INTRODUCTION
The 26-year rule of General
Ne Win's Burma Socialist Programme Party (BSPP) came to an end on
18 September 1988 when Armed Forces Chief of Staff General Saw
Maung led a military coup. The coup followed months of
pro-democracy demonstrations throughout the country; thousands of
demonstrators were shot and killed by the army. A military State
Law and Order Restoration Council (SLORC) was established to head
the new government. Martial law was declared. Direct control over
the country was established through a martial law administration of
local Law and Order Restoration Councils (LORCs).
The new
military government pledged political and economic reforms that
appeared to go some way towards meeting the demands of
pro-democracy protesters. The authorities announced that elections
to a new parliament would take place in May 1990, following which a
new constitution would be drawn up to lay the foundation for a
multi-party, parliamentary democracy. For the first time since 1962
political opposition parties were permitted to organize and were
recognized by the government: more than 200 were subsequently
registered, many of them formed from the student groups and
political organizations that had emerged in the course of mass
demonstrations against the Ne Win Government.
However, the
promised transition to parliamentary democracy was marred by
renewed repression even as the new military government established
itself. Hundreds of people were shot in the weeks following the
coup by troops who fired on unarmed demonstrators or, in some
cases, reportedly took alleged opponents from their houses and
summarily executed them. Outspoken leaders of the pro-democracy
movement before the coup were jailed and many continue to be
imprisoned.
Within a few months of the coup, many leaders
and supporters of the newly registered political parties were
arrested and imprisoned. By mid-1990 hundreds, and possibly
thousands, of people had been detained by the military authorities.
Many of them are prisoners of conscience and they include the main
opposition party leaders. Some opposition leaders were arrested in
July 1989 and officially disqualified by the SLORC from contesting
elections.
The death penalty remains in force: death
sentences, as well as long terms of imprisonment with hard labour,
have been handed down by military tribunals applying summary
martial law procedures which severely restrict defence rights and
deny any judicial right of appeal. At least 100 political prisoners
were sentenced to death in 1989, 24 of them by military courts and
76 by civilian courts, although it is not known whether any
executions have been carried out. The SLORC had, upon assuming
office, commuted all death sentences outstanding for crimes
committed before 18 September 1988.
This report incorporates
information from people arrested before and after the September
1988 coup and from relatives, friends or associates of current or
former prisoners. It provides compelling evidence that real or
imputed critics of Myanmar's military government have been, and
continue to be, imprisoned for the peaceful expression of their
political views. It also provides graphic evidence of widespread
torture, both of people detained for their participation in the
pro-democracy movement and of those held in connection with the
activities of armed opposition groups representing Myanmar's ethnic
minorities.
1. HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS IN
MYANMAR
Civil unrest erupted throughout Myanmar
- then Burma - in March 1988.(1) Mass demonstrations, led mainly by
students, called for an end to one-party rule by the
military-dominated Burma Socialist Programme Party (BSPP). They
urged the resignation of General Ne Win's Government and its
replacement by an interim civilian administration pending free and
fair elections and the introduction of multi-party parliamentary
democracy. Demonstrators also called for the restoration of
long-restricted civil and political liberties, including the rights
to freedom of expression and association.
General Ne Win's
Government took power in 1962 in a military coup. It replaced the
multi-party system established in the wake of Myanmar's
independence in 1948 with a single party state ruled by the BSPP.
The BSPP was officially dissolved after the September 1988 coup.
However it was subsequently reconstituted as the National Unity
Party (NUP) in preparation for the May 1990 elections.
Thousands
of people were killed in the first half of 1988 as the government
used violent measures in an attempt to suppress the demonstrations.
Some demonstrators died in violent clashes with police and soldiers
but most of those killed were reportedly shot dead while
participating in peaceful protests, or died later as a result of
their wounds. In July 1988, General Ne Win resigned as head of
government in the face of continuing unrest. However, there were
further demonstrations during the short term of office of his
successor, U Sein Lwin, who was himself replaced by a civilian, Dr
Maung Maung, after further widescale killings of demonstrators. The
latter's appointment also failed to end the unrest and the army
again took direct power on 18 September 1988.
