Dear friends,
The Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) has received information regarding the case of a land rights activist who was tortured to death while detained in police custody in Burma. The officers at the police station detained U Than Htun illegally. After three days of detention, the police informed his family that he died due to the effects of alcoholism. However, his body showed signs of brutal torture and the post mortem revealed that he did not die due to any type of organ failure. When the family tried to recover Than Htun’s clothes as evidence, the police refused to give them. The family is trying to bring a case against the officials responsible for the death to court but so far the courts have dismissed the case.
CASE NARRATIVE:
On the day of 5 April 2013, U Than Htun, resident of Pandaung Township, Pyay, got into a fight with another villager. Later on, both of them were taken to the Pandaung Township Police Station at 9:30 pm. A few days later, the police released him on bail.
Over a month later, on 17 May 2013, U Than Htun received an authorized letter from the police station mentioning that he was required for interrogation on 19 May 2013. On the mentioned date, a family member brought Than Htunto the police station, and the police then took him back into detention, which was illegal, because the court had granted him bail and it would be necessary to retract bail to detain him again.
On 20 and 21 May 2013, the wife of Than Htun, DawMyintHtay visited himand noticed nothing unusual in his appearance and behaviour. However, the next day she did not visit. On the morning of May 23, Sub-inspector Hla Min and two constables came to the family residence and asked for his wife, who was away from the house. They said that Than Htun was hospitalized due to withdrawal from alcoholism. After MyintHtay heard the news she was on the way to the hospital when she learned from an administrator that he had died.
When she arrived at the Pandaung Township Hospital, Myint Htay got confirmation that at 8:30 am the body of U Than Htun was brought by police personnel and before the examination took place, he was dead already.Some witnesses said that he was dead before he arrived.
In addition, the doctor explained that she was pushed to do a post mortem immediately after the police reached to the hospital and she initially refused and replied that she could do it when the family member of deceased came. After post mortem, the doctor confirmed that none of the organs of the deceased were in a condition that would cause his death.
A number of police officers attended the post mortem along with the family. After thatthe station chief U San Linn suggested not bringing the dead body of U ThanHtun to the village since it was not good luck, and said the policewere willing to cover all the expenses of cemetery and funeral. The police officers also claimed that the victim died from hitting himself with an iron pole during interrogation due to the effects of alcoholism.
The family members of took photographs of his body after post mortem examination and before he was buried, and the pictures show clearly that he had been severely tortured. We include in this appeal one photograph of the victim’s body, in which the scars and bruising from beating can be seen clearly. The skin of his two wrists was torn apart due to prolonged handcuffing. The other photographs that we received also show that his face is heavily bruised and deeply swollen on his two eyes, and bruising to the skin, scars and bruises are obvious on the body. Furthermore, the ribs on the left side are broken and on his two legs are scars and bruising from the rolling of a rubber truncheon, which is a common technique of torture in Burma’s police stations.
Due to the death, the victim’s family tried to open a case against the commander of the police station. On 24 May 2013, the wife went to Pandaung Township Police Station to lodge a complaint but the police station commander replied that the death occurred due to and that her husband had died after hitting ametal posthimself. Furthermore, as the death was listed for an inquest it was under investigation so the family could not register a complaint, he falsely claimed.
When the family requested the shirt and sarong that Than Htun had been wearing in custody the police said that the clothes were soiled and they had thrown them out already.
Myint Htay inquired to the station as towhy her husband was not sent directly to court when he was rearrested again. The police replied that the charge against him had been changed so they had detained him under the new charge. In any event, this explanation is inadequate, as with a new charge brought against him he should also have been sent to court within 24 hours.
Further details are provided in the sample letter below, as usual.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
According to news reports, Daw Myint Htay succeeded in getting a complaint lodged but on 28 May 2013 the court of first instance dismissed the complaint, and she is now proceeding with an appeal against the dismissal.
U Than Htun was actively working for farmers in the Kyar Inn Village (Old) Tract where the National Resource Development Cooperation Company (NRDC) is in a dispute with cultivators over rights to the land. As a result of his role in supporting the farmers, he had been interrogated four times, and was among 17 people sued by the company. It is not known whether the police torture was in any way connected with the land dispute.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
In Burma, torture is widespread inpolice stations, where it most commonly takes the form of beatings and other blunt methods intended to cause pain and obtain a confession. In normal criminal cases like murder, rape and robbery, police have to take immediate action and give a report to the higher authorities promptly, so they usually look for an easy target and use torture to get a confession or otherwise make the detainee do what they want.
