Home / News / Urgent Appeals / BURMA: Government-backed group obstructs police investigators after another human rights defender assaulted
 

BURMA: Government-backed group obstructs police investigators after another human rights defender assaulted

July 19, 2007

URGENT ACTION URGENT ACTION URGENT ACTION URGENT ACTION URGENT ACTION

ASIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION - URGENT APPEALS PROGRAM

Urgent Appeal

20 July 2007
---------------------------------------------------------------------
UA-230-2007: BURMA: Government-backed group obstructs police investigators after another human rights defender assaulted

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

Dear friends,

The Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) has been closely monitoring the case of U Than Lwin, who was assaulted after leading a prayer meeting in Burma for the release of political prisoners. His assailant ran into the office of a government-backed organisation; however, the police were refused access to investigate. Since Than Lwin lodged a complaint, there are now moves to lodge a counter complaint against persons who chased his assailant, which follows a pattern in other similar cases in Burma during recent times.

CASE DETAILS:

According to information received from a number of sources, on 15 June 2007 U Than Lwin and some colleagues led a group of persons to pray for the release of all political prisoners in Burma at pagodas in his town of Mettaya, in upper Burma, as part of a nationwide campaign in recent months. They informed the pagoda trustees in advance.

Around 9am the group of around 35 persons started out, but at each place it had planned to visit it found local council officials and members of a government-organised mass body, the Union Solidarity and Development Association (USDA) and thugs standing around and waiting. Thus, the group decided that it was not safe to pray at the pagodas and instead changed the plan and went to the prayer hall of a nearby monastery. At around 10am while approaching the monastery the people were stopped by a local government official who warned them that they would face trouble if they continued with their plan. Than Lwin and another leader of the group explained that as they were going to pray peacefully they did not see why there would be any trouble.

The group proceeded to the monastery and at 10:45am finished their prayer meeting quietly. Then they saw that the gates of the monastery had been blocked by the persons who had been waiting at the pagodas. As the group filed out, the crowd of around 400 persons started to walk behind and alongside. As they walked along the road, one man emerged from the crowd and hit 70-year-old Than Lwin in the face with a knuckle-duster, before running off. Some members of the prayer group immediately ran after him and chased him for about a mile, until he went into a local USDA office.

Members of the prayer group immediately went to report the incident at the local police station, and rushed Than Lwin to hospital. At 2pm a report was taken at the police station, and thereafter three police officers came to the USDA office to investigate. There three eyewitnesses verified that they had seen the alleged assailant run into the office; however, the USDA staff refused to allow the police inside.

The township hospital found that Than Lwin had a broken nose and left cheek, and serious facial injuries, and sent him to the Mandalay General Hospital for an operation the next day, June 16. On June 19 the investigating officer in the case came to see him in hospital; however, according to Than Lwin there has been no further investigation of the case. Meanwhile, he had to remain hospitalised, due to dizziness and poor eyesight.

Furthermore, on June 26 a USDA township committee member, U San Min, reportedly lodged a criminal complaint in the local court against the persons who had chased the assailant to the office, including a number of Than Lwin's children. The AHRC will make the details of the complaint available as they come to hand.


BACKGROUND INFORMATION:

This case follows a resurgence in attacks on human rights defenders and others in Burma during recent months (see AHRC statement, AS-125-2007), including an orchestrated attack on a group of rights defenders in the delta region: the victims in that case are now also themselves being sued and are under detention (UP-082-2007). In that case too the USDA was implicated as the main organiser of the attack. Likewise, it was accused of being behind the notorious 2003 Depayin massacre, in which a convoy carrying democracy party leader Daw Aung San Suu Kyi was violently attacked, leading to many deaths and serious injuries. The Asian Legal Resource Centre released a report in December 2003 on the massacre, which can be downloaded here: http://www.article2.org/pdf/v02n06.pdf. The report of the ad hoc commission on the massacre, organised by the Burma Lawyers Council, can be read here: http://www.ibiblio.org/obl/docs/Depayin_Massacre.pdf.