Independent
reports indicate that as many as 1,000 people may have been killed
by troops in the first few days after the military coup. Amnesty
International has repeatedly called for an inquiry into reports
that security forces deliberately killed several thousand
demonstrators as the pro-democracy movement gathered strength
between March and September 1988 and in the aftermath of the 18
September 1988 military coup. However, there is no indication that
the current martial law administration, which includes several
officers who occupied command posts in the army during 1988, has
investigated alleged extrajudicial killings of demonstrators. No
military personnel are known to have been brought to justice in
relation to these killings. Rather, the current authorities have
denied that security forces committed any human rights
violations.
In a letter dated 22 December 1988 to the United
Nations (UN) Special Rapporteur on Summary or Arbitrary Executions,
which the Myanmar Government made public, it said that in dealing
with civil unrest in Yangon (Rangoon) and elsewhere in the country
since June 1988, the authorities had acted with the "utmost
self-restraint" and had resorted to shooting only when public
and private property and the lives of citizens were in jeopardy.
Myanmar's Ambassador and Permanent Representative to the UN at
Geneva stated before the Commission on Human Rights on 2 March 1989
that since assuming power on 18 September 1988, "the
authorities and the security forces had acted with the utmost
restraint and used the minimum amount of force commensurate with
and required by the practical need to curb and control the
calculated machinations engineered by the unscrupulous elements."
In reality, however, the government was responsible for widespread
political killings, torture of prisoners and other human rights
violations.
To Amnesty International's knowledge, in only
two instances was action taken in connection with human rights
violations by security personnel during the student unrest of 13 to
18 March 1988 in Yangon. The government ordered an inquiry
commission to look into the killing by riot police of two Yangon
Institute of Technology (YIT) students, Maung Phone Maw and Soe
Naing. However, the commission's findings were never fully made
public and the State Council's report on its conclusions was widely
criticized for its shortcomings and for what was seen as a
misleading and distorted version of events. The independence and
impartiality of the commission was seriously questioned. It did
acknowledge that the riot police were responsible for the deaths of
the two students and the detention of several hundred others.
However it failed to look into other deaths and injuries to
students and other demonstrators which occurred in that period, and
neglected to indicate whether the police officers responsible had
been brought to justice. Eventually, in the face of growing public
pressure the government acknowledged on 19 July that 41 detainees
had suffocated to death in a police van on 18 March. The Minister
for Home and Religious Affairs U Min Gaung took responsibility for
these deaths and resigned and the Director General of Police, Thein
Aung, and his deputy, Pe Kyi, were dismissed. It remains unclear,
however, whether the police responsible for these and other deaths
were prosecuted or disciplined in any way.
Repression
of the pro-democracy movement
Since the SLORC took
power in September 1988, the pro-democracy movement appears to have
broadened its popular base while retaining significant student
involvement. New political parties were formed by those who had
taken the lead in calling for an end to military rule in 1988: they
include the National League for Democracy (NLD), led by Aung San
Suu Kyi, the daughter of Burma's independence leader, Aung San, and
Tin U, a retired army general and long-standing critic of military
rule. In July 1990 the former was under house arrest and the latter
was serving a prison sentence imposed for political
reasons.
Another legally-registered political party, the
League for Democracy and Peace (LDP), associated with U Nu, the
last prime minister elected before the military took power in 1962,
declared that its primary aim was to "safeguard the
fundamental rights of mankind". Another party, the National
Politics Front (NPF), was legally registered on 14 November 1988
and stated that its goal was "to systematically attain through
legal means, and to safeguard, democratic rights declared in the UN
Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights". Other
legally registered parties were founded by student leaders, notably
the Democratic Party for a New Society (DPNS); its leader, Moe
Hein, is now imprisoned. Organizations that were active in the
pro-democracy movement but have not sought registration as
political parties, notably the All Burma Federation of Student
Unions (ABFSU), remain an active part of the pro-democracy
movement.
The activities of authorized opposition parties,
student organizations and other groups have been restricted by
emergency legislation and the special martial law powers of the
SLORC. Thousands of people were arrested in 1989 for non-violent
criticism of the martial law administration and for participating
in peaceful demonstrations called by the major political opposition
parties. The military made increasing use of martial law
restrictions on freedom of expression and peaceful assembly and
censorship legislation. Some of those arrested, including prisoners
of conscience, were administratively detained without charge or
trial; others were tried by military tribunals under special
summary proceedings introduced through SLORC martial law
orders.
