Home / News / Urgent Appeals / BURMA: Monk falsely accused of planning to set fire to himself
 

BURMA: Monk falsely accused of planning to set fire to himself

September 2, 2009

ASIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION - URGENT APPEALS PROGRAMME

Urgent Appeal Case: AHRC-UAC-110-2009

3 September 2009
---------------------------------------------------------------------
BURMA: Monk falsely accused of planning to set fire to himself 

ISSUES: Rule of law; military government; judicial system; illegal detention; torture
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear friends,

The Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) has obtained detailed information about the case of a monk in Burma who is being tried without evidence for insulting religion. The monk, U Sandadhika, went like other onlookers to the outside of the court where Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and her co-defendants were being tried in August. Afterwards a group of unidentified men picked him up and took him into custody where they accused him of planning to immolate himself in protest. They have no evidence to back the charge and the only witnesses in the case, which is continuing, are police. The detainee has been forcibly disrobed and assaulted in custody, resulting in a hernia.

CASE DETAILS:

U Sandadhika went to nearby the central prison on 11 August 2009 to meet with people who had gathered to await the verdict in the case of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and three others. The 36-year-old told relatives that as he was leaving the area a white car pulled up alongside him with three unidentified men inside. One of them told him that they had an offering of a drink to give him, but he replied that he had already taken his meal for the day and that it was unnecessary. Then they said that they had some things to ask him and told him to get in the car.

The men took Sandadhika to the Rangoon North District police premises where at least two police assaulted him with a bamboo rod, causing him to have a hernia and suffer other injuries. (Full details of the alleged perpetrators are included in the sample letter, below, as usual.) Thereafter they took him to be forcibly disrobed.

The police opened a criminal case against Sandadhika for allegedly insulting religion because, they claim, he had intended to burn himself in protest at the conviction of Aung San Suu Kyi. But under cross-examination in court they admitted that they have no evidence at all to support the claim: they did not find any kerosene or other materials on the defendant or elsewhere to suggest that there is any truth to it. They do not even have any independent witnesses: all of those deposing against the accused are police.

The trial is continuing on September 3.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:

The AHRC has been documenting numerous cases speaking to what it has described as Burma's "injustice system" and provided a range of links on these in its most recent prior urgent appeal, on the case of Aung Aung Oo and his fellow defendants: AHRC-UA-107-2009. In the aftermath of the September 2007 monk-led protests it also followed the cases of monks and nuns tried and imprisoned over those events, including U Gambira (AHRC-UA-248-2008). At the time of the protests it set up a website that has a variety of relevant resources and topics: http://campaigns.ahrchk.net/burmaprotests/ 

Two special reports have also been issued in the article 2 periodical, "Saffron Revolution imprisoned, law denied" (vol. 7, no. 3, September 2008) and "Burma, political psychosis and legal dementia" (vol. 6, no. 5-6, December 2007). There are also a number of related sites, including the AHRC Burmese-language blog, Pyithu Hittaing, and the 2008 AHRC Human Rights Report chapter on Burma.

SUGGESTED ACTION:

Please write to the persons listed below to call for the case against U Sandadhika to be dropped. Please note that for the purpose of the letter, the country should be referred to by its official title of Myanmar, rather than Burma, and Yangon rather than Rangoon.

Please be informed that the AHRC is writing a separate letter to the UN Special Rapporteurs on Myanmar and torture, the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention and the regional human rights office for Southeast Asia calling for interventions into this case.

SAMPLE LETTER:

Dear ___________,

MYANMAR: Monk falsely accused of planning to set fire to himself

Details of accused: U Sandadhika, a.k.a. Nyi Nyi Lwin/ Nyi Nyi San, 36, monk of the Daysunpar Temple, Laygyunmandaing Monastery, Bago, Myanmar
Police officers involved:
1. Inspector Zaw Pone Win, Serial No. La/167400, Yangon Division Police Headquarters (prosecuting officer)
2. Deputy Inspector Kyi Khaing Kyaw, Serial No. La/176001, Yangon Division Police HQ (witness & alleged torturer)
3. Deputy Inspector Hla Kyaw Oo, Serial No. La/168797, Yangon North District Police HQ (witness)
4. Deputy Inspector Aung Myint Thein, Serial No. La/148152, Insein Township Police Station (witness)
5. Inspector Kyaw Sein, Yangon North District Police Headquarters (alleged torturer)
Charges & trial: Penal Code section 295A, insulting religion; Felony No. 507/09, Bahan Township Court, Judge Daw Toe Toe Yein (Serial No. Ta/2270, Assistant Township Judge 1, Special Power) presiding

I am very sorry to hear of yet another evidence-free case against someone in Myanmar, this time against a monk who was forcibly disrobed and assaulted while in custody, causing him to have a hernia.

From the details that I have been given, U Sandadhika went to nearby where the hearings in the case of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and three other defendants were taking place at the Central Prison, Insein Township, on 11 August 2009. There three men in an unmarked vehicle picked him up and took him to the Yangon North District Police Headquarters, where he was assaulted with a bamboo rod, causing injuries including the hernia, which he has shown to the prison hospital.

The police accused him of having had a plan to self immolate as an act of protest, but Sandadhika has denied this and the police have since admitted in court that they have no material evidence to prove the allegation. They had him forcibly disrobed and charged in court with insulting religion. However, aside from not having material evidence to present, the police also had no independent witnesses and have listed only four police officers to appear against him.

