<<back to part 1 of this document
5. The Case of Angaline Roshana.
“The laws of the country are too weak.” This observation was not made
by one of Sri Lanka’s uncounted victims of police abuse or official torture. Nor
did a lawyer defending a victim in court articulate the thought. The remark
belongs to a police officer who was, at the very moment he made it, in the act
of torturing an ordinary citizen. Weak laws were the reason Angaline Roshana,
who was twenty-five at the time, had to be assaulted in police custody and
deprived of her legal rights. This was a police inspector’s reasoning on
December 4, 2000, when Angaline was in police custody in the surburban town of
Narahenpita, in the hub of central Colombo (zone 8). The law had to be broken to
keep the law.
As it happened, in Angaline’s case the law did not prove to be too weak. She
eventually won a fundamental rights case in the Supreme Court and, much later, a
High Court judgment against the officers charged with assaulting her. Her story,
then, ends with justice being served. But it is a rare story, an exception in
Sri Lanka that regrettably proves the rule.
Angeline was at home on the evening of December 3, 2000, when at around
7:30pm, a group of men in civilian clothes arrived in a private vehicle and
forced her to accompany them to the police station. No reason was given. When
Angaline’s family protested, questioning the identity of the men, one of them (a
man who later turned out to be the Officer in Charge (OIC) of the Narahenpita
Police Station) threatened to break their teeth, and forced Angaline into the
vehicle before speeding away.
The police station was not their immediate destination. Instead, Angaline was
taken to the home of an affluent local woman for whom she had previously worked
as a washerwoman. The woman had complained to the police that some jewelry had
been stolen and had accused Angaline of the crime. Among the missing items was a
watch, which the woman said was worth half a million rupees—about five thousand
American dollars.
The woman accusing Angaline was a lawyer and appeared to be familiar with the
police officers—perhaps by way of her legal work. While the woman, her family,
and the police officers drank and socialized, Angaline was forced to search for
the watch over a period of four to five hours.
Having denied any knowledge of the theft, and having failed to find the
missing property, Angaline was then taken to the police station shortly after
midnight. There she was detained overnight, severely tortured, and forced to
sign a confession. Throughout the course of her detention, the police officers
frequently threatened to hang her up and beat her; these threats were usually
made when the Angaline’s former employer visited the police station.
Mr. Sanjeewa, a lawyer from the Human Rights Institute, and Dr. Nali Swaris
visited Angeline while in detention, and demanded that Angaline’s legal rights
be observed and that she be produced before the court without further delay. OIC
Shelton Saley supposedly laughed sarcastically, and remarked; “the laws of the
country are too weak. We are breaking the law to strengthen it.”
The act of taking a person into custody, without showing any police
identification or wearing the police uniform, amounts to kidnapping. Moreover,
Roshana was not informed about the reasons for her kidnapping or arrest.
Furthermore, she was tortured to obtain a confession, and she is still being
illegally detained.
Only on the following day, December 5th, did Angaline appear in the
magistrate court. On the magistrate’s orders, the Judicial Medical Officer (JMO)
conducted an official medical examination of Angaline’s injuries. The JMO’s
formal report identified seven contusions; the left shoulder, left upper arm
(front and back), right shoulder, left and right buttocks, and upper left thigh.
The report also indicates that Angaline’s injuries were two-four days old, and
caused with a blunt object consistent with the assault. His report is dated 7th
December 2000.
At the trial Roshana herself, and several other persons gave evidence. The
police officer also gave evidence, accepting the arrest but denying that any
torture had taken place. The trial was protracted and lasted for a period of
almost six years. The High Court judge held that the charges were proved beyond
reasonable doubt.
Having received legal assistance from the Asian Human Rights Commission from
the time of her arrest onward, Angaline took her case to two courts. The Supreme
Court ruled in June of 2002 that Saley, the OIC accused of her torture had
violated Angaline’s fundamental rights by way of torture and illegal detention;
compensation of 100,000 rupees was awarded.
In apparent retaliation, the police subsequently charged Angaline with theft
in the magistrate’s court—a case that was dismissed for lack of any evidence. In
July of 2007, the court found OIC Saley and police Constable, Stanley Tissera,
guilty of committing a gross human rights violation against Angaline. It is
believed to be only the third such conviction under the UN Convention against
Torture (CAT) Act of 1994, to which Sri Lanka is a state party. The act calls
for a mandatory sentence of seven years’ “rigorous imprisonment,” or hard
labour. Both officers were so sentenced; an additional year was added for each
officer in lieu of fines in the amount of ten thousand
rupees.
