Amnesty International on

RAPE IN CUSTODY IN SRI LANKA

Introduction

Sinnathamby Sivamany (aged 24) and Ehamparam Wijikala (aged 22), two Tamil women internally displaced by the ongoing armed conflict in the north and east of Sri Lanka, were arrested by members of the navy in the coastal city of Mannar on 19 March 2001. They were subsequently raped by navy personnel and members of the Special Investigation Unit (SIU) of the police at the office of the Counter-Subversive Unit (CSU) of the police along Pallimunai Road, approximately 500 metres outside Mannar town.

Ehamparam Wijikala’s partner and the 6-year-old son of Sinnathamby Sivamany were also taken into custody. They were all taken to the CSU office in a white van. Ehamparam Wijikala, in a petition to the Supreme Court, alleges that she and her partner were taken inside the CSU office. Her partner was locked in a cell, she was taken into a separate room. The Officer-in-Charge (OIC) was also there in the room. He asked her to sit on the floor and she complied. The OIC then asked a male police officer named Rajah to bring a piece of cloth. Rajah blindfolded her with the piece of cloth. She was told to remove her clothes. When she refused she was beaten and her clothes were forcibly removed by them. Then, while some of them held her hands and legs one person got on top of her, soon afterwards followed by another one. She said they both raped her.

Sinnathamby Sivamany has testified that soon after Ehamparam Wijikala and her partner had been taken into the CSU office, a navy personnel came to the van and took away her son. Another navy officer then climbed into the van and blindfolded her with a sock aided by the driver of the van. Then this officer forcibly removed her clothes and raped her. After about 15 minutes he left the van. Some time after that she was taken inside the CSU office to the room in which Ehamparam Wijikala was being held and the security forces personnel present there beat her demanding that she remove her clothes. When she refused, Rajah ordered Ehamparam Wijikala to remove Sinnathamby Sivamany’s clothes. Both women were made to parade naked in front of the men. They were then made to sit in a crouched position; their hands and legs were tied and attached to a pole which was then placed between two tables so they were left hanging. They were in this position for about 90 minutes and were pinched and beaten with a thick wire during that time.

The victims were threatened with further torture unless they signed a statement admitting they were members of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), the armed political group which for nearly two decades has been fighting for autonomy for the Tamil community living in the north and east of Sri Lanka.

Both women signed such statements.

Sinnathamby Sivamany and Ehamparam Wijikala were taken to the District Medical Officer (DMO) of Mannar district on 22 March. It is not clear why the police did this but it may have been an attempt to pervert any future investigations. Apparently due to threats from the CSU officers taking them to hospital and the fact that the officers remained present throughout the time in the DMO’s office, both women refused to be examined. In his medico-legal examination form of 22 March 2001, however, the DMO ticked the “no injuries” box instead of indicating that he in fact had not carried out any medical examination.

The two women were produced before the local magistrate at his bungalow on 27 March -- eight days after their arrest. They were produced around 6.30pm, i.e. after court hours. They were reportedly told by police officers accompanying them that they were being taken to a senior police officer and warned not to complain or otherwise they (i.e. the women) would be punished. As the magistrate was not wearing his official robe and was not at the court house, it was impossible for the women who were not from the area to be sure where they had been taken.

On the instructions of the magistrate and after the case had attracted a lot of publicity and non-governmental organizations and church leaders raised concern, the women were once again taken to the DMO for a medical examination on 30 March. This time, the DMO found marks on their bodies, including semi-circular abrasions consistent with nail marks on the elbows, forearms and wrists of Ehamparam Wijikala. He concluded that she had been tortured and raped and that Sinnathamby Sivamany was tortured and sexually assaulted. Rape could not be established. The magistrate later ordered an examination by a Judicial Medical Officer (JMO, senior to a DMO) in Colombo after the prison authorities informed him that the two women alleged they were raped. The JMO carried out his examination 18 days after the rape. He confirmed several injuries sustained due to the alleged torture inflicted on them and concluded that while “there were no positive findings to establish sexual intercourse”, it “cannot be ruled out as the absence of positive findings may be due to the fact that [they were] married with children and [that there had been a] 18 day delay” from the time of the alleged rape to the time of the examinations.

Although the magistrate had ordered the police to investigate the allegations of rape and arrest the suspects, local police had not acted on his instructions. After widespread protests, and after the then Minister of Justice and Chairman of the Committee to Inquire into Undue Arrest and Harassment ordered the police to investigate and arrest the suspects, police finally took action. (1) Twelve police officers and two navy officers were arrested. They were identified by the women during an identification parade. At the time of writing, no charges had been filed and the preliminary trial proceedings had not started. All alleged perpetrators had been released on bail. It is feared that in this case, like many other similar ones, those allegedly responsible for rape in custody will never be brought to justice.