The USDA has a great deal of power and is also known to have been involved in covering up killings and abuses by local officials, such as the recent beating to death of Ko Naing Oo in a Rangoon suburb this March (UA-096-2007). The patron of the association is the head of the military junta, Senior General Than Shwe.

The AHRC has also previously reported on other cases where the victims of human rights abuses in Burma have themselves been made into the targets of legal action after they had attempted to complain. For instance:

Daw Khin Win was freed from jail on appeal after being sentenced for complaining about corruption among local authorities (UP-050-2007; UA-054-2007)

U Tin Kyi was jailed for supposedly insulting authorities about an agricultural project adjacent to his own property (UA-292-2006);

U Tin Nyein was jailed for complaining about the destruction of his crops due to incompetent government officials (UA-155-2006); he was released after eight months' imprisonment, at the start of February 2007 (UP-018-2007);

U Aye Myint was jailed for helping farmers to make a complaint about land usage by the government, and was released only after intense pressure from the International Labour Organisation (ILO) (UP-139-2006; UA-119-2006);

U Aye Min & U Win Nyunt were jailed for complaining about local corruption (UP-054-2006; UA-071-2006).

See also the 2006 AHRC Human Rights Report chapter on Burma, and visit the AHRC Burma homepage: http://burma.ahrchk.net.
 
______________________________

SUGGESTED ACTION:

Please write to the Minister of Home Affairs and other concerned persons below calling for an immediate investigation into this attack. 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 ___________,

MYANMAR: Failure to apprehend assailant of U Than Lwin and counter-complaint by Mettaya authorities

Name of victim: U Than Lwin, 70, elected member of parliament (National League for Democracy), resident of Mettaya Township, Mandalay Division
Alleged perpetrators:
1. Unidentified assailant affiliated with Union Solidarity and Development Association (USDA) of Mettaya Township
2. Ko Tin Ko, Chairman, Ward Peace and Development Council, No. 2 Zone, Northeastern Quarter, Central Market, Mettaya
3. Other persons believed associated with the Ward Peace and Development Councils, USDA and Swan-arshin group
Date of incident: 15 June 2007
Place of incident: Road in Mattaya
Case: Mattaya Township Police, First Information Report (FIR) No. PaRa/401, Penal Code sn. 325 (grievous hurt); Investigating Officer (IO) Zaw Min Min Htwe (Deputy Security Officer)

I am writing to express my serious concern at the attack on a human rights defender in Mettaya Township, Myanmar and especially reports that the township Union Solidarity and Development Association (USDA) appears to have orchestrated the attack, protected the assailant and is now itself launching counter-legal action against the victim's family.

According to the information that I have received so far, around 9am on 15 June 2007 U Than Lwin and some colleagues together with some 30 persons went to pray for the release of political prisoners in Myanmar at the Myohtaung Shwekou Pagoda, Sutaungpyi Pagoda and Hnithseleihsu Pagoda in Mettaya town, as part of a nationwide campaign. They informed the pagoda trustees in advance; however, at each place they found local council officials and members of the government-organised Union Solidarity and Development Association (USDA) and "Swan-arshin"--thugs that appear to be organised through the USDA and local councils--standing around and waiting. Thus, the group instead went to the prayer hall of the East Shwetheindaw Monastery. At around 10am its members were walking together to the monastery when they were stopped by Ko Tin Ko, chairperson of the council for the number 2 zone, northeastern quarter of the Mettaya main market, who warned them that they would face trouble if they continued with their plan. Than Lwin and another leader of the group explained that as they were going to pray peacefully they did not see why there would be any trouble.

The group proceeded to the monastery and at 10:45am finished their prayer meeting. Then they saw that the gates of the monastery had been blocked by the persons who had been waiting at the pagodas. As the group filed out, the crowd of around 400 persons started to walk behind and alongside. As they walked along the road, one man emerged from the crowd and hit Than Lwin in the face with a knuckle-duster, before running off. Some members of the prayer group immediately ran after him and chased him for about a mile, until Zaw Min Lwin--Than Lwin's son--and two local residents saw him go into the Mettaya Township USDA office.

