When the case against two policemen accused in the torturing of a 15-year-old collapsed ignominiously in court last week it didn’t erase the stain from the country of this heinous act. What it did was to simply and powerfully underline how decrepit the state and the judiciary have become in the protection and furtherance of the rights of those who need it the most. It also demonstrated how the justice system could be subverted by the offering of a few dollars and creature comforts to those who have approached the courts seeking redress.
What is indisputable is that a child who was a suspect in murder case was tortured in a police station and his genitals set alight in the process. The child was then masked with a paper bag and seen by a physician who deals with police cases but who made no effort to inquire into the desperate plight of the tortured suspect. It was not until a photograph of the burnt genitals of the child was published in the Kaieteur News that proper medical care was administered and the police hierarchy became involved.
Charges were pressed against the two policemen after much hemming and hawing and the case had its unsatisfactory denouement when it was clear that the virtual complainant in the matter would not testify. His family had obviously been offered some type of settlement and they had simply gone somewhere else. This blotting out of injustice with cash poses a challenge that should have already exercised the minds of the attorney general’s chambers and the judiciary. But has it?
While there was no determination of the criminal charges, the police force and policing are certainly not off the hook. Those who so despicably violated the rights of this child must at least face internal police disciplinary procedures. The torture didn’t happen just like that. Several persons participated in it, several others were grossly negligent in not detecting it and several others set about trying to cover it up. Once a hearing is held and a decision arrived at they must all be dismissed from the force publicly; not the quiet and surreptitious parting of ways that sometimes occurs in cases like these. A stern warning must then be delivered by the force to its members that any such recurrence will be dealt with severely.
Anything less than this will confirm the image of the police force as an adept exponent of the use of brute force against suspects rather than smarts and forensic evidence. The force desperately needs to admit and act on what occurred if it can even hope to begin healing its relationship with communities.
As for the state, it also needs to purge its conscience on this matter in light of the stream of torture allegations that have been levelled against the police force and army over the years.
In November 2006, the UN Committee Against Torture made adverse comments on Guyana’s inaugural report which was tendered after a 17-year delay.
Among other things it said it was “particularly concerned about reports of widespread police brutality, the use of force and firearms by the police, as well as the lack of accountability of the Guyana Police Force.” The committee urged that the state “Take effective steps to guarantee the accountability of the Guyana Police Force and, to this effect, carry out prompt, impartial and effective investigations, try the perpetrators of acts of abuse and, when convicted, impose appropriate sentences and adequately compensate the victims.” This was completely lacking in the case of the 15-year-old and even though it was clear that torture was carried out by the police force, compensation was not immediately offered by the state.
Further, the state party was implored to take effective and comprehensive measures to combat sexual violence in the country, inter alia (arts 12 and 13 of the criminal code), and to “Ensure that law enforcement personnel are instructed on the absolute prohibition of violence and rape in custody as a form of torture…” The state clearly failed to act.
It was also the state’s responsibility to ensure that the complainant and witnesses are protected against all ill-treatment and intimidation as a consequence of the complaint or any evidence given. It also failed in this regard as the complainant and witnesses were intimidated and coerced into accepting money to have the case collapse.
The UN committee had also said that Guyana “should provide in its next periodic report detailed statistical data, disaggregated by crime, ethnicity and gender, on complaints relating to torture and ill-treatment allegedly committed by law enforcement officials, and on the related investigations, prosecutions and criminal and disciplinary sanctions. Information is further requested on any measures taken to compensate and provide rehabilitation services for the victims.” The requisite report has not been produced but some of these issues did surface during last year’s Universal Periodic Review of Guyana held by the UN Human Rights Committee. Questions were asked about the 15-year-old but little useful information was provided by the delegation.
The collapse of the case in court heightens the responsibility of the Guyana Government to act to bring justice to the aggrieved in whatever form possible and to punish those who are culpable.