The numbers of arrests steadily increased as
opposition groups undertook campaigning activities in defiance of
martial law. Beginning in March 1989, opposition parties and
student groups held memorials for students killed by the security
forces in past years and rallies at which party leaders called for
non-compliance with martial law restrictions on civil liberties. A
series of mass meetings protesting against the restrictions were
held in June and early July 1989, sponsored by major opposition
groups in defiance of martial law orders banning political
gatherings. At the same time, political leaders such as Aung San
Suu Kyi and Tin U repeatedly urged that such gatherings should be
peaceful, and counselled students and others not to take up arms or
use any violent means to oppose the military.
On 20 July
1989 troops entered the NLD's national headquarters and arrested 43
people, including much of its leadership; they are now believed to
be held at Yangon's Insein Prison. Aung San Suu Kyi and Tin U were
placed under house arrest the same day for allegedly "endangering
the state"; this was done under the provisions of the 1975
State Protection Law. Their detention orders were imposed for one
year or "as long as the danger of disruption of peace and
tranquility by them exists". Tin U was subsequently sentenced
to a prison term.
Since July 1989 arrests of opposition
party leaders and activists have been justified by the SLORC as
measures necessary to combat "conspiracies" and
"machinations" against the government by both "communist"
and "right-wing" forces. These allegations were made in
special press conferences held in August and September 1989 by
SLORC Secretary 1, Major General Khin Nyunt, who also heads the
Directorate of Defence Services Intelligence (DDSI). The texts of
General Khin Nyunt's statements were published in two widely
circulated pamphlets. In The Conspiracy of Treasonous Minions
within Myanmar-Naing-Ngan and Traitorous Cohorts Abroad, known
as the Green Book, General Khin Nyunt described alleged
"conspiracies and machinations to do great harm to the
country". These were said to be the responsibility of "party
organizations, rightist forces, some diplomats, some foreign
broadcasting stations, some foreign publications and
anti-government forces outside the country who were carrying out
both underground and above-ground activities using the students and
simple and honest people". In a second pamphlet, The
Burmese Communist Party's Conspiracy to Take Over State Power,
known as the Red Book, the DDSI chief described the alleged
infiltration or manipulation by the Communist Party of Burma (CPB)
of the main political opposition parties. The SLORC alleged that
the principal opposition parties -- including the NLD, the DPNS,
the LDP, the People's Progressive Party (PPP) and the National
Politics Front (NPF) -- had been manipulated or infiltrated by the
insurgent CPB, a charge the leaders of the legal opposition parties
denied.
Ethnic minority conflict - a history of human
rights violations
The emergence of the pro-democracy
movement, the collapse of the Ne Win Government, and the actions of
the current martial law administration have occurred against the
complex backdrop of long-standing armed conflict between government
troops and ethnic minority and communist armed opposition
organizations in remote areas of the country. These insurgencies
reflect the country's ethnic diversity: the principal armed
opposition groups are ethnic minority based and have sought greater
autonomy for peoples of the Kayin (Karen), Kachin, Kayah, Shan, Mon
and Rakhine (Arakhan) states.
Myanmar's minority peoples are
concentrated primarily in the mountainous regions that arch like a
horseshoe around the lowlands of central Myanmar. Violent
opposition groups have been active primarily in these areas,
particularly in regions adjoining the international borders. About
two thirds of Myanmar's estimated 39 million people are of the
majority Bamar (ethnic Burman) population and live primarily in
central Myanmar in the environs of the Ayeyarwady (Irrawaddy) and
Sittoung (Sittang) Rivers.
The principal insurgent
organizations include the Kachin Independence Organization (KIO)
and the Kayin (Karen) National Union (KNU), although almost all of
the major ethnic minorities have one or more armed opposition
groups associated with them. In addition, some armed opposition
activity along the eastern border with China has been attributed to
the Communist Party of Burma (CPB), although their influence and
military power had reportedly diminished significantly by 1989.
In
the course of the protest movement in 1988 many students fled to
border areas in fear of being arrested or killed, or with the aim
of joining armed opposition groups. Many who sought sanctuary with
such groups or as refugees in Thailand subsequently returned to
Myanmar, mostly to the capital and the major towns. An organization
openly espousing armed revolt was established by students in border
areas in November 1988 under the name All Burma Student Democratic
Front (ABSDF). Most reports of insurgent activities and army
counter-insurgency operations, however, have come from the Kayin
(Karen), Kachin, Shan and Mon States, where armed opposition
activity has continued at relatively high levels since 1984.
