the central article of our political faith. We cannot glorify death whether in the battlefield or otherwise. We, on the other hand, must celebrate life, and are fiercely committed to protecting and securing the sanctity of life, which is the most fundamental value without which all other rights and freedoms become meaningless.

We do not for a moment underestimate the complexities of negotiations, given the legacy of distrust on both sides that needs to be overcome. There are also the complications arising from the continuing frustrations in forging a Southern consensus, the seeming confusion, internecine killings, and lack of coherence within the Tamil and Muslim political formations. Despite all these difficulties, there needs to be a concerted effort to develop a negotiating framework that can command the widest possible support. Such a negotiating framework must include at least minimal acceptance, by both sides, of the norms and standards relating to international human rights and a determination to restore peace, normalcy, civil society and democratic governance.

The International Bill of Rights (the Universal Declaration and the Covenants on Civil and Political Rights and on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights), the Declaration on Minorities, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, and the Convention on the Rights of the Child provide us with a rich harvest of concepts, ideas and principles, which can inform and discipline any negotiating process.

Similarly, international humanitarian standards help us to address the problems of internally displaced persons, prisoners of war, and humanitarian relief, which arise in the resolution of issues in an internal conflict. A clear and unequivocal acceptance, by both sides, of the International Bill of Rights and international humanitarian law would represent a significant step forward. We can no longer offer empty platitudes and meaningless slogans such as peace through war to a long-suffering people.

To protract a war for domestic political purposes, or for consolidating the hegemony of a politico-militry formation, is to commit an unpardonable crime. There is a heavy moral and political responsibility on the principal opposition party to play a constructive and imaginative role in the search for a solution. Many speakers on both sides of the House have frequently expressed dismay and disappointment at their negative approach to the substantive political issues which have contributed to protracting the war and the conflict. Anyone who believes that there is short-term political gain in subordinating the issues of peace and reconciliation to expediency is committing a serious error of judgement.

I wish to draw your attention to a very important recent report of Amnesty International, released on June 1, 1999, on the issue of torture, which is directly linked to the State of Emergency.

We have, in our Constitution, a provision that makes prohibition against torture an absolute value from which there can be no derogation or limitation by legislation, emergency regulation or executive action. But the harsh reality is that the ground situation differs fundamentally from this high constitutional premise. The Amnesty International report points out:

"For years torture has been amongst the most common human rights violations reported in Sri Lanka. It continues to be reported almost (if not) daily in the context of the ongoing armed conflict between the security forces and the LTTE. In addition police officers regularly torture criminal suspects and people taken into custody in the context of disputes over land and other private issues.

The routine of interrogation, even in regard to ordinary crime, has been the practice of torture. The scale of this problem is reflected in the complaints received by government-appointed investigative bodies, decisions of the Supreme Court and testimonies obtained by Amnesty International. The Committee to Inquire into Unlawful Arrests and Harassment received 47 complaints between July and December 1998. The Supreme Court has awarded compensation to torture victims in numerous cases. The recent report of Amnesty International provides disturbing new evidence of the torture of political prisoners, women, children, and criminal suspects and the use of unauthorized places of detention.

Torture is also linked to other human rights violations, particularly disappearances, death in custody and rape. Amnesty has observed, "many of the thousands of cases of disappearances reported in Sri Lanka since the early 1980s concern detainees alleged to have died under torture in Police or Army custody whose bodies were subsequently disposed of in secret".

Three Presidential Commissions of Inquiry were appointed to inquire into disappearances, since January 1, 1988. They found disappearances in 16,750 cases. Even as late as in 1997, the UN Working Group on Disappearances registered 77 cases, the highest number of disappearances reported to them from any one country. The Working Group has pointed out that, of the disappearances that were recorded in 53 countries that they surveyed during 1989-1990, the highest number was in Sri Lanka. Still in 1997 the highest number of reported cases of disappearances in any country in the world remained that of Sri Lanka.

The Committee on Torture made a series of recommendations to the Government, in respect of which no meaningful steps have been taken for more than one year. I would like to refer to two particular recommendations. The first relates to the review of the Emergency Regulations and the Prevention of Terrorism Act, as well as the rules of practice pertaining to detention, to ensure that they conform to the provisions of the Convention against Torture. Our rules with regard to preventive detention must be brought in line with international norms.

The second recommendation is that all allegations of torture past, present and future, must be promptly and effectively investigated and recommendations implemented without delay. The Supreme Court has frequently expressed frustrations at the prevailing climate of impunity in relation to torture. In eight judgements by the Supreme Court in 1997 and 1998 the Court found that police officers were guilty of torture, and the Court recommended that further investigations take place in respect of them. Today, there are seven indictments currently before the High Court against several of these police officers.

Both Amnesty and the Committee Against Torture have urged that firmer action be taken against perpetrators of torture. The Amnesty report has also argued that there is a multiplicity of commissions that inquire into this matter. Amnesty has argued the need for a simple procedure, to be implemented by an independent authority with appropriate powers and expertise, to investigate complaints of torture by law enforcement personnel.

The Amnesty report also documents incidents of torture by Tamil militant groups operating in the North-East. Some are political parties represented in Parliament. I would urge them to make an unequivocal commitment to end torture as a routine practice in their interrogations, and I would also urge the authorities concerned to investigate those incidents which are documented in the Amnesty International report.

I also wish to point out the internecine killings that are taking place again between many of these former militant groups, who claim that they have entered the democratic process. I would urge them to bring to an end to these internecine killings and to view with seriousness the repulsion that the general public feels with regard to this issue.

There is one more issue, which I would like to raise before I conclude. That is the proposal of the Government to reintroduce the death penalty. The last hanging in this country took place in 1976. Although the death penalty remains part of our statute book and death sentences are passed, they are automatically commuted. In view of the disturbing incidence of gruesome crime and the increase in crime, it has been proposed that the death sentence should apply in a limited number of circumstances.

I refer to the statement that has been issued by the Presidential Secretariat with regard to this matter. It states that the death penalty will now be carried out in accordance with a procedure where it will seek the recommendations of the trial judge, the Attorney-General and the Ministry of Justice as to whether such a sentence should be executed. I would like to express my strong moral opposition to this measure.

Firstly, in a society where the sanctity of life continues to be debased, it is morally wrong to enforce the death penalty even in these limited circumstances.

Secondly, the UN Commission on Human Rights recently passed a resolution asking all countries that have the death penalty in their statute books to refrain from implementing it and to suspend operations with regard to the death penalty. So after the last hanging in 1976, Sri Lanka now goes back in history, and against the trend of international public opinion, to revive the death penalty. It would, in my respectful view, be a retrograde step.

Thirdly, there is no credible evidence that the death penalty ever served as an effective deterrent against crime. There has been a large body of scientific studies on this and, up to date, there has been no credible evidence on this point.

Fourthly, even in the United Kingdom, there have been instances where the death penalty was imposed on persons who were subsequently found innocent of the crimes. Given the imperfections of our system, it would be a terrible mistake to implement so severe a penalty in these circumstances.

So, for these reasons, I would record our opposition to this measure and urge that the Government and the Opposition have an opportunity to debate fully this important proposal with regard to the administration of justice.

www.crescat.com

News | Business | Features | Editorial | Security
Politics | World | Letters | Sports | Obituaries

Produced by Lake House
Copyright © 2003 The Associated Newspapers of Ceylon Ltd.
Comments and suggestions to :Web Manager