Angaline Roshana and
those who supported her can count her long ordeal a victory. What is the truth
at the core of this outcome?
Angaline triumphed, in effect, by subverting what must be recognized as the
existing order. She did this by upholding the law, not by breaking it. So does
her case lead us to the paradox at the heart of the Sri Lankan legal system—a
paradox perfectly captured in the police inspector’s remark to Angaline’s family
friend while she was in detention.
The paradox is very simply this: Those charged with enforcing the law in Sri
Lanka are the very people who least respect it. Those who are supposed to uphold
the law are the very people who often, and dangerously, break it. At the core of
their reasoning is a distinction between law and order that is not valid.
The convictions Angaline won under the CAT Act are to be welcomed. But given
the established record of the nation’s police and courts, three convictions
under these laws over the period of thirteen years is simply not enough. The
police inspector was wrong: Sri Lanka’s laws require strengthening, certainly,
but as Angaline demonstrated, they are sufficient to deliver justice. It is
their enforcement that is critically weak.
---------------------------------------------
The impact of the global campaign against terrorism
Perhaps there is an area in which the plight of lawyers in more developed
countries and others find similarities. That is the area of new laws which are
promulgated under the doctrine of the campaign against terrorism. Almost all
the rules that were once held sacrosanct are now being challenged and even
abandoned. The most obvious example is the relativisation of the principles
relating to torture. The rank that the right against torture held in the human
rights discourse has been undermined in many ways under the pretext that in the
pursuit of the elimination of terrorism the considerations against the use of
torture is no longer of the highest priority. Similarly, the rules relating to
illegal arrest, illegal detention, searches of persons and premises and almost
every other liberty is not being questioned when it comes to the issue of
categorizing a problem under anti-terrorism. While in the developed countries
these problems take the form of undermining these principles, what takes place
in a less developed country is to evolve principles which are the very opposites
of those enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other UN
conventions. It has become part of the doctrine of several states that killing
of arrested persons, either by way of custodial death or disappearances is a
legitimate means of dealing with someone suspected of terrorism. The criterion
used for judging a terrorist or someone who aids and abets terrorism is also
elastic. The normal processes of criminal investigations, prosecutions and trial
by an independent judiciary are considered now, more and more, as rights that
these persons are unworthy of having. Such changes of mentality achieved through
tremendous amounts of propaganda work, has its impact on the actual practice of
law before courts. The lawyers who undertake the work of defense of such
suspects themselves come under the suspicion of the community as well as the
state. The tremendous attitudinal changes in the judiciary itself often makes it
an uphill task for a lawyer to pursue even a very simple application on behalf
of his clients who happen to be of this category. We are living in a time where
a massive scale of political propaganda is displacing some of the most strongly
held beliefs regarding equality before law and fair trial.
The changes which take place in the process of pursuing suspected terrorists
are extended into the normal criminal justice process without much difficulty.
Restraint cultivated over long periods of time among the law enforcement
officers break down within a very short time when they are encouraged to
contravene principles of discipline in dealing with alleged terrorists. Once
lost these hardened habits of discipline do not come back easily. Experience
shows that these habits are lost for a whole generation and as a result, a new
generation of officers may have their training in a milieu in which the strong
habits of restraint in the use of power is not cultivated at all. This same
process has often been extended to the departments of prosecutors as well as to
the judiciary. Thus, the rule of law and democracy may suffer greatly form the
absence of system operators who have cultivated habits of more developed
criminal justice practices. All this affects the role of the lawyer.
In countries where they have been long periods of the operation of
anti-terrorism and emergency laws there are deliberate attempts to absorb the
lawyers also, into the network of corruption that develops in these times. Sadly
the numbers of lawyers who fall into that trap are not a few. These pressures
have tremendous repercussions for those conscientious lawyers who want to
practice their profession with dignity and honour.
Trying to find solutions to the lawyer’s problems
All these matters raised above pose questions to organisations such as
Lawyers for Lawyers and the Asian Human Rights Commission as to how to engage
with the lawyers who face such problems in order to develop various means to
address them. While it is essential to help lawyers who get into serious
problems on a one-to-one basis, it is quite obvious that that alone is not
sufficient to deal with the type of problems and obstructions that the lawyers
face today, which were discussed to some extent above.