Extensive human rights violations have been reported in these
areas, where ethnic Kayin (Karen), Kachin, Shan and Mon civilians
have been subjected to torture and extrajudicial execution on a
large scale during army counter-insurgency operations.
In a
series of reports published in 1987, 1988 and 1989 Amnesty
International documented evidence that army units conducting
counter-insurgency operations in Myanmar's ethnic minority states
have since at least 1984 carried out widespread torture and summary
and arbitrary executions In its September 1987 report, Allegations
of Extrajudicial Executions, Torture and Ill-Treatment in the
Socialist Republic of the Union of Burma, covering human rights
abuse in the context of counter-insurgency since 1984, Amnesty
International included reports of 177 cases of apparent
extrajudicial execution. A subsequent report published in May 1988
and entitled, Burma: Extrajudicial Execution and Torture of
Members of Ethnic Minorities, (AI Index ASA 16/05/88) detailed
60 cases of apparent extrajudicial execution of people of Kayin
(Karen), Kachin and Mon communities by government
counter-insurgency forces. In August 1988 Amnesty International
published, Burma: Extrajudicial Execution, Torture and Political
Imprisonment of Members of the Shan and Other Ethnic Minorities,
(AI Index ASA 16/10/88) which documents 46 alleged extrajudicial
executions and 58 alleged cases of torture or cruel, inhuman or
degrading treatment since 1986. More recent testimony is summarized
in a further Amnesty International report, The Kayin State in
the Union of Myanmar [formerly the Karen State in the Union of
Burma]: Allegations of Ill-treatment and Unlawful Killings of
Suspected Political Opponents and Porters Seized Since 18 September
1988, (AI Index ASA 16/16/89). . Although reports of torture
and extrajudicial executions were rejected by the authorities in
1988 and 1989 as "totally unfounded" or as "fabricated
stories", they have not commented on the detail of the reports
or indicated that their denials are based on specific inquiries
into the cases cited.
The most recent evidence suggests that
the army's counter-insurgency forces continue to torture suspects
during interrogation and routinely carry out extrajudicial
executions. Many of the reported victims were apparently seized at
random from ethnic minority communities by troops operating in
conflict areas. Obliged to serve army units as porters, these
people reportedly continue to be ill-treated or summarily executed
at will.
In one case, three people were seized on 5 August
1989 in Wa Shawng township, Kachin State, and forced to act as
porters for the military. Hkrang Jawng Tu, aged 32, U Pung Kraw
Seng Li, 28, and Mi Naw Lum Hrong, aged 30, were taken by units of
the army's 58th Battalion with some 200 other people seized at
random from the villages of Gorut, Ding Jang Yang and others in Wa
Shawng township. They were reportedly taken by train to Mokaung
township, west of the state's capital, Myitkyina. Some of those
taken subsequently escaped and gave the families of the three men
information leading them to conclude that they either died of poor
treatment or were deliberately killed. One of the relatives gave
Amnesty International the following account:
"The conscripted porters included women, children and even elderly people. They were taken to Seng Da, and to Gara Yang villages, from there to Nam Pung where the KIA's [Kachin Independence Army] Battalion No. 5 is based. The three did not return. According to porters who escaped, they got food once every three days so people got very weak. They were taken for a month. The specific cause of their deaths is not known. About 30 porters died during that month including my three relatives.
"This was not a military operation. The army was simply patrolling the region. There was no fighting. They were not buried, they were left for dead on the footpath in the forest...Six of the 30 villagers who died were from Nam Ti village. Two friends of my three relatives escaped and went to my home to tell me about their deaths. They said they had been beaten by soldiers because they could not keep up with the troops."
The intensification of the war in
the areas in which armed opposition groups are active has been
accompanied by continuing human rights violations. In a dry season
offensive in 1989-90, the Myanmar armed forces captured almost all
military bases set up by the opposition Kayin (Karen) National
Union (KNU) and the New Mon State Party (NMSP), including the
strategic Three Pagodas Pass on the Thai border. The opposition
Kachin Independence Army (KIA) also suffered heavy losses at the
hands of government troops. Military operations were reportedly
accompanied by widespread human rights violations against ethnic
minority populations; captured insurgents are said to be subject to
torture and may be summarily executed and refugees have alleged
that civilians were also victims of extrajudicial executions by
government soldiers. In one incident, troops reportedly assaulted
the Kayin (Karen) village of Thetkaya at about 9am on 1 December
1989 when most of its inhabitants were assembled to watch a film
and fired indiscriminately at them. Three young girls, two young
women and a 15-year-old monk at the village monastery were
reportedly killed outright, shot without warning or provocation.
