Home / News / Urgent Appeals / BURMA: Police severely assault young man and deny medical treatment

BURMA: Police severely assault young man and deny medical treatment

February 9, 2006

URGENT ACTION URGENT ACTION URGENT ACTION URGENT ACTION URGENT ACTION

ASIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION - URGENT APPEALS PROGRAM

9 February 2006

---------------------------------------------------------------------
UA-058-2006: BURMA: Police severely assault young man and deny medical treatment

BURMA: Assault; torture; impunity; un-rule of law
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear friends,

The Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) has been in contact with persons who have informed about a brutal assault by police on a young man, Ko Aung Myint Oo, who was beaten by a group of police in Mandalay division as they took him into custody on January 18. When they took him before a judge, the judge was shocked to see his condition and ordered that the police send him to hospital. But the police instead tried to send him to jail. When the wardens saw him, they also refused to take him. After that the police took him to a local clinic but the staff again said to take him to a hospital. He was finally admitted to the township hospital that night, but the police forcibly removed him from the hospital in chains after only one week of treatment. Aung Myint Oo is now in jail. No action is known to have been taken against the police involved in the assault.

According to sources in Mandalay division, at around 8am on 18 January 2006 30-year-old timber miller Ko Aung Myint Oo was returning near his home in Pyitharyar Ward 3 of Meikhtila town when he was stopped by Police Sergeant Saw Hla May, who told him to come to the Meikhtila Township Police Station No. 3, in Nyaungkone village. He did not say anything about why Aung Myint Oo had to go. Therefore Aung Myint Oo refused to follow and went home.

In fact, the police had been issued a warrant of arrest for Aung Myint Oo in a gambling case from 2002. He had won the case in the lower court, but the prosecutor had appealed and won at the divisional court. Therefore Aung Myint Oo had been sentenced to six months in prison under section 13(a) of the Gambling Act. A warrant had been issued, but when Pol. Sgt. Saw Hla May approached Aung Myint Oo he allegedly said nothing of this, despite the fact that it is required by law for the police to produce the warrant (section 80, Criminal Procedure Code).  

Later that morning, a group of police came to Aung Myint Oo's house. They included Police Sergeant Saw Hla May and were headed by Deputy Superintendent Aung Than Htay. In total there were around 14 police officers, on seven motorcycles. Deputy Superintendent Aung Than Htay aimed his gun at Aung Myint Oo and told him not to move. After that the police surrounded Aung Myint Oo and savagely assaulted him with various objects that they could find lying around the roadside, including sticks, rakes and bricks, until he fell unconscious.

The police called a horse and cart to take Aung Myint Oo back to the police station. After they arrived, the judge at Meikhtila Township Court No. 1 called for him to be brought before him. The judge, U Thein Win, reportedly was shocked at the sight of Aung Myint Oo and said to the police, "Why did you beat him this much? His injuries are serious. Don't act illegally." He then read the notice of a six-month jail term from the higher court, and ordered the police to take the assault victim to the hospital, rather than to jail.

However, the police allegedly disregarded the judge's instruction and took Aung Myint Oo to the prison. But when the prison wardens saw his condition, they also refused to accept him into their custody and also insisted that he should be sent to hospital.

Still the police resisted taking Aung Myint Oo to hospital. Instead they took him to a local outpatient clinic. There too the staff said that they couldn't treat his severe injuries and said to take him to hospital.

Finally Aung Myint Oo was registered in the township hospital at 8pm that night. According to the medical report of senior doctor U Nyunt Lwin, Aung Myint Oo had two broken ribs and severe injuries to his face and body.

From January 18 to 25 Aung Myint Oo was kept in the hospital. But on January 25 a Deputy Superintendent Kyaw Tint came to the hospital and forcibly removed Aung Myint Oo in shackles and handcuffs, despite protests from staff that the man should be admitted for around three weeks in order to recover properly. He has since been kept in prison.  


ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:

From the description of this case, the police were keen to avoid responsibility for the assault by not admitting the injured man to hospital. Once admitted, they were also keen to keep him there for the minimum time necessary. Under section 320 of the Penal Code, any assault that causes a person to be incapacitated for more than 20 days is grievous bodily harm, which carries a jail term of up to seven years (section 325) or ten years if found to have done so with instruments that could cause death (section 326). So the police would have been certain to ensure that the victim not be kept in hospital for more than 20 days as had been requested by the staff. 

The AHRC has in recent times heard of a growing number of cases of police officers and/or local government officials in Burma seriously assaulting, and sometimes killing, local people. Some earlier reported cases include UA-044-2006, UP-071-2005 and UA-111-2004. However, as in all other cases of abuses committed by state officers in Burma, it is extremely difficult for victims and their families to bring complaints and withstand the subsequent threats and coercion to withdraw their statements: see further AS-015-2006.

______________________________

SUGGESTED ACTION:

Please write to the Minister of Home Affairs calling for an immediate investigation into the alleged assault and failure of the police to take the victim to the hospital as ordered by the township judge, with a view to prosecution. Please ask that the current medical condition of the victim be given priority. Please also ask that protection be given to the victim and family to prevent possible harassment by the alleged perpetrators and that compensation be given in the event that the police are found guilty of assault.

Please note that for the purpose of the letter, the country should be referred to by its official title of Myanmar, rather than Burma.