I venture to suggest a few initiatives that may be useful in trying to
address them:
Cultivating understanding on problems faced by lawyers
So far there are no forums for ongoing discussion with a view to develop a
better understanding of the problems faced by lawyers, particularly the type of
problems mentioned above. While there are organisations such as the
International Bar Association, and Law Asia, the approaches of such
organisations are of a more conventional type and the space available for
creating greater awareness of the basic threats to the very notions of working
as a lawyer cannot be adequately addressed through available means. The living
conditions of more developed countries, and the ones which may be called less
developed countries are so vastly different, particularly in the area of legal
systems and the protection of rights through the interventions of legal
representation by lawyers. The understanding of the practical problems involved
require greater knowledge about the ground realities and this cannot come about
accept through very deliberately designed ventures practiced over a considerable
period of time. At the moment neither such knowledge nor such contact exists in
a significant manner.
I believe that if studies and deliberations can take place with the close
cooperation of lawyers who are placed in disadvantaged positions and others, we
may be able to generate a kind of knowledge that could be taken to significant
forums such as the United Nations, the European Union, universities and also to
bar associations who may be able to play a greater role in finding ways to
address these problems. Such a body of knowledge needs to be created by the
efforts of some pioneers who would have to devote time and resources to make an
adequate beginning in this work. It is in this area perhaps that some close
consultation should be developed in a way that some difference can be created to
the dismal situation faced by many lawyers in such countries.
Encouraging volunteer lawyers from developed countries to visit their
counterparts in more disadvantaged circumstances to evolve forms of
collaboration to strengthen their situation
The differences between the conditions under which the work of being a lawyer
takes place in more developed countries and other is so very different that it
may even be impossible to grasp these problems without such direct contacts and
observations. Perhaps lawyers from more developed countries can be encouraged to
visit others and to observe for themselves the difficulties faced by their
counterparts. Their observations may play a complimentary role to the suggestion
I have made above regarding the creation of a body of knowledge relating to
these matters. Such volunteers can also develop forms of solidarity which may in
the long run lead to the development of strategies in dealing with these
problems in general as well as pertaining to individuals.
To make efforts to bring in the structural and system issues relating
to legal systems into discourses on the rule of law, democracy and human
rights
Relative strengths and weaknesses of legal systems themselves which create
better or adverse circumstances for lawyers and litigants have not become a
topic of significance in discussions relating to the rule of law, democracy and
human rights. Words such as ‘judges’, ‘prosecutors’, ‘police’, ‘court houses’
are often used on the assumption that such words carry similar connotations
under all legal systems. However, in reality these words may carry completely
different meanings under different circumstances. In a developed democracy it
would be hard to imagine that the word ‘judge’, may carry the connotation of a
political stooge or a corrupt person. However, there are many countries in which
people associate such connections with such a term. A prosecutor that makes his
or her point in order not to prosecute may seem ridiculous to those who are used
to working under a credibly functioning legal system. However, under different
circumstances the role of the prosecutor can be to avoid others from being
prosecuted for the causing of disappearances, torture, extrajudicial killings
and even against corruption. To the citizen and the lawyer who lives under these
circumstances the idea of a prosecutor may carry ambiguous meanings. What is
even more complicated is the word ‘policeman’. To many persons in the countries
I have mentioned above, a policeman would mean a torturer, a person with
extremely poor education and perhaps the most corrupt person within the state
structure. In their psychology avoidance of a policeman is of enormous concern
like that of a boogeyman in child psychology. A court house may mean the
messiest place with hardly any decent facilities where delays are most common
and where nothing can be done without the passing of money from hand to hand.
Thus, any assumption that the basic meanings of the words associated with rule
of law carry similar meanings in all locations may be quite misleading.
When the enormous difference of meanings, due to structural and systemic
factors is ignored a meaningful discourse becomes almost impossible. This is one
of the reasons for a discourse on rule of law, democracy and human rights not
being given the due seriousness which it deserve very often, particularly in
countries with less developed legal systems.
It should be the duty of those who are aware of these contradictions to bring
them to light in order to developed new perspectives to evolve more meaningful
discourses on these matters. At the moment due to insufficient interventions of
persons who are aware of these contradictions some of these discourses between
the countries remain stagnant and sterile.