Many of the villagers then crossed the Moei river and sought refuge
in Thailand. No official inquiry is known to have been initiated
into the shootings, which appear to have occurred because the army
suspected villagers of sympathizing with the KNU armed opposition
group.
The official media in Myanmar has also reported
abuses committed by opposition groups. The Burma Broadcasting
System reported on 27 May 1990 that a bomb thrown the day before by
insurgents at a private clinic in Thanbyuzayat, Mon State, injured
11 people. On 11 March 1990 the KNU allegedly attacked a pagoda
festival in Bilin township, Kayin (Karen) State, shooting at
civilians and burning the village. One monk and four villagers were
reportedly killed and 15 others wounded in the incident. On 24
March the official radio reported that on 21 March the KIA had
attacked a ferry in Kachin State with grenades, killing one
passenger and injuring 15 others.
Amnesty International is
not able to determine the accuracy of these reports of opposition
abuses. It recognizes that governments have a responsibility to
maintain law and order and bring to justice those responsible for
criminal attacks including violent attacks on government
authorities, security forces and civilians. However, in doing so,
governments are required to respect the fundamental human rights of
all persons. Criminal acts by opposition groups can never justify
unlawful killings or torture by government forces. Amnesty
International, as a matter of principle, condemns the torture and
killing of civilians by anyone, including opposition
groups.
Recent developments
In June
1989 the SLORC announced that it would remain in office up to and
after the national elections scheduled for 27 May 1990, and would
not relinquish office until the new parliament had agreed a
constitution and a new government had been formed in accordance
with its provisions. The SLORC also announced its intention to
retain martial law during the 90-day period of election campaigning
if it considered that attempts to incite "disorder" were
continuing.
At the beginning of the campaigning period,
martial law was still in force. As a result, the authorities
maintained severe restrictions on campaigning activities. Indeed,
Aung San Suu Kyi, the NLD's General Secretary, was not only denied
the opportunity to participate in election campaigning by the terms
of her house arrest order but was also officially banned from
standing for election to the new parliament. Tin U, the NLD
Chairman, was automatically disqualified from contesting the
elections because of provisions in the election laws prohibiting
those serving prison sentences from candidature. In December 1989,
he was sentenced to three years' hard labour by a military
tribunal. U Nu, the former Prime Minister overthrown when General
Ne Win took power in 1962, was also under house arrest and unable
to participate in the elections. U Htwe Myint, a parliamentary
candidate and Central Executive Committee member of the Democracy
Party, was arrested on 8 February 1990, as was U Zaw Pe Win, the
Chairman of the Burma United Democratic Party. It is not clear
whether they are still detained. DPNS leader Moe Hein was arrested
on 17 July 1989 and is believed to remain in detention.
The
SLORC also severely restricted political campaigning by requiring
that all political party rallies, and speeches given at such
rallies, should be approved in advance by local Law and Order
Restoration Councils. The authorities forbade public criticism of
the government and enforced censorship regulations and martial law
orders to detain political party activists up until the actual day
of the election.
The election took place in 485
constituencies throughout Myanmar on 27 May as scheduled. The
polling process was reportedly free of intimidation by the armed
forces, and votes were counted in the presence of all the
candidates. The SLORC announced the election results in the
official media, with the NLD winning 82 percent of the seats.
However, by the end of July the SLORC had not set a timetable for
the end of military rule and had reaffirmed the need to formulate a
constitution and form "a strong government" before it
would relinquish power. The SLORC has made it clear that the newly
elected national assembly's scope of activity will be restricted to
that of writing the constitution. The SLORC also stipulated, on 27
July, that the constitution must be submitted to a national
referendum and approved by the army. This statement is a departure
from earlier ones, made shortly after the election when the SLORC
indicated that it would not interfere with the constitutional
process.
Amnesty International is not able to estimate
precisely how many people have been arrested for political reasons
since September 1988. The SLORC has acknowledged that some 1,200
people, including students and members of legal political parties,
were arrested in connection with their political activities between
18 September 1988 and 18 August 1989, most of whom it acknowledged
were then still in detention. Unofficial sources, however, suggest
that many more arrests have been carried out, and that over 3,000
people were imprisoned for political reasons in the second half of
1989 alone. Those detained included the leaders of most major
legally registered political parties, notably the NLD, the DPNS,
the PPP, the NPF and the League of Democratic Alliance (LDA).
