In a statement read at the UN Human Rights Council on 11 December 2007, the ambassador of Myanmar (Burma), U Wunna Maung Lwin, said that,
“On 31 October 2007, the Government of Myanmar has established the Investigation Body [sic] chaired by the Minister for Home Affairs with a view to investigating offences against fundamental human rights during the September event. Therefore, it is not necessary to invite any kind of international commission or mechanism to conduct further investigation as recommended by the Special Rapporteur.”
The ambassador was responding to the report of the UN Special Rapporteur on Myanmar, Professor Paulo Sergio Pinheiro, into the violence against protestors in August and September of 2007, which he characterised as “excessive”. He has recommended that the government “invite an international commission of inquiry or fact-finding mission to investigate in a more comprehensive manner the recent events”.
The claim by the ambassador that there now exists a domestic investigating body into the killings, abductions, forced disappearances, arbitrary detentions and use of extralegal gangs of thugs in the aftermath of the recent events is surprising, given that no such body has ever been reported upon in the state media, and that no one—including the Special Rapporteur—is known to have met with the body.
Does the body actually exist or is it just a piece of fiction intended to sidetrack the Special Rapporteur’s modest proposal for an international mission? The Asian Legal Resource Centre is of the opinion that the government must prove its existence rather than the United Nations presume it.
The questions that must be asked of the government are: of whom aside from the home affairs minister does this body comprise? What is its precise mandate? What are its terms of reference? What are its powers? Does it have the capacity to prosecute, or merely recommend? How far up the chain of command is it authorised to make inquiries? How is it funded? How is it staffed? Will it rely upon police personnel and existing police units, given that the police force is under the minister concerned, or establish an independent team of investigators? If the former, which parts of the police force will it use? If the latter, from where will it draw its investigators? What has it done since October 31? What will it do in coming months? What is its planned duration? These are just some of the most basic questions that the ambassador’s announcement begs.
The Asian Legal Resource Centre also wishes to ask, were such a body found to exist, how would it preclude the work of an international inquiry? Were the two to exist and cooperate, and were the local one to be properly arranged and credible, then it would present a tremendous opportunity for a full accounting of the recent events to the satisfaction of all. Only if the government claim to the existence of such a body is bogus should there be any cause for concern on their part over the Special Rapporteur’s proposal, as the fraud would inevitably be exposed.
The Asian Legal Resource Centre thus calls upon the UN Human Rights Council to do two things immediately in relation to the December 11 statement of the Myanmar ambassador. First, seek clarification from the government as to the existence of the said investigating body, with evidence to support the claim that this previously unknown agency actually has been set up. Second, in the event that there really is an inquiry, establish how an international mission may be set up to complement the work of the domestic body, rather than allow the government to use the latter as a pretext to deny the former.
Whatever else, the Asian Legal Resource Centre urges the Council to remain resolute and rigorous in its work on Myanmar and not allow pretexts to distract it from its important work on the country at this critical time. The Human Rights Council too cannot simply be presumed to exist: it also must prove it through words and deeds.