The Asian Human Rights Commission and its sister organisation the Asian Legal
Resource Centre, which has realised these problems some time ago, started a
bimonthly publication entitled Article 2 in 2001 and this has been regularly
published since then. The purpose of this publication was to draw attention to
the problems relating to the implementation of human rights, particularly with
the obligations of the state to provide an effective remedy which can be
determined by competent judicial, administrative or legislative authorities or
by any other competent authority provided for by the legal system of the state
and to develop possibilities of judicial remedy. In our studies published in
issues of Article 2 we have provided detailed information about structural and
systemic issues which defy the attempts to improve rule of law and human rights
in many countries. We have also pursued this same objective by the development
of clinics in many countries to record, on a routine basis, the problems of
implementation and we have given publicity to these problems by various forms of
communications such as Urgent Appeals, statements, submissions to the United
Nations and state authorities, articles to newspapers in various languages as
well as oral and video interviews to the media [16].
However, in our experience we have not seen any significant attempts to deal
with structural and systemic issues in a systematic manner. We are also of the
opinion that such efforts may not, in the near future, emerge from the efforts
of the UN agencies due to various pressures by the state parties who try to
confine such international efforts to individual violations and most limited
interventions. Perhaps at this stage it is from more independent organisations
that the efforts must be made to bring the structural and systemic aspects
relating to rule of law, democracy and human rights to the forefront of the
discussion.
Some improvements can also be made in the manner of helping lawyers
facing special difficulties
This is an area, as far as I am aware, that Lawyers for Lawyers have had a
special interest in for a long time. This mode of assistance still remains quite
important and such help could go a long way in terms of repression and attacks
on human rights defenders that have been faced in many countries. Perhaps a
special category of lawyers who need help are those who are subjected to
contempt of court proceedings or other forms of punishments such as the
withdrawal of their licenses to practice as lawyers, purely due to asserting
their independence and their failure to comply with the demands to adjust to
various compromises that the system, or sometimes, superior judges force on
them. Often lawyers facing such problems become isolated as sometimes, even bar
associations distance themselves due to the fact that the leaders of these
associations fear repercussions into their own practice if, as a matter of
principle, they were to support these lawyers. Sometimes solidarity does not
germinate due to the fact that the lawyers often feel that, despite of all
protests particular types of repression pursued by the superior court judges
cannot be easily defeated. They find protests to be futile and often withdraw
from their normal habits of fighting for a just cause. Under these circumstances
international solidarity can mean a lot. Perhaps one particular form of
solidarity that can be devised is to develop ways to make thorough studies into
such cases and to provide well documented studies for relevant organisations to
act upon. Every time when one such lawyer faces such a difficulty is helped in a
significant manner it also liberates the others and improves the level of moral
of the legal profession. Perhaps in this internet age better networks need to be
developed to obtain information faster and to assist more speedily.
Try to assist the UN Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges
and lawyers to exercise his mandate successfully
It is well known that the mandates of the UN Rapporteurs as well as UN
sub-committees are successful to the extent that independent organisations
provide adequate information and other forms of technical support to such
Rapporteurs and UN agencies. The UN Special Rapporteur on the independence of
judges and lawyers is a relatively new mandate within the UN system. Perhaps
organisations like Lawyers for Lawyers, the Asian Human Rights Commission and
others must find ways to support this office by documenting relevant problems
relating to the legal profession and submitting these to the Rapporteur. This
may help the Rapporteur to improve his own understanding about the problems and
also to take the matter up with the relevant states and the relevant UN bodies
also. Perhaps we could contribute to a much greater output from this office
through our collective and collaborative efforts. One example of such
collaboration was an open letter written by a group consisting some judges,
lawyers and human rights defenders under the auspices of the Asian Human Rights
Commission which was sent to the Rapporteur on the adverse impact of
unreasonable and undue delays of the administration of justice. This open letter
is reproduced herewith as an annexure.
Annexure 1.
Open Letter
September 22, 2007
Mr. Leandro Despouy
Special Rapporteur of the
Commission on Human Rights
on the independence of judges and
lawyers
OHCHR-UNOG
8-14 Avenue de la Paix
1211 Geneva 10,
Switzerland
Dear Mr. Despouy,
Unreasonable delays in administration of justice corrupt due process
and subvert people’s faith in the justice system
I am writing this to convey some basic concerns of a group of lawyers, judges
and human rights defenders who met at Hong Kong from the 17th to the 21st
September to discuss the impact of delays in the administration of justice on
the lives of people and on the protection and promotion of human rights. The
participants were from India, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Cambodia, China,
the Philippines, Thailand, Indonesia, the Hong Kong SAR and South Korea.