Dozens of arrests were reported during the first six months of
1990. Most of the detainees were held in connection with political
opposition activities.
However, on 19 April 1990, according
to an official spokesman, seven lay Catholic workers were detained
for protesting against the forced relocation of squatters living on
land adjacent to church-owned property in Yangon. Of the seven, who
are members of the church's management board in Myanmar, only one,
Tin Gyi, has been named. An estimated 500,000 urban-dwellers have
been moved from their homes to satellite towns in remote rural
areas. The embassy of Myanmar in France stated that the satellite
towns were set up to provide higher standards of living for
"squatters" who were posing "great environmental,
sanitation and fire hazards". Unofficial reports, however,
state that these "squatters" include legitimate property
owners and that the satellite towns lack sanitation, electricity
and transport facilities, and that some people have died from
malaria as a result. According to some reports, the government
undertook the resettlement program in order to weaken opposition
strongholds.
Sources of information
The
continuing repression of political activity, including peaceful
dissent, has engendered a general climate of fear which discourages
individuals from disclosing information about human rights
violations. Criticism of the military government and the exercise
of freedom of expression and assembly are offences under martial
law. Arrests occur as a result; there is a general knowledge that
political detainees can be held indefinitely and are frequently
tortured.
Former detainees as well as their relatives,
friends or persons closely associated with them, have been
discouraged, and in some cases openly warned, by the authorities
not to disclose information on interrogation procedures and prison
conditions. The brother of a medical doctor arrested in July 1989
described the restrictions imposed even on the relatives of
political prisoners:
"Since he was arrested, everybody in my family has to report regularly to the local LORC office, and nobody is allowed to visit them. They are under constant surveillance. MIS [military intelligence] officers at the LORC office summon them randomly for further investigation. They want to know everything about us and ask many questions about members of the family, and also about relatives, friends and acquaintances, connections, activities, biographical details, etc. My relatives cannot travel outside the township without a special authorization..."
Several former victims of torture have alleged that before
being released they were forced by their interrogators to sign a
statement that they had confessed willingly: "The statement
[we had to sign] was saying, roughly, that these confessions...were
made willingly and not against our will", said a student who
was held in 1988. "Before being taken to Insein jail, they
tried to make him sign a statement that he had not been
mistreated..." said another student, whose brother was
allegedly tortured in July 1989 in Yangon.
Former detainees
and others interviewed by Amnesty International stated that they
were willing to provide information about their experiences only
because they were outside Myanmar. They expressed fears of
government reprisals against relatives who remained in Myanmar or
against themselves should they return. In almost all cases, they
specifically asked that their names and any other identifying
details be withheld. Such requests have been respected in this
report.
Myanmar nationals continued to leave the country,
officially or clandestinely, throughout 1989 and 1990 to seek
political asylum abroad. They included former political prisoners,
some of whom were reportedly victims of torture, as well as others
who witnessed fellow prisoners being tortured or ill-treated in the
course of interrogation. They also included relatives, friends,
close colleagues or associates of currently detained political
prisoners. Amnesty International has interviewed many such people,
particularly in November and December 1989, and has received
personal testimonies from victims of torture and others.
The
restriction of access to the country seriously hampers efforts to
investigate human rights abuses in Myanmar. Neither Amnesty
International nor other independent human rights organizations has
been officially permitted to visit the country, and parts of ethnic
minority areas have been closed to non-resident nationals and
foreigners alike. Myanmar's news media continues to be exclusively
government-controlled. The few foreign journalists who have been
granted official access to Myanmar since the 18 September 1988
military coup have not been permitted to travel freely inside the
country or investigate human rights issues, although some members
of the international press corps were allowed into the country at
the time of the May elections.
Amnesty International has
frequently requested access to visit Myanmar in order to inquire
into human rights violations and discuss its concerns with the
Myanmar Government. The government, however, has not replied. In
addition, Amnesty International has never received a direct
response from the authorities about the wide range of concerns it
has raised in a series of reports published in 1987, 1988 and 1989.
