• Probe report analyses the law behind the incident and finds that inadequate preparation, insufficient training, inaccurate situation analysis and excessive use of force on the part of the Police have imperilled the protestors right to life  

During the handling of the crowd that engaged in a protest on 19 April 2022 in Rambukkana, where a person named Chaminda Lakshan died after being shot by the Police, the Police has employed excessive force which the tense situation did not warrant, and the victims have been shot by Police officers without accurately and responsibly analysing the situation. Alarmingly, some of the Police officers who were deployed to manage the situation were armed, but not adequately prepared and competent to use firearms in such a situation, which has in turn put the lives of civilians who were present at serious risk.

This was noted in a report issued by the Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka (HRCSL) following an investigation into the incident. The report titled “Final Report of the Committee of Experts (COE) appointed by the HRCSL to Investigate the Incidents that took place in Rambukkana on 19 April 2022” recommended a number of measures for the Police to ensure accountability, the people’s safety and rights, and the responsible and effective handling of protests by the Police.

The report discussed at length a number of matters surrounding the legal situation pertaining to the Rambukkana incident. 

With regard to the right to protest, it added: "The right to protest enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution encapsulates key fundamental rights of the citizens, namely the freedoms of speech and expression, peaceful assembly and association. Accordingly, the people can exercise their right to protest even as far as supporting or criticising the Government and political parties, policies and programmes as it is essential to maintain the democratic fabric of governance in the country." However, as per the report, an essential prerequisite for the right to protest to be promoted and protected is ensuring the non-disruption of public order or peace during the course of a peaceful protest, and any activity which disrupts the daily activities of the public or causes any inconvenience to the public who are not part of the protest, negates the peaceful nature of the protest and is out of the legitimate parameters of the right to protest. It added that in this case, it is observed that the blockade of free movement along the main road and railway track and the burning of tyres eliminates the peaceful nature of the protest. "In such instances, the law enforcement authorities are permitted by law to launch a crowd dispersal operation to maintain public order and peace. However, such operations must strictly follow the procedures enumerated in the law and resort to mechanisms which are only necessary and proportionate to achieve the intended objective." 

In regard to the crowd dispersal operation relating to the order to shoot, it was explained that according to the domestic legislation applicable, the law on the dispersal of an unlawful assembly includes the Sri Lanka Police Circulars, the Criminal Procedure Code and the Police Departmental Order Number A19, which provide guidelines on the procedures to be followed during crowd dispersal operations. Accordingly, the COE referred to several Circulars pertaining to Police officers effectively communicating with the participants of a protest prior to using force, refraining from violating the citizens’ fundamental rights, and when the use of force is necessary, using only the required degree of force as per the existing guidelines and regulations. The report explained: "In this instance, it can be observed that the Police officers have attempted several times to arrive at a mutual consensus in dispersing the crowd. However, prior to using tear gas to disperse the crowds, there was no evidence to support that effective communication on the use of force was established. Further, the order to fire live ammunition has been given by a Senior Superintendent of Police prior to exhausting the tear gas operation. Had the Police officers continued the tear gas operation fully, the people could have been effectively dispersed without any threat to the fuel bowser or the fuel station, as it was proven that the people did start to withdraw from the protest site when the tear gas operation was launched." In this context, the report said that it can be affirmatively concluded that the order to shoot not only bypassed the procedure enumerated in the law but also is an order stemming from a blatantly miscalculated judgement. The failure of the officer to accurately analyse the situation and the orders given on such a wrongful analysis is a violation of the law pertaining to crowd dispersal operations, it added.

The use of force by law enforcement officials was also discussed in the report, regarding which the report said: "Police Departmental Order No. A19 states in the event an officer is ordered to shoot below the knee, such officer must only shoot if he/she is able clearly to shoot below the knee. Accordingly, an arbitrary decision to shoot at a place of his/her choice is a violation of the Police Departmental Orders. This position is further substantiated in the training standard operating procedure submitted by the Special Task Force (STF) to the Commission which states that Police officers using lethal weapons during a crowd dispersal operation must only shoot at a clearly identified target and should refrain from shooting if the target cannot be clearly ascertained." Furthermore, the officers from the STF who were present before the HRCSL to explain to the COE the nature and standard of the weapon training in the Tri-Forces and the Police had stated that even a well-trained STF officer whose Type 56 (T-56) weapon is zeroed in for their eye specifications, is able to accurately shoot below the knee of a person only from an approximate distance not more than 25 metres (m). The report added that this was mainly attributed to the killing range of such weapons being up to 400 m, and they had further stated that no Police officer who is following the shooting orders to fire below the knee during crowd dispersal operations is at any point advised or trained to shoot at the road (ground surface) from a T-56 weapon, given the lethal nature of such weapon. The COE concluded that the Police officers act of aimlessly shooting the deceased prior to accurately ascertaining the lawfully prescribed target area is a violation of the Police Departmental Orders and a violation of the constitutionally guaranteed right to protest. Furthermore, the COE observed that although the contention made by the three Police officers equipped with T-56 weapons, stating that they shot at the ground, was disputed by the medical and ballistic evidence, the act of shooting to the ground from a T-56 weapon in itself is a clear violation of the Police Departmental Orders and accepted practices of weapon handling.

Moreover, regarding the arrest of an individual named Kaveesha Navin Gunathilake during the protest, the report raised concerns about the freedom from arbitrary arrest. In accordance with that, no person shall be arrested except according to procedures established by the law, it added. It explained: "Gunathilake has been arrested by the Police on 19 April 2022, on the ground of behaving in a disorderly manner whilst being part of an unlawful assembly. This was a protest where over 200 people were present. The reason for the dispersal of the protestors was the imminent danger of the fuel bowser being set on fire and in extension, the damage to other people and property. Out of all the people, only Gunathilake has been arrested, who was nowhere close to the fuel bowser nor has been part of the protest." As per the report, it is clear that the Police officers at the protest had not adequately studied the situation nor have been observant enough to identify the people who were most likely to cause damage or were even actively involved in the protest. It further added that the arresting officers have failed to analyse the individual behaviour of Gunathilake prior to arresting him as it was very clear that he only remained at the site to assist his brother who was injured and taken to hospital.