I am deeply concerned that despite the lack of evidence and allegations of torture in this case, the accused will nonetheless be convicted on spurious and politically directed grounds. I urge that this not be the case and that the Township Law Office concerned at once review the case and drop the charges against the accused or that the responsible authorities otherwise take the necessary steps to see that the matter is laid to rest and that the accused is allowed to go free.

Finally, I take this opportunity to remind the Government of Myanmar of the need to allow the International Committee of the Red Cross access to places of detention, in accordance with its globally recognized mandate, including to all those monks and nuns imprisoned in the aftermath of the September 2007 protests, and to ensure that all prisoners obtain appropriate medical treatment for ailments suffered, such as those of U Sandadhika caused by the torture that he allegedly suffered. 

Yours sincerely,

----------------

PLEASE SEND YOUR LETTERS TO:

1. Maj-Gen. Maung Oo
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. Lt-Gen. Thein Sein
Prime Minister
c/o Ministry of Defence
Naypyitaw
MYANMAR
Tel: + 95 1 372 681
Fax: + 95 1 652 624

3. U Aung Toe
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. U Aye Maung
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. Brig-Gen. Khin Yi
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

Thank you.

Urgent Appeals Programme
Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) (ua@ahrc.asia)

Document Type :
Urgent Appeal Case
Document ID :
AHRC-UAC-110-2009
Countries :
Issues :
Document Actions
Share |
Subscribe to our Mailing List
Follow AHRC
Extended Introduction: Urgent Appeals, theory and practice

A need for dialogue

Many people across Asia are frustrated by the widespread lack of respect for human rights in their countries.  Some may be unhappy about the limitations on the freedom of expression or restrictions on privacy, while some are affected by police brutality and military killings.  Many others are frustrated with the absence of rights on labour issues, the environment, gender and the like. 

Yet the expression of this frustration tends to stay firmly in the private sphere.  People complain among friends and family and within their social circles, but often on a low profile basis. This kind of public discourse is not usually an effective measure of the situation in a country because it is so hard to monitor. 

Though the media may cover the issues in a broad manner they rarely broadcast the private fears and anxieties of the average person.  And along with censorship – a common blight in Asia – there is also often a conscious attempt in the media to reflect a positive or at least sober mood at home, where expressions of domestic malcontent are discouraged as unfashionably unpatriotic. Talking about issues like torture is rarely encouraged in the public realm.

There may also be unwritten, possibly unconscious social taboos that stop the public reflection of private grievances.  Where authoritarian control is tight, sophisticated strategies are put into play by equally sophisticated media practices to keep complaints out of the public space, sometimes very subtly.  In other places an inner consensus is influenced by the privileged section of a society, which can control social expression of those less fortunate.  Moral and ethical qualms can also be an obstacle.

In this way, causes for complaint go unaddressed, un-discussed and unresolved and oppression in its many forms, self perpetuates.  For any action to arise out of private frustration, people need ways to get these issues into the public sphere.

Changing society

In the past bridging this gap was a formidable task; it relied on channels of public expression that required money and were therefore controlled by investors.  Printing presses were expensive, which blocked the gate to expression to anyone without money.  Except in times of revolution the media in Asia has tended to serve the well-off and sideline or misrepresent the poor.

Still, thanks to the IT revolution it is now possible to communicate with large audiences at little cost.  In this situation there is a real avenue for taking issues from private to public, regardless of the class or caste of the individual.

Practical action

The AHRC Urgent Appeals system was created to give a voice to those affected by human rights violations, and by doing so, to create a network of support and open avenues for action.  If X’s freedom of expression is denied, if Y is tortured by someone in power or if Z finds his or her labour rights abused, the incident can be swiftly and effectively broadcast and dealt with. The resulting solidarity can lead to action, resolution and change. And as more people understand their rights and follow suit, as the human rights consciousness grows, change happens faster. The Internet has become one of the human rights community’s most powerful tools.   

At the core of the Urgent Appeals Program is the recording of human rights violations at a grass roots level with objectivity, sympathy and competence. Our information is firstly gathered on the ground, close to the victim of the violation, and is then broadcast by a team of advocates, who can apply decades of experience in the field and a working knowledge of the international human rights arena. The flow of information – due to domestic restrictions – often goes from the source and out to the international community via our program, which then builds a pressure for action that steadily makes its way back to the source through his or her own government.   However these cases in bulk create a narrative – and this is most important aspect of our program. As noted by Sri Lankan human rights lawyer and director of the Asian Human Rights Commission, Basil Fernando:

"The urgent appeal introduces narrative as the driving force for social change. This idea was well expressed in the film Amistad, regarding the issue of slavery. The old man in the film, former president and lawyer, states that to resolve this historical problem it is very essential to know the narrative of the people. It was on this basis that a court case is conducted later. The AHRC establishes the narrative of human rights violations through the urgent appeals. If the narrative is right, the organisation will be doing all right."

Patterns start to emerge as violations are documented across the continent, allowing us to take a more authoritative, systemic response, and to pinpoint the systems within each country that are breaking down. This way we are able to discover and explain why and how violations take place, and how they can most effectively be addressed. On this path, larger audiences have opened up to us and become involved: international NGOs and think tanks, national human rights commissions and United Nations bodies.  The program and its coordinators have become a well-used tool for the international media and for human rights education programs. All this helps pave the way for radical reforms to improve, protect and to promote human rights in the region.