6 November 2018
To,
The Chairman
National Human Rights Commission
Manav Adhikar Bhawan
Block-C, G.P.O Complex, INA
New Delhi-110023
Respected Sir,
I have received the direction of the commission through the letter dated 28.08.2018 in connection with the above referred case. The Commission closed the case on the basis of the police report and gave much reliance on the illegitimate self defense made by the BSF authority. I want to submit an open protest letter against the decision of the Commission.
1. It is revealed from the direction letter that the Commission was sure about the gunshot injuries on the person of the deceased. But there are some anomalies in the inquiry report made by the BSF and their complaint at Hili police station. The BSF report stated that HC N Chakraborty fired one round of pump gun shot in right of private defence. But how many number of rounds fired by CT PK Basumatry was not mentioned in the BSF report, but in the complaint at Hili Police Station it was mentioned by BSF that CT PK Basumatry fired 06 rounds from his service rifle.
2. Secondly, regarding the matter of self defense theory upon which the Commission gave much reliance, I think while force used by a state in self defence it must meet the demands of proportionality and there is confusion over the meaning of the term in this jus ad bellum, in this context. May a state that has been attacked use force in order to deter the attacker from mounting further attacks? From the BSF and police report it does not appear that the guidelines issued by the commission in case of encounter death were being followed in this case in their true spirit. Even there was no proper and independent investigation in respect of this case. The following questions which were very much relevant were being rejected by the inquiry authority.
· Whether the killing of the victim was in the legitimate exercise of right to self defense or not?
· Whether the use of force was proportionate or not to the resistance offered?
· Is it believable that a group of BSF trying to arrest a person who was attempting to evade the arrest and since in his attempt to evade the arrest he used force, and the BSF returned the force of and caused the victim's death?
Most joking part of this case is that your authority without sending me full action taken report submitted by Shri Uttam Ghosh, Deputy Superintendent of police, South Dinajpur, closed this case. Even I am debarred from inspecting the post mortem examination report and inquest report of the deceased victim. In this way without giving me any chance to comment on the report, the Commission closed the whole matter to relief themselves from the burden to extend justice. Is the supreme human rights protecting agency has any right to snatch making comments and observations over the reports submitted by the perpetrators in unison?
There are certain general principles on the effective prevention and investigation of extra judicial, arbitrary executions. The principles so framed by the UDHR are intended to guarantee independence while investigating state killings and help in preventing potential abuse, corruption, ineffectiveness and neglect in investigation.
This is a clear case of violation to the guidelines issued by the Commission in case of encounter deaths and violation of order passed by Director General of BSF upon his command force- "not to use lethal weapon at Indo- Bangladesh border".
Is NHRC presently rejected its own guidelines framed earlier on extra judicial killings? Is NHRC now justifying action taken by the trigger happy BSF?
While the United Nations Code of Conduct of Law Enforcement Officers (which includes all officers of law, who exercise police powers) lays down that in the performance of duties, Law enforcement officers shall respect and protect human dignity and maintain and uphold human rights of all persons, Your office without looking any facts or laws closed the case only relying the self defence theory made by the BSF, which is full of falsification and to shield a heinous crime committed.
This case is a very important one. Closing the case is not a solution towards the victims irrespective of their citizenry identity deserves right to life in accordance to the Article 21 of Indian Constitution. I appeal to your authority for strict implementation of the guidelines issued by the Commission in case of encounter death thereby extra judicial killings are properly and independently investigated so that proper justice may be done.
Hence, I appeal to reopen the case.
Sincerely Yours,
Yours truly
Kirity Roy
Secretary, MASUM
--Secretary
Banglar Manabadhikar Suraksha Mancha
(MASUM)
&
National Convenor (PACTI)
Programme Against Custodial Torture & Impunity
40A, Barabagan Lane (4th Floor)
Balaji Place
Shibtala
Srirampur
Hooghly
PIN- 712203
Tele-Fax - +91-33-26220843
Phone- +91-33-26220845
Disclaimer:The information in this email is confidential and may be
legally priviledged. It is intended solely for the addressee. Access
to this email by anyone else is unauthorised.If you are not the
intended recipient, disclosure,copying,distribution or any action
taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it,it is prohibited and
may be unlawful.In such case,you should destrioy this message and
kindle notify kirityroy@gmail.com by reply email.
No comments:
Post a Comment