Dear friends,
The Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) has received information about a judge in Burma (Myanmar) who convicted two villagers for having stolen a box of gold jewelry, even though he knew police tortured them. According to the information received, police in Pakokku tortured 67-year-old U Kyaw Nyunt and a companion in 2012 to confess to stealing the box. The torture of Kyaw Nyunt was very serious and left physical evidence. The police beat the other man, Nyunt Tun, and threatened to torture him, and he confessed. The judge said because there was no evidence that Nyunt Tun was tortured, the court could accept his confession. Both men went to jail for one-and-a-half years. Higher courts refused their appeals.
CASE NARRATIVE:
On 19-20 April 2012, police in Pakokku, central Burma, arrested Nyunt Tun and U Kyaw Nyunt. The police accused the men of stealing a box of gold jewelry the year before. Because the police could not find the missing box, and had no other evidence, they tortured the two men to confess to the crime. The police beat Nyunt Tun, and threatened him that they would torture him severely if he did not confess.
The police tortured Kyaw Nyunt severely. They tied his hands over his head and pulled him upwards. The police also hit him with rubber sandals, and they kicked him in the face to the point that one of his teeth was dislodged. They hit him on the back and sides with their truncheons. They hit him on the temples of both sides of his head. They also ran an iron bar under pressure up and down his knees, as can be seen in photographs taken at the time, and from the scars left permanently on his legs.
http://www.humanrights.asia/news/urgent-appeals/images/2014/ahrc-uac-002-2014.01Pictures of U Kyaw Nyunt’s injuries when he was hospitalized and still under arrest, chained to the bed.
http://www.humanrights.asia/news/urgent-appeals/images/2014/ahrc-uac-002-2014.02Pictures U Kyaw Nyunt after release from prison, his scars are still clear
Later, the police sent Kyaw Nyunt for treatment at Pakokku General Hospital but because of his serious injuries, the hospital staff transferred him to hospital in Mandalay. There he was kept under arrest and locked to the bed. While there, photographs of his injuries were taken.
Meanwhile, Nyunt Tun gave a confession because he was afraid of the police, and the police opened the case in the township court. When the case came to court, Nyunt Tun retracted his confession, and said that he confessed because he was afraid of being tortured and the police had threatened him. He also said in court that he saw Kyaw Nyunt being tortured at the police station. Kyaw Nyunt also told the court that he had been tortured in the way described above.
Furthermore, the administrator who had first received the complaint of the stolen items also admitted that he had seen the injuries to Kyaw Nyunt caused by torture, including bruising to the right cheek and injuries on both legs. Likewise, the husband of the woman who lost the jewelry box also admitted in court that he too had seen the injuries on Kyaw Nyunt when he visited the police station. The defence lawyer also submitted photographs and other evidence to prove that the police had tortured the accused.
In his verdict, the judge did not deny that Kyaw Nyunt had been tortured. In fact, his verdict acknowledges that the police had appeared to torture the elderly man, which was impossible to deny given the eyewitnesses, photographic and material evidence. However, he wrote that because it was not Kyaw Nyunt but Nyunt Tun who gave the confession, and because there was no evidence that the police had beaten Nyunt Tun and threatened to torture him, he could accept the confession as genuine. Without any other evidence, he sentenced the two men to jail. Subsequent courts dismissed applications for appeal and review of the case. Although the two men have already served their time in prison, their lawyer is still fighting the case in the Supreme Court to clear their names.
Further details are provided in the sample letter below.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
In Burma, torture is widespread in police 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, sometimes resulting in death, such as in the cases of U Than Tun,Aung Hlaing Win, Myo Myint Swe, and Nan Woh Phan. In most cases also the court ignores the evidence of torture, to convict the accused.
Torture is not a criminal offence in Burma and police are rarely held to account for the abuses committed on detainees in their custody. A member of parliament in March 2013 made a statement on the need for a law against torture and for Burma to join the UN Convention against Torture, but up to the current time no action has been taken.
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 of U Kyaw Nyunt and his companion be investigated and prosecuted, and for compensation to be paid to the two men for torture and unlawful imprisonment.
Please note that for the purpose of the letter Burma is referred to by its official name, Myanmar.
Please also be informed that the AHRC is writing separate letters to the UN Special Rapporteurs on human rights in Myanmar; on torture, on independence of judges and lawyers; 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: Judge convicts two villagers accused of theft, even though he has clear evidence of police torture
Name of victims:
1. U Kyaw Nyunt, farmer, 67 (at time of incident)
2. Nyunt Tun, odd jobs, 21
Both residents of Kinpunkha Village, Natkyun Village Tract, Pakokku Township, Magway Region, Myanmar
Names of persons involved:
1. Police Major U Myint Htay, commander, Pakokku Town Police Station
2. Sub-Inspector Kyaw Myoe, Serial No. La/217322, Pakokku Town Police Station, along with 3-4 other police personnel
3. Township Judge Win Maung, Pakokku Township Court, Serial No. Ta/2181
4. U Kyaw Moe, head, General Administration Department, Natkun Village
5. U Ye Nyunt, ten-household head, Natkun Village
Date of incident: 19 April 2012 (date of arrest)
Place of incident: Pakokku Town Police Station, Magway Region
Case details:
1. Criminal Case No. 380/2012, Pakokku Township Court, section 380, theft in dwelling, convicted on 22 March 2013
2. Criminal Appeal Case No. 18/2013, Pakokku District Court, appeal dismissed on 30 April 2013
3. Criminal Revision Case No. 102/2013, Magway Region High Court, dismissed on 16 July 2013
4. Criminal Revision Case No. 581(b), Supreme Court (pending)
I am disturbed to learn that a judge in Myanmar who knew that police had tortured at least one of two accused men brought before him on a charge of theft still convicted the men and took no action with regards to the evidence of police torture. I urge that this case be quickly reviewed and appropriate action taken.