The group is of the view that there are many alarming developments within the
countries of the Asian region in this regard, except perhaps for South Korea and
the Hong Kong SAR. The participants are also of the view that you, as the United
Nations Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, should be made
aware of such developments.
The participants of this consultation noted that the nature of delays that
exist within many countries of the Asian region would be far beyond what would
be considered a reasonable delay under Article 9 (3) and undue delay under
Article 14 (3) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. It
can be safely stated that the average time that is taken for the final disposal
of a case may be anywhere between five to twenty years and on civil matters it
may take even longer. The concerns we are expressing in this letter are mainly
related to criminal justice administration and the impact of such delays in
negating due process itself, thereby frustrating attempts to protect and promote
human rights.
When unreasonable and undue delays become a structural and systemic reality
it affects the independence of the judiciary and lawyers in a substantial
manner. As such, widespread delays need to be identified and recorded. Concrete
recommendations including provisions of advisory services or technical
assistance may be recommended and provided to states to deal with this
fundamental problem. This problem of delays needs also to be studied as an
important and a topical question of principle with a view to protecting and
enhancing the independence of judiciary and lawyers.
The delays in the administration of justice have the effect of subverting the
entire process of justice and undermining or displacing the independence of the
judiciary itself. Clear manipulations of the factors that give rise to such
delays are utilised, not only by unscrupulous litigants, but also by the
executive, the legislature and even some members of the judiciary, for petty
ends. This in turn results in the routine denial of justice. Such denial of
justice alienates the people and as a result a colossal loss of faith in the
administration of justice exists in the countries mentioned above.
This alienation is often manipulated by the executive to displace the due
process of law and to introduce ideas of mediation and alternative dispute
resolution into the criminal justice process itself. This leads to an enormous
increase in corruption that affects all the elements of the criminal justice
system including the police, the prosecutors, judges, lawyers and everyone else
involved in playing some role in this process. A citizen that seeks justice with
a just grievance has to face all the nightmares of a completely subverted system
and suffers the consequences of such subversion.
Among the worst sufferers of this system are the people who languish in jails
for no justifiable reason, but who are unable to extricate themselves from their
plight due, mostly, to their inability to protect themselves from the corrupted
process. They often belong to the marginalized, oppressed and the poorer
sections of society as the more affluent and powerful may find ways to
manipulate the situation for their benefit. The victims of crime and human
rights abuses who come to court as complainants to seek justice often end up
frustrated and desperate due to such delays. Another section that suffers
gravely is those persons who seek justice against the state officers, such as
the police and military, who have abused their rights. The corrupted process
guarantees immunity to such officers. While this denies the rights of the
victims this also results in many who should be charged with criminal offences
remaining part of the law enforcement agencies. Naturally the very struggle to
fight the delayed justice process contributes to strengthening the very same
process and demoralising those who wish to fight against it.
Unreasonable and undue delays also make witness protection for such lengths
of time a practically unachievable goal. The result is acquittals of the accused
due to the absence of witnesses.
Failure to obtain justice leads to many taking the law into their own hands
and seeking the assistance of criminal elements to settle private disputes.
Within the law enforcement agencies themselves, the tendency to use extra
judicial punishments has seen an alarming increase in recent years. The killings
of persons after arrest has increased and different explanations are being
offered for such killings. In some places these are called encounter killings or
cross fire killings and in others, killings in self defense.
We find that the criminal investigation process can be completely undermined
due to such delays. The officers that fail to investigate crimes and human
rights abuses, as they are required to under the law, exploit the various delays
and it becomes almost impossible to hold them accountable for their failures. We
also note that the prosecutors and often judges themselves engage in practices
leading to delays and thereby displace the attempts by the citizens to hold the
system accountable to international norms and standards. Unfortunately, there
are lawyers who also become clever manipulators of this process to achieve their
own ends.
The most alarming thing about such manipulations is when some sections of the
higher judiciary itself manipulate such delays for unscrupulous purposes. It is
at this point the citizens cannot find any sort of redress against such abuses.
Often, even at the level of the higher judiciary there are unscrupulous
practices have evolved which are incompatible with the due process of law. Such
judges can dispose of cases without making orders at all or without making
orders on the merits of the case. The appeal process itself can be subverted in
this way, when for example appeals are disposed of even without a hearing. The
worst of such manipulations is the abuse of the contempt of court proceedings,
which does not leave any possibility of an appeal. Such proceedings are often
used against lawyers and litigants who complain of the abuse of the process.
