'Prisoners are also human beings' is a deeply meaningful slogan prominently displayed in front of almost all prisons in Sri Lanka. A statue of Lord Buddha adorns the prison entrance and inside one finds places of worship dedicated to the four major local religions.

The fundamental question is: How far are prisoners treated as human beings, in accordance with the teachings of these four noble faiths? To discover the answer, People Against Torture (PAT) marked UN Torture Victims Day this year by conducting peoples’ hearings (Jana Sabha) with former prisoners in the districts of Kegalle, Matara and Nuwera Eliya in Sri Lanka.

 A people’s hearing is a public event where one or more marginalised groups in society whose voices are usually silent, are afforded an opportunity to relate their experiences and air their grievances. Typically another group or ‘panellists’, comprising leading personalities in civil society, religious dignitaries, media personnel and professionals—is appointed to prompt the speakers, ask questions and make clarifications. The main objective of a peoples’ hearing is to gather information, build trust and empower the survivors, to seek justice. While 25 ex-detainees gave their testimonies, more than 150 people attended the tri-event.   

So what did their stories reveal?

Daily beatings were an inherent part of prison life. Prisoners were assaulted not only by the prison guards but also by fellow inmates. They were pummelled with fists, sticks or batons and kicked periodically. They were beaten as punishment for the most trivial of infractions or for no reason at all.

Besides they were treated worse than animals. The remand (pre-trial) cells were so overcrowded that inmates were forced to sleep on their sides on the floor; with one person’s feet rubbing against the head of another. As an initiation process, new inmates were forced to sleep near the toilets. Throughout the night they were kicked and punched by others who trek to and from the toilets. Convicted prisoners were not afforded adequate prison clothes and many were forced into semi nakedness.

Toilets were in an appalling condition. During the rainy season, toilet bowls overflowed; and inmates were forced to clean the toilet pits by climbing into them and manually removing the excrement. Prison food had much to be desired.  Some said they hardly tasted meat during their prison stay because the prison guards siphoned whatever meat that was made available; leaving inmates with the inedible bits and rotten vegetables.

Corruption was rampant with a thriving market economy operating within the prison. Simple privileges such as an extra bucket of water cost a few cigarettes or a piece of soap. Almost any commodity including illegal substances such as hard drugs were also plentiful, for a much higher price. The more powerful or politically affiliated prisoners received special privileges including separate luxury cells; others however had little option but to huddle together foot to head, in mass cells.

Furthermore, rarely did illness warrant medicine, the attention of a doctor or hospitalisation. However the prison hospital was always occupied to capacity with privileged prisoners who wanted to be away from the teeming prison population. And there were many who observed cynically: “we went to prison for the trivial of offences; we got out with knowledge and motivation to commit the most heinous crimes”.

After the prisoner testimonies, the panellists and audience were afforded the opportunity to ask them questions. Sadly, one of the favourite questions was: “What was your offence?” –indicating the mindset still prevalent in society. That is, if the offence was serious enough, physical and mental abuse; and the most inhuman and degrading of treatment was probably deserved. The absolute prohibition of torture and ill-treatment regardless of the offence somehow seemed a difficult concept to grasp.

Some prison officials attempted to justify their treatment as essential to maintain disciplinary control or caused by the lack of resources. It was left to the organisers to explain that neither resource deficiency nor the demands of maintaining discipline justified ill-treatment of prison inmates and the flouting of local law.

At these peoples’ hearings, the apparent and the real became distinguishable. The apparent was illustrated with elaborate slogans, religious observances or the plea of ‘lack of resources’. The real was depicted by systematic abuse and ill-treatment of those incarcerated; any kind of reliable mechanism to oversee the conditions and treatment within these institutions were non-existent. The need for the Optional Protocol to the Convention Against Torture (OPCAT)—which provides for independent international and national monitoring of detention centres to prevent torture and ill-treatment—seemed simply mandatory. 

The event was organised by PAT convener Chitral Perera with the assistance of the European Union (EU) and the Danish International Development Agency (Danida).