According to the information I have received, on 19 April 2012, police in Pakokku town, central Myanmar, arrested Nyunt Tun and on early morning of 20 April also arrested U Kyaw Nyunt. The police accused the men of stealing a box of gold jewelry the year before. Because the police could not find the missing box, and had no other evidence, they tortured the two men to confess to the crime. The police beat Nyunt Tun, and threatened him that they would torture him severely if he did not confess.
The police tortured Kyaw Nyunt severely. They tied his hands over his head and pulled him upwards. The police also hit him with rubber sandals, and they kicked him in the face to the point that one of his teeth was dislodged. They hit him on the back and sides with their truncheons. They hit him on the temples of both sides of his head. They also ran an iron bar under pressure up and down his knees, as can be seen in photographs taken at the time, and from the scars left permanently on his legs.
Later, the police sent Kyaw Nyunt for treatment at Pakokku General Hospital but because of his serious injuries, the hospital staff transferred him to hospital in Mandalay. There he was kept under arrest and locked to the bed. While there, photographs of his injuries were taken.
Meanwhile, Nyunt Tun gave a confession because he was afraid of the police, and the police opened the case in the township court. He was instructed what to say and only allowed 20 minutes with the judge, and in that time the police were present, even though by law they should have been absent when the judge took the confession. After that the police forced him and Kyaw Nyunt to go to the place where the crime occurred and take photographs as if they were reenacting the offence.
When the case came to court, Nyunt Tun retracted his confession, and said that he confessed because he was afraid of being tortured and the police had threatened him. He also said in court that he saw Kyaw Nyunt being tortured at the police station. Kyaw Nyunt also told the court that he had been tortured in the way described above.
Furthermore, under cross-examination, U Kyaw Moe, the administrator who had first received the complaint of the stolen items, also admitted that he had seen the injuries to Kyaw Nyunt caused by torture, including bruising to the right cheek and injuries on both legs. Likewise, the husband of the woman who lost the jewelry box also admitted in court that on 21 April he too had seen the injuries on Kyaw Nyunt when he visited the police station. The defence lawyer also submitted photographs and other evidence to prove that the police had tortured the accused.
In his verdict, the judge did not deny that Kyaw Nyunt had been tortured. In fact, his verdict acknowledges that the police had appeared to torture the elderly man, which was impossible to deny given the eyewitnesses, photographic and material evidence. However, he wrote that because it was not Kyaw Nyunt but Nyunt Tun who gave the confession, and because there was no evidence that the police had beaten Nyunt Tun and threatened to torture him, he could accept the confession as genuine. Without any other evidence, he sentenced the two men to jail. Subsequent courts dismissed applications for appeal and review of the case. Although the two men have already served their time in prison, their lawyer is still fighting the case in the Supreme Court to clear their names.
I am very surprised to learn that so far the superior courts have not reopened this case, and strongly urge the Supreme Court to examine it fully, and go over all of the facts thoroughly. The township judge’s decision is obviously illogical, because what he has ruled is that if Kyaw Nyunt had confessed to the crime then his torture would have been relevant for the court to consider, but because he did not confess therefore his torture was irrelevant, even though the other accused confessed and also had been beaten and threatened.
I also urge the concerned persons in the police and government to open a special investigation into the police at Pakokku, since it is clearly evident from the information received that they have committed torture, a fact that the court also has not denied. Not only should the two convicted men have their convictions overturned, but they should also receive compensation in accordance with international standards for the abuses and imprisonment that they suffered due to the court verdict made unlawfully.
Lastly, I remain very concerned that impunity is still widely enjoyed by state agents who have 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 that in March 2013 a Member of Parliament also raised the matter in the national legislature. 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. Lt-Gen. Ko Ko
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 Thein Sein
President of Myanmar
President Office
Office No.18
Naypyitaw
MYANMAR
3. U Tun Tun Oo
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 Kyaw Kyaw Htun
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 Aung Ko
Chairman
Pyithu Hluttaw Judicial and Legislative Committee
Pythu Hluttaw Office
Naypyitaw
MYANMAR
7. U Aung Nyein
Chairman
Pyithu Hluttaw Judicial and Legislative Committee
Committee for Public Complaints and Appeals
Office of the Amyotha Hluttaw
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. Daw Aung San Suu Kyi
Chairwoman
Pyithu Hluttaw Rule of Law and Tranquility Committee
Office of the Pyithu Hluttaw
Naypyitaw
MYANMAR
Thank you.
Urgent Appeals Programme
Asian Human Rights Commission (ua@ahrc.asia)