The ultimate result of such delays is to make human rights an objective that
people cannot achieve in practical terms. Despite of acceding to, and ratifying
UN conventions and even bringing about constitutional and legal provisions in
terms of human rights obligations of the state, in actual practice the
implementation of these rights become almost a practical impossibility.
What we would like to draw your attention to is the fact that even within the
United Nations discourse on the implementation of human rights, the issue of the
delays of the administration of justice and its impact in negating basic human
rights has not received adequate attention. We are not aware of any attempts by
any of the UN agencies to deal with the issues mentioned above with the any of
the state parties with a view to ensuring that they honour their obligations to
ensure adequate remedies for violations of rights. Thus, the states have not
been held accountable for not taking steps to eliminate delays in the
administration of justice.
We urge you to take up the issue of the fundamental importance of ending
delays in the administration of justice as a core issue relating to ensuring
independence of the judiciary and lawyers. We are hopeful that with your
intervention the issue of eliminating delays in the administration of justice
can be made into a visible issue present in all discourses on human rights. When
that happens we are sure that the people that live in these countries will begin
to treat human rights as a realistic objective and a treasured part of their
actual existence.
The participants of this seminar assure you of their highest cooperation in
dealing with this issue.
Thank you
Yours sincerely,
Basil Fernando
Executive Director
Asian Human Rights Commission
A full list of the participants is as follows:
1. Dr. JAYANTHA Pandukabaya
de Almeida Guneratne – President’s Counsel, Sri Lanka
2. Ms. KISHALI Ester
Pinto-Jayawardena – Lawyer, Sri Lanka
3. Mr. RANDOLPH Parcasio – Lawyer,
Philippines
4. Mr. CARLOS Isagani Zarate -- Lawyer, Philippines
5.
Justice KHILJI Arif Hussain – Judge, Sindh High Court, Pakistan
6. Ms. Atiwan
– Lawyer, Thailand
7. Ms. Nittaya WANGPAIBOON -- Lawyer, Thailand
8. Ms.
SOR Rattanamanee Polkla -- Lawyer, Thailand
9. Mr. MEAS Chanpyseth –
Prosecutor, Cambodia
10. Mr. Phann VANRATH – Judge, Cambodia
11. Mr. MD.
Tariqul ISLAM – Lawyer, Bangladesh
12. Mr. Mohammod HOSSAIN -- Lawyer,
Bangladesh
13. Md. Ashrafuzzaman ZAMAN – Human Rights Activist,
Bangladesh
14. Dr. P. J. ALEXANDER – Lawyer, India
15. Mr. MITHERA
Paul James -- Lawyer, India
16. Mr. SHIJU M. V – Lecturer in Law,
India
17. Mr. SALAR M. Ghan -- Lawyer, India
18. Mr. BABLOO Loitongbom --
Lawyer, India
19. Mr. KONG Wei Zhao – Lawyer, China
20. Mr. YANG Chongxue
-- Lawyer, China
21. Mr. CHUNG Mi Hwa – Lawyer, South Korea
22. Mr. RICKEY
Gunawan – Lawyer, Indonesia
23. Mr. TM Lutfie YAZID – Lawyer,
Indonesia
24. Mr. Y. L. CHUNG – Barrister, Hong Kong
25. Mr. John Joseph
Clancey – Solicitor, Hong Kong
26. Basil Fernando – Lawyer, Sri Lanka –
Executive Director, the Asian Human Rights Commission
27. Bijo Francis –
Lawyer, India – Programme Officer, the Asian Human Rights Commission
[Footnotes:]
1 This paper is based on direct
information acquired by my organisation, the Asian Human Rights Commission, and
my own personal experience. Much of what talk about here has been documented
earlier. For the last twelve years my organisation has been involved in
routinely gathering and sharing information as part of our daily work. We have
also devised various forms of actions on the basis of the routine information
that we gather, mainly through our partners, and these actions themselves have
generated further information on these issues.
2 For details please
see, Peoples’ power calling for reforms, published jointly by the Asian Human
Rights Commission and the Pakistan Bar Council (146 pages); you may also find
this book online at http://www.ahrchk.net/pub/mainfile.php/books/250/.