However, the SLORC does allude to these documents in its regular
news conferences. In a news conference on 9 September 1989, Major
General Khin Nyunt commented in reference to the army shootings of
demonstrators in 1988: "The warnings went unheeded and at
length force had to be used to control the situation. When this was
done, the Amnesty International began filing one objection after
another against the Tatmadaw [the army] and the Government. It
never mentioned the destruction caused but began to raise
objections every day as soon as arrests were made." He
continued, "Amnesty International is nothing but an
organization which criticizes, incites and makes demands in the
internal affairs of the various nations." In May 1990 Amnesty
International once more sought access to Myanmar in order to
discuss human rights violations with the government, but it again
received no response.
Endnote
2. MARTIAL
LAW AND HUMAN RIGHTS
Freedom of expression and
peaceful assembly were significantly limited from 1962 under
General Ne Win's Government. The imposition of martial law in
September 1988 placed further restrictions on such rights, and
security provisions introduced in 1989 further reduced rights to
due process of law.
Laws in force before September
1988
Legislation passed by previous governments
severely restricts the rights to freedom of expression and
assembly. Censorship is enforced under the terms of the 1962 Law
for the Registration of Printers and Publishers, violation of which
is punishable by up to seven years' imprisonment. The 1950
Emergency Provisions Act and the 1975 State Protection Law (also
known as the Law Protecting the State From Threat By Those Wishing
to Undermine It) provide for long terms of imprisonment for
non-violent activities construed as threatening public order or the
security of the state. The Emergency Provisions Act allows for up
to seven years' imprisonment of anyone who "spreads a false
news item or a rumour to excite dissaffection" or to promote
"disloyalty to the State". The Unlawful Associations Act
of 1957 provides for not less than two years' imprisonment for
anyone who "is a member of an unlawful association, or takes
part in meetings of any such association...or in any way assists
the operations of any such association...". An unlawful
association is defined as an association:
"(a) which encourages or aids persons to commit acts of violence or intimidation or [whose] members habitually commit such acts, or (b) which has been declared to be unlawful by the President of the Union [i.e. the Head of State] under the powers hereby conferred."
The law further states that:
"If the President of the Union is of the opinion that any association interferes or has for its object interference with the administration of the law or with the maintenance of law and order, or that it constitutes a danger to the public peace, the President of the Union may, by notification in the Gazette, declare such association to be unlawful."
Although those accused of
violating the Emergency Provisions Act, the Unlawful Associations
Act and the Law for the Registration of Printers and Publishers are
apparently to be charged and brought to trial, the 1975 State
Protection Law allows the authorities to order up to three years'
detention or restricted residence without charge or trial. The
State Protection Law provides for the detention of anyone who there
is "reason to believe will commit, is committing or has
committed an act endangering popular peace or state security and
sovereignty".
Martial law restrictions
In
a speech given on 9 May 1990 to the state and regional law and
order restoration councils Prime Minster General Saw Maung
described how the SLORC views the legal system: "What we are
using is the force of power. However, we use law as much as
possible. We are using both force of law and force of power".
The
legal basis for the application of martial law is unclear, as
illustrated by comments of the SLORC information committee at a
press conference on 20 April 1990: "There is no such law
providing for when and how to use martial law in our country".
The current status of the 1974 Constitution of the Socialist
Republic of the Union of Burma is also uncertain. In his 9 May
speech General Saw Maung said: "Legally speaking, the 1974
constitution still exists...The constitution was suspended by the
act of the military coup, but we can take from it what is needed".
Article 76 of the 1974 Constitution provides for the declaration of
a state of emergency and martial law in all or part of the country
"if an emergency affecting" the country's "defence
and security...should arise". Article 166 provides that in
such circumstances: "necessary restrictions on the rights and
freedoms of citizens" may be imposed although these should be
"regularly reviewed and modified as necessary".
Martial
law was declared on 18 September 1988, the day of the military coup
which brought the SLORC to power. On 27 September the SLORC
legalized the formation of political parties by the enactment of
the Political Parties Registration Law (4/88), after imposing
severe restrictions on public meetings and political campaigning
through a series of martial law orders. Martial law Order 2/88,
dated 18 September 1988, prohibits "congregating, walking,
marching in procession, chanting slogans, delivering speeches,
agitating and creating disturbances on the streets by a group of
more than five people." It also imposes a curfew between 8pm
and 4am. Notification 8/88, issued on 10 October 1988, prohibits
public criticism of the Defence Forces and the martial law
administration: "Organizational activities, speeches,
propaganda, and subversive literature aimed at dividing the Defence
Forces are prohibited. It is hereby declared that effective action
will be taken if this prohibition is violated". These orders
provided a basis for large-scale arrests after September 1988 and
became the object of major protests. The new opposition parties
maintained that political organization and campaigning for the
scheduled May 1990 elections were unduly restricted by these
orders.