Sample letter:

Dear Major General Maung Oo

MYANMAR: Alleged brutal assault and denial of medical treatment by police officers of Meikhtila Township Police Station No. 3, Mandalay Division

Name of victim: Ko Aung Myint Oo, 30 years old, timber miller, of Pyitharyar Ward 3, Meikhtila, Mandalay Division
Names of alleged perpetrators:
1. Deputy Superintendent Aung Than Htay, Meikhtila Township Police Station No. 3, Nyaungkone village, Meikhtila Township, Mandalay Division
2. Pol. Sgt. Saw Hla May, Meikhtila Township Police Station No. 3
3. Estimated twelve other subordinate police officers of Meikhtila Township Police Station No. 3
Date of incident: 18 January 2006
Place of incident: Pyitharyar Ward 3, Meikhtila, Mandalay Division

I am shocked to have received news of an alleged brutal assault on a man in Pyitharyar Ward 3, Meikhtila, Mandalay Division, on 18 January 2006 by officers of the Meikhtila Township Police Station No. 3.

According to the information I have received, at around 8am on January 18, 30-year-old woodcutter Ko Aung Myint Oo was returning near his home in Pyitharyar Ward 3 when he was stopped by Police Sergeant Saw Hla May, who told him to come to the Meikhtila Township Police Station No. 3, in Nyaungkone village. A warrant of arrest had been issued for Aung Myint Oo, but he was reportedly not aware of this, and the police officer also allegedly did not say anything about it, in violation of section 80 under the Criminal Procedure Code. Therefore Aung Myint Oo refused to follow and went home.

Later that morning, a group of around 14 police came on seven motorcycles, led by Police Sergeant Saw Hla May and Deputy Superintendent Aung Than Htay. Deputy Superintendent Aung Than Htay allegedly aimed his gun at Aung Myint Oo and told him not to move. After that the police surrounded Aung Myint Oo and savagely assaulted him with various objects they could find lying around the roadside, including sticks, rakes and bricks, until he was unconscious.

The police then reportedly took Aung Myint Oo back to the police station, and then before Judge U Thein Win of the Meikhtila Township Court No. 1. The judge was reportedly was shocked at the sight of Aung Myint Oo and warned the police about their actions, instructing them to take him to hospital immediately after sentencing. However, the police took Aung Myint Oo straight to the prison. But when the wardens saw his condition, they also refused to accept him into their custody. The police then took him to a local outpatient clinic before finally taking him to the township hospital at 8pm that night. According to the medical report of senior doctor U Nyunt Lwin, Aung Myint Oo had two broken ribs and severe injuries to his face and body.

From January 18 to 25 Aung Myint Oo was kept in the hospital. But on January 25 one Deputy Superintendent Kyaw Tint allegedly came to the hospital and forcibly removed him in shackles and handcuffs, despite protests from staff that the man should be admitted for around three weeks in order to recover properly. He has since been kept in prison.  

I call on you to order an immediate investigation into this alleged assault and failure of the police to take the victim to the hospital as ordered by the township judge, with a view to prosecution. As there were many witnesses to the fact that the police officers were taking the victim here and there throughout the day, and as there should be full medical records of the injuries suffered by the victim due to the assault, there should be more than sufficient evidence with which to proceed. In the event that the officers are found guilty, compensation must also be awarded to the family.

In this respect I note that if it is found that Aung Myint Oo has been effectively capacitated for at least 20 days then under section 320 of the Penal Code the accused should be charged with grievous bodily harm as per sections 325/326.

Please also seek information on the current medical condition of the victim, and determine whether or not he must be moved back to hospital. Finally, please also see that he and his family be given protection to prevent possible harassment by the alleged perpetrators. As you will be aware, it is extremely easy for persons in positions of authority at the township or village level or to intimidate complainants in cases such as this and thereby pervert the course of justice. I urge you to pay special attention to ensure that in this case that is not the outcome.

Yours sincerely

---

PLEASE SEND YOUR LETTERS TO:

Maj-Gen. Maung Oo
Minister for Home Affairs
Ministry of Home Affairs
Corner of Saya San Street and No 1 Industrial Street,
Yankin Township
Yangon
MYANMAR
Tel: +951 250 315 / 374 789
Fax: +951 549 663 / 549 208


PLEASE SEND COPIES TO:

1. Lt-Gen. Soe Win
Prime Minister
c/o Ministry of Defence
Signal Pagoda Road
Yangon
MYANMAR
Tel: + 95 1 372 681
Fax: + 95 1 652 624

2. U Aye Maung
Attorney General
Office of the Attorney General
101 Pansodan Street
Kyauktada Township
Yangon
MYANMAR
Fax: + 95 1 371 028/ 282 449 / 282 990

3. Mr. Patrick Vial
Head of Delegation
ICRC
No. 2 (C) - 5 Dr. Ba Han Lane
Kaba Aye Pagoda Road, 8th Mile
Mayangone Township
Yangon
MYANMAR
Tel.: +951 662 613 / 664 524
Fax: +951 650 117
E-mail: yangon.yan@icrc.org

4. Professor Paulo Sergio Pinheiro
Special Rapporteur on Myanmar
Attn: Ms. Audrey Ryan
Room 3-090
c/o OHCHR-UNOG
1211 Geneva 10
SWITZERLAND
Tel: + 41 22 9179 281
Fax: + 41 22 9179 018 (ATTN: SPECIAL RAPPORTEUR MYANMAR)
E-mail: aryan@ohchr.org

5. Prof. Manfred Nowak
Special Rapporteur on the Question of Torture
Attn: Mr.Safir Syed
c/o OHCHR-UNOG
1211 Geneva 10
SWITZERLAND
Tel: +41 22 917 9230
Fax: +41 22 9179016 (ATTN: SPECIAL RAPPORTEUR TORTURE)
E-mail: ssyed@ohchr.org

Thank you.

Urgent Appeals Programme
Asian Human Rights Commission  (ahrchk@ahrchk.org)

Document Type :
Urgent Appeal Case
Document ID :
UA-058-2006
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.