3 For further information please see Impunity vs. the rule of
law in Indonesia, Article 2 Vol. 5, No. 1. http://www.article2.org/mainfile.php/0502/
4 For further information please see Dr. Lao Mong Hay, Former Head,
Legal Unit, Centre for Social Development, Cambodia – Institutions for the rule
of law and human rights in Cambodia, Article 2 Vol. 5, No. 1. http://www.article2.org/mainfile.php/0501/223/
5 For further information please see Nepal – Impunity for abuses
remains as country undergoes political revolution. The State of Human Rights in
Eleven Asian Nations – 2006 pg. 130-178 and Special Report: The mathematics of
barbarity and zero rule of law in Nepal, Article 2 Vol. 3, No. 6 http://www.article2.org/mainfile.php/0306/.
6 For further information please refer to Special Report – The
criminal justice system of the Philippines is rotten. http://www.article2.org/mainfile.php/0601/
7 For further information please see: http://campaigns.ahrchk.net/somchai/
8
For further information please see: Special report: Extrajudicial killings of
alleged drug dealers in Thailand, Article 2, Vol. 2 No. 3, http://www.article2.org/mainfile.php/0203/ ,
Special Report: Rule of Law versus Rule of Lords in Thailand, Article 2 Vol. 4
No. 2, http://www.article2.org/mainfile.php/0402/,
Thailand: The return of the military & the defiance of common sense, Article
2 Vol. 5, No. 5, http://www.article2.org/mainfile.php/0505/ and
Special Edition: Thailand’s struggle for constitutional survival, Article 2 Vol.
6 No. 3, http://www.article2.org/mainfile.php/0603/
9 The Transparency International Corruption Perception index for the
year 2005 may be found at http://www.transparency.org/news_room/in_focus/2005/cpi_2005#cpi
10 For further information please see Special Report – Lawless
law-enforcement & the parody of judiciary in Bangladesh. http://www.article2.org/mainfile.php/0504/
11 For details please see Special Report on Torture Committed by
the Police in Sri Lanka, Article 2 Vol. 1, No. 4 http://www.article2.org/mainfile.php/0104/,
Second Special Report: Endemic torture and the collapse of policing in Sri
Lanka, Article 2 Vol 3, No. 1, http://www.article2.org/mainfile.php/0301/,
Focus, dysfunctional policing & subverted justice in Sri Lanka, Article 2
Vol. 6, No. 2, http://www.article2.org/mainfile.php/0602/, and
An X-ray of the Sri Lankan policing system & torture of the poor, published
by the AHRC. Please also see The Other Lanka, 184 pgs, published by the AHRC and
UN Human Rights Committee decisions on communications from Sri Lanka, published
by the Asian Legal Resource Centre in August 2005.
12 For further
information please see Milking the cow dry in Burma, Article 2, Vol. 6 No. 4
http://www.article2.org/mainfile.php/0604/294/ ,
Special Report: The Depayin massacre, Article 2 Vol 2, No. 6. http://www.article2.org/mainfile.php/0206/ and
Burma, The myth of state stability & a system of injustice, The State of
Human Rights in Eleven Asian Nations – 2006, published by the AHRC.
13
SINGAPORE: Chee Soon Juan's appeal in OA case to be heard tomorrow http://www.ahrchk.net/statements/mainfile.php/2007statements/1186/ 14 For further information please see Special Edition –
Militarisation &impunity in Manipur, Article 2 Vol. 5, No. 6 http://www.article2.org/mainfile.php/0506/,
India, The lack of domestic remedies for human rights victims and the collapse
of the rule of law, The State of Human Rights in Ten Asian Nations – 2005
published by the AHRC and India, discrimination and injustice remain major
barriers in the world’s largest democracy, The State of Human Rights in Eleven
Asian Nations – 2006 published by the AHRC. Please also see Special Edition: Two
people’s tribunals on severe hunger & utter neglect in India, Article 2 Vol
4, No. 6. http://www.article2.org/mainfile.php/0406/
15 Dialectics of Justice – Five Sri Lankan Cases was written by Patrick
Lawrence on the basis of materials provided by the Asian Human Rights
Commission. Patrick Lawrence is a reputed journalist. I have been personally
involved in these cases from their inception. I know the individuals who are the
‘heroes’ in these stories and the hardships they have gone through all these
years. I am also aware of the tremendous difficulties that the lawyers involved
in these cases went through.
16 Kindly see www.ahrchk.net, and www.alrchk.net
Printer Friendly Page 