Following is the transcript of an interview by Linda Lopresti of Radio Australia with Manfred Novak, UN Special Rapportuer on Torture for the Human Rights Council, following his recent visit to Sri Lanka.
NOWAK: First I should say that I was invited by the government, and I had the full cooperation of the government, but they did not want me to go to the LTTE area. So it means that I focussed more on the general criminal justice system and I went to all kind of prisons, pre-trial detention centres, and police lockups and I heard many allegations and they had a forensic doctor who also corroborated that evidence. But most of the evidence that I found was in relation to the terrorist investigation department, so that means against suspected LTTE persons.
LOPRESTI: And those that alleged they were being tortured, were being tortured by security forces?
NOWAK: They were both tortured according to their allegations by the army, but also by the police and the terrorism investigation department people themselves, whether it was at the headquarters of the terrorist investigation department, or also the criminal investigation department in Colombo, or in the detention facility in Pusar itself.
LOPRESTI: And what kind of methods are being used?
NOWAK: Mostly it is beatings, but various forms of beatings, but then suspension or what we sometimes call Palestinian hangings, so that you are suspended with your hands cuffed behind your back. In two cases, we also found torture methods which I have never seen before, which is that people have been suspended on their thumbs, that creates very, very strong pain and people then of course also were unconscious. These were allegations against the army.
LOPRESTI: Has the kind of torture worsened or is it more common, given that as far back as 1999, Amnesty International were saying that torture is among the most common human rights violations reported in Sri Lanka?
NOWAK: I mean torture has a long history in Sri Lanka, but after the ceasefire agreement with the LTTE, the situation certainly improved and in recent years, in particular under the present government and again under the emergency regulations you can detain persons up to one year by the police, so without being under pre-trial detention. And most of the persons whom we found had credible allegations of torture and those also that were cooperating for medical evidence. Those were persons held for a prolonged period of time under these detention orders.
LOPRESTI: But Sri Lanka does have measures in place to prevent torture. In 1994, the government in-acted the torture act, so is it your view that the law is not being upheld here?
NOWAK: No, I should also say that notwithstanding the serious situation of armed conflict, Sri Lanka is a country that has managed to uphold an independent judiciary and a democratic system. So the 1994 act is a very good example that torture was criminalised and we have quite a few cases where the Attorney-General indicted police officers or other persons for torture, but we have only had three convictions in those 13 years.
One of the reasons might be that the minimum sentence is very severe. It's seven years and that might be a disincentive for judges not to actually convict a person of torture. But I should add that in many other countries that I have visited, there's real impunity that nobody has ever been brought to justice for torture. This is not the case in Sri Lanka; so much is done, has been done and the government by inviting me also proved that it's willing to cooperate with the United Nations and to further improve the situation.
LOPRESTI: Yet earlier in October, Sri Lanka actually rejected demands for international monitoring of human rights in the country, after UN human rights chief Louise Arbour warned of a disturbing lack of investigation into reports of killings and abductions?
NOWAK: That is unfortunate. Louise Arbour and I made the same recommendation. It's my experience if the high commissioner of human rights establishes an office in a country, which has opposed monitoring and human rights cooperation functions, that usually improves the situation. I know that the government is in the course of establishing further domestic bodies for such monitoring. But, of course, international monitoring is always more effective unless you have really independent domestic bodies. So we also propose that a more independent national preventive mechanism should be established with the right to carry out unannounced visits to all places of detention. That is a very strong preventative tool.
NOWAK: First I should say that I was invited by the government, and I had the full cooperation of the government, but they did not want me to go to the LTTE area. So it means that I focussed more on the general criminal justice system and I went to all kind of prisons, pre-trial detention centres, and police lockups and I heard many allegations and they had a forensic doctor who also corroborated that evidence. But most of the evidence that I found was in relation to the terrorist investigation department, so that means against suspected LTTE persons.
LOPRESTI: And those that alleged they were being tortured, were being tortured by security forces?
NOWAK: They were both tortured according to their allegations by the army, but also by the police and the terrorism investigation department people themselves, whether it was at the headquarters of the terrorist investigation department, or also the criminal investigation department in Colombo, or in the detention facility in Pusar itself.
LOPRESTI: And what kind of methods are being used?
NOWAK: Mostly it is beatings, but various forms of beatings, but then suspension or what we sometimes call Palestinian hangings, so that you are suspended with your hands cuffed behind your back. In two cases, we also found torture methods which I have never seen before, which is that people have been suspended on their thumbs, that creates very, very strong pain and people then of course also were unconscious. These were allegations against the army.
LOPRESTI: Has the kind of torture worsened or is it more common, given that as far back as 1999, Amnesty International were saying that torture is among the most common human rights violations reported in Sri Lanka?
NOWAK: I mean torture has a long history in Sri Lanka, but after the ceasefire agreement with the LTTE, the situation certainly improved and in recent years, in particular under the present government and again under the emergency regulations you can detain persons up to one year by the police, so without being under pre-trial detention. And most of the persons whom we found had credible allegations of torture and those also that were cooperating for medical evidence. Those were persons held for a prolonged period of time under these detention orders.
LOPRESTI: But Sri Lanka does have measures in place to prevent torture. In 1994, the government in-acted the torture act, so is it your view that the law is not being upheld here?
NOWAK: No, I should also say that notwithstanding the serious situation of armed conflict, Sri Lanka is a country that has managed to uphold an independent judiciary and a democratic system. So the 1994 act is a very good example that torture was criminalised and we have quite a few cases where the Attorney-General indicted police officers or other persons for torture, but we have only had three convictions in those 13 years.
One of the reasons might be that the minimum sentence is very severe. It's seven years and that might be a disincentive for judges not to actually convict a person of torture. But I should add that in many other countries that I have visited, there's real impunity that nobody has ever been brought to justice for torture. This is not the case in Sri Lanka; so much is done, has been done and the government by inviting me also proved that it's willing to cooperate with the United Nations and to further improve the situation.
LOPRESTI: Yet earlier in October, Sri Lanka actually rejected demands for international monitoring of human rights in the country, after UN human rights chief Louise Arbour warned of a disturbing lack of investigation into reports of killings and abductions?
NOWAK: That is unfortunate. Louise Arbour and I made the same recommendation. It's my experience if the high commissioner of human rights establishes an office in a country, which has opposed monitoring and human rights cooperation functions, that usually improves the situation. I know that the government is in the course of establishing further domestic bodies for such monitoring. But, of course, international monitoring is always more effective unless you have really independent domestic bodies. So we also propose that a more independent national preventive mechanism should be established with the right to carry out unannounced visits to all places of detention. That is a very strong preventative tool.