When a case is opened for a serious crime at a police station, due to the absence of credible investigations many poor innocent people are arrested as accused persons and tortured to confess to crimes that they have not committed.
In the previous urgent appeals the AHRC has express its concern over police and military intelligence torture resulting in death, such as in the cases of Aung Hlaing Win, Myo Myint Swe, and Nan Who Phan. Afterwards, police commonly claim that the victims have died as a result of illness, and rely on medical staff, prosecutors and judges to conspire with them to cover up their crimes.
Torture is not a criminal offence in Burma and police are rarely held to account for the abuses committed on detainees in their custody.
For many more cases and issues concerning human rights in Burma, visit the AHRC’s country homepage: http://www.humanrights.asia/countries/burma.
SUGGESTED ACTION:
Please write a letter to the following government authorities to urge that all those responsible for the torture and death in custody of U Than Htun be investigated and prosecuted. Their cases should be closely followed by the media and reported inside and outside Burma. Please also call for the criminalisation of torture in Burma.
Please note that for the purpose of the letter Burma is referred to by its official name, Myanmar, and Rangoon as Yangon.
Please also be informed that the AHRC is writing separate letters to the UN Special Rapporteurs on human rights in Myanmar; on torture, and on extrajudicial killings; and, the regional office in Bangkok, calling for their interventions into this matter.
To support this case, please click here: SEND APPEAL LETTER
SAMPLE LETTER
Dear ……………,
MYANMAR: Police who torture man to death claim he beat up himself
Name of victim: U Than Htun, 45, resident of Kyar InnBlock (New), Dandalun Tract, Pandaung Township, Pyay District, Bago Region, Myanmar
Names of persons involved:
1. U San Lin, Chief, Pandaung Township Police Station
2. Sub-inspector Nay Lin Aung
3. Sub-inspector AungNaing
4. Sub-inspector Hla Min
5. Constable July Moe
All of Pandaung Township Police Station
Date of incident: 22 May 2013
Place of incident: Pandaung Township Police Station, Pyay, Myanmar
I am outraged to hear that a man taken into police custody on 17 May 2013 was tortured to death and that police have been claiming that despite all evidence pointing to the contrary he assaulted himself as a result of the effects of alcoholism.
According to the information that I have received, on the day of 5 April 2013, U Than Htun had an argument with another villager and then they were both taken to the Pandaung Township Police station at 9:30 pm. Three days later, on 8 April 2013, the family of Than Htun got bail for him and he went free.
Over a month later, on 17 May 2013, U Than Htun received a letter from the police calling him for interrogation in the Pandaung Township Police Station on 19 May 2013 at 4pm, signed by Sub-inspector Nay Lin Aung. On the mentioned date, the family brought Than Htun to the police station. But instead of just interrogating him, the police took him into custody again, which is against the criminal procedure in Myanmar, where it is required for the court to revoke his bail before rearrest.
On 20 and 21 May 2013, Than Htun’s wife, Daw Myint Htay, visited her husband and found his condition and behaviour to be normal. However, the next day, she did not visit. On the morning of 23 May 2013, at 10:30 am, Sub-inspector Hla Min and two constables came to the residence of Than Htun and asked his daughter whether her mother was around. At that time Myint Htay had gone to another village. They informed that Than Htun had been hospitalized due to symptoms of alcoholism.
After Myint Htay heard the news of her husband, she dashed to the hospital immediately. On her way she met with a village administrator and heard that her husband had died at 11am.
When Myint Htay arrived at the Hospital of Pandaung Township and enquired to the doctor, the doctor confirmed that at 8:30am, the police brought Than Htun’s body to the hospital but before an examination took place, he was dead already. Some witnesses said that he was dead before he arrived.
In addition, the doctor explained that she had been pushed to do a post mortem immediately after the police reached to the hospital and she had refused and replied that she could do it when the family members of the deceased came. After post mortem, the doctor stated that the organs of the victim were not responsible for his death. The family later obtained a second confirmation of this fact.
A number of police officers attended the post mortem along with the family. After thatthe station chief U San Linn suggested not bringing the dead body of U Than Htun to the village since it was not good luck, and said the police were willing to cover all the expenses of cemetery and funeral. The police officers also claimed that the victim died from hitting himself with an iron pole during interrogation due to the effects of alcoholism.
The family members of took photographs of his body after post mortem examination and before he was buried, and the pictures show clearly that he had been severely tortured. The scars and bruising from beating can be seen clearly. The skin of his two wrists was torn apart due to prolonged handcuffing. It has been found that his face is heavily bruised and deeply swollen on his two eyes, and bruising to the skin, scars and bruises are obvious on the body. Furthermore, the ribs on the left side are broken and on his two legs are scars and bruising from the rolling of a rubber truncheon, which is a common technique of torture in Burma’s police stations.