At 2pm an FIR was recorded at the Mettaya Township Police Station, and Station Chief U Khin Maung Thein ordered IO Zaw Min Min Htwe to go with two constables to the USDA office to investigate. There the eyewitnesses verified that they had seen the alleged assailant run into the office; however, the USDA staff refused to allow the police inside.

Than Lwin had a broken nose and left cheek, and serious facial injuries, and was sent to the Mandalay General Hospital for an operation on June 16. On June 19 the investigating officer in the case came to see him in hospital; however, according to Than Lwin there has been no further investigation of the case. Meanwhile, he had to remain hospitalised, due to dizziness and poor eyesight.

Furthermore, on June 26 a USDA township committee member, U San Min, reportedly lodged a criminal complaint in the Mettaya Township Court and requested that it investigate under section 202 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The eight respondents include four of Than Lwin's children--Ko Zaw Min Lwin (son), Ma Khin Mar Kyi and Ma Khin Mar Lay (daughters), Ko Nyan Sein (son in law)--and four others named as U Nyo Kyi, Ko Kyaw Swe, Ko Nyo Lay and Ko Nyi Nyi. 

I am appalled that in this case the police were obstructed from performing their duties by the USDA personnel, and that those same officials are now apparently launching some kind of legal action against the family and supporters of the victim. This speaks not to a society based on law and order of the sort described by the government of Myanmar, but one where lawlessness is the only order of the day. It is also part of a pattern of non-investigation and persecution of victims and others close to them in Myanmar that is barbaric and unacceptable.

I thus call for a proper criminal investigation of the attack on U Than Lwin, with non-obstruction of police, followed by prosecution and punishment for the person or persons involved. I also call for compensation and protection from further attacks, be they physical or legal, for the victim and his family.

Finally, I note with concern that the USDA has in the past been accused of organising attacks on human rights defenders and others in Myanmar, in particular, the assault on a convoy at Depayin in 2003. I am not aware of any investigations or prosecutions ever following from that incident and would hope that effective action in this case may lead to the possibility for justice for other victims of abuse of power by its executives.

Yours sincerely

---

PLEASE SEND YOUR LETTERS TO:

Maj-Gen. Maung Oo
Minister for Home Affairs
Ministry of Home Affairs
Office No. 10
Naypyitaw
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
Naypyitaw
MYANMAR
Tel: + 95 1 372 681
Fax: + 95 1 652 624

2. 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

3. Brig-Gen. Khin Yi
Director General
Myanmar Police Force
Naypyitaw
MYANMAR
Tel: + 95 1 549 196/ 228/ 209

4. Mr. Shariq Bin Raza
Representative
UN Office on Drugs and Crime
11A Malikha Road
Ward 7, Mayangone Township
Yangon
MYANMAR
Tel: +951 666 903/ 660 556/ 660 538/ 660 398/ 664 539
Fax: +951 651 334
E-mail: fo.myanmar@unodc.org, shariq.raza@unodc.org, camila.vega@unodc.org 

5. Mr. Homayoun Alizadeh
Regional Representative for Asia-Pacific of OHCHR
UNESCAP
UN Secretariat Building, 6th Fl., Room A-601
Rajdamnern Nok Ave.
Bangkok 10200,
THAILAND
Tel: +662 288 1496
Fax: +662 288 3009

6. Professor Paulo Sergio Pinheiro
Special Rapporteur on Myanmar
Attn: Mr. Laurent Meillan
c/o OHCHR-UNOG
1211 Geneva 10
SWITZERLAND
Tel: + 41 22 9179 281
Fax: + 41 22 9179 018 (ATTN: SPECIAL RAPPORTEUR MYANMAR)
E-mail: lmeillan@ohchr.org

7. Ms. Hina Jilani
Special Representative of the Secretary General for human rights defenders
Att: Melinda Ching Simon
Room 1-040
C/o OHCHR-UNOG
1211 Geneva 10
SWITZERLAND
Tel: +41 22 917 93 88
Fax: +41 22 917 9006 (ATTN: SPECIAL REPRESENTATIVE HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENDERS)

Thank you.

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

Document Type :
Urgent Appeal Case
Document ID :
UA-230-2007
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.