Due to the death, the victim’s family tried to open a case against the commander of the police station. On 24 May 2013, the wife went to Pandaung Township Police Station to lodge a complaint but the police station commander replied that the death occurred due to and that her husband had died after hitting ametal post himself. He said that the police had helped to bring Than Htun to the hospital but he had died at 9:05am. Furthermore, as the death was listed for an inquest it was under investigation so the family could not register a complaint, he falsely claimed.
When the family requested the shirt and sarong that Than Htun had been wearing in custody the police said that the clothes were soiled and they had thrown them out already.
Myint Htay inquired to the station as to why her husband was not sent directly to court when he was rearrested again. The police replied that the charge against him had been changed so they had detained him under the new charge. In any event, this explanation is inadequate, as with a new charge brought against him he should also have been sent to court within 24 hours.
It is preposterous that in this case the police in an attempt to cover up their assault of a man whom they have found that they have killed in their enthusiasm for torture, the best “explanation” they can come up with is that he beat himself to death due to an imaginary condition of alcoholism. Neither the medical nor circumstantial evidence supports such a piece of fiction. Thanks to the courage and integrity of the medical staff in this instance standing up to the police, the family has the evidence it needs to at very least get a case lodged and an investigation opened against the officers responsible for these crimes, and those who have been involved in the cover up. That the police have also actively destroyed evidence, in the case of the victim’s clothes, on the pretext that they were soiled, only makes the case against them more damning.
In light of the above, I call for a full high-level investigation to find those officers responsible for the killing and for their prosecution as the family has requested. I also urge that a full investigation be conducted into the attempts to cover up the murder, and that action be taken against those officers involved in that aspect of the crime. And, I call for compensation for the family in accordance with international standards.
Finally, I want to stress that I am concerned that impunity is widely enjoyed by state agents who committed torture in Myanmar despite the government’s recent political reforms. I have learned that groups inside the country have called on its parliamentarians to pass a law to criminalise torture, and I urge that steps be taken to introduce such a law at the earliest opportunity. Again, any such law needs to be in accordance with international standards. In this regard, a positive commitment to the prohibition of torture as a matter of principle would be for the government of Myanmar to at long last ratify both the UN Convention against Torture and its optional protocols, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
I look forward to your positive and effective response in this case.
Yours sincerely,
—————-
PLEASE SEND YOUR LETTERS TO:
1. U Hla Min
Minister for Home Affairs
Ministry of Home Affairs
Office No. 10
Naypyitaw
MYANMAR
Tel: +95 67 412 079/ 549 393/ 549 663
Fax: +95 67 412 439
2. U TheinSein
President of Myanmar
President Office
Office No.18
Naypyitaw
MYANMAR
3. U TunTunOo
Chief Justice
Office of the Supreme Court
Office No. 24
Naypyitaw
MYANMAR
Tel: + 95 67 404 080/ 071/ 078/ 067 or + 95 1 372 145
Fax: + 95 67 404 059
4. Dr. Tun Shin
Attorney General
Office of the Attorney General
Office No. 25
Naypyitaw
MYANMAR
Tel: +95 67 404 088/ 090/ 092/ 094/ 097
Fax: +95 67 404 146/ 106
5. U KyawKyawHtun
Director General
Myanmar Police Force
Ministry of Home Affairs
Office No. 10
Naypyitaw
MYANMAR
Tel: +95 67 412 079/ 549 393/ 549 663
Fax: +951 549 663 / 549 208
6. Thura U AungKo
Chairman
PyithuHluttaw Judicial and Legislative Committee
PythuHluttaw Office
Naypyitaw
MYANMAR
7. U AungNyein
Chairman
PyithuHluttaw Judicial and Legislative Committee
Committee for Public Complaints and Appeals
Office of the AmyothaHluttaw
Naypyitaw
MYANMAR
8. U Win Mra
Chairman
Myanmar National Human Rights Commission
27 Pyay Road
Hlaing Township
Yangon
MYANMAR
Tel: +95-1-659 668
Fax: +95-1-659 668
9. Ko Ko Hlaing
Chief Political Advisor
Office of the President
Naypyitaw
MYANMAR
Tel: +95 1 532 501 ext-605 / +95 1 654 668
Fax: +95 1 532 500/ +95 1 654 668
Thank you.
Urgent Appeals Programme
Asian Human Rights Commission (ua@ahrc.asia)