The SLORC has repeatedly accused the opposition
parties of deliberately violating martial law restrictions and of
seeking to "create disturbances", "confusion"
and "chaos". The SLORC has denied arresting and detaining
people arbitrarily and describes those arrested under martial law
as "unscrupulous agitators" who cannot be considered
non-violent demonstrators. Those arrested, according to Major
General Khin Nyunt, Secretary 1 of the SLORC, were detained "not
because of their political convictions but because they
transgressed the law...They were detained in accordance with the
prevailing security measures...". In practice, however, many
hundreds of people have been arrested for their peaceful political
activities.
Although martial law orders do not generally
stipulate penalties, previous legislation is has been invoked in
order to hand down long terms of imprisonment. The 1950 Emergency
Provisions Act, the 1975 State Protection Law, and the Unlawful
Associations Act of 1957 are sometimes cited in order to justify
the imprisonment of people who have violated martial law orders.
The imprisonment of prisoners of conscience has also been
facilitated by the enforcement of the 1962 Law for the Registration
of Printers and Publishers.
On 6 June 1989 Major General
Phone Myint, the Minister of Home and Religious Affairs, issued a
directive that printers and publishers must abide by Regulations
Number 18 and 19 of the 1962 law. These regulations require all
publications to specify the name of the editor, the name and
registration number of the printer and the location of the printing
press. On 18 June the authorities increased the maximum prison term
for those who published material without proper registration from
three to seven years. The major general also drew attention to a
1977 directive modifying the law to require printers and publishers
to submit "all manuscripts", except "periodicals
which are published regularly", to the authorities "for
approval before printing and publishing them", or face
imprisonment.
On 9 June 1989 an official of the Ministry of
Home and Religious Affairs announced that because the 1962 law did
not cite political parties, "publications related to elections
that are published by parties - such as objectives and platforms of
the parties, biographical data of their candidates and election
campaign materials" could be "exempted" from its
provisions. Political parties, nevertheless, had "to submit
drafts of the printed material they want to publish for approval
before they are distributed". A further official statement on
the restrictions was issued on 2 August 1989: "Organizations
that received exemption certificates shall publish their party
policies, programs, organizational methods and rules", but not
"articles opposing the SLORC or the regional law and order
councils..."
Martial law and extensive national
security legislation grants extraordinary powers to military
security services. On 7 April 1989 a SLORC spokesman declared that
under martial law, a "military commander has the right to
apply the military regulations from the battlefield in resorting to
maximum power to restore stability". On 29 June 1989 the
official newspaper, the Working People's Daily, stated that
military officials had total freedom of action in emergency
situations: the absolute power of a "field commander" in
"the battlefield". It announced that under a "martial
law regime", a military official need not be accountable to
any higher authority for official acts: not to his superior
officers, or government, or the country's basic law and
constitution.
Judicial proceedings under martial
law
Shortly after assuming office the SLORC
promulgated the Judicial Law. This law, announced on 26 September
1988, guaranteed the independence of the civilian judiciary, the
right to a public hearing "except in the cases where legally
prohibited", the rights to be defended and to appeal against
sentence. In July 1989, however, the military acquired judicial
powers. Martial Law Orders 1/89 and 2/89 bestowed judicial
authority on the military commanders in Yangon and the Central and
Northwestern Military Commands, empowering them to conduct summary
trials. Fifteen military tribunals were formed as a result and
began to operate immediately. People who opposed martial law
authority by "violation or defiance of the orders issued by
the SLORC, the government or [military] commanders" could
henceforth be tried only by military tribunal.
Order Number
2/89 also established special procedures to be observed in the
summary trials of martial law offenders. Military tribunals were to
"waive unnecessary witnesses", "indict an offender
without hearing prosecution witnesses" and "reject the
recalling of witnesses who have already testified". The
tribunals were instructed that those found guilty of offences
against martial law were to be awarded "(a) The death
sentence; (b) life imprisonment; or (c) a jail term of not less
than three years with hard labour". Order Number 2/89 also
declares that "decisions and judgments passed by military
tribunal shall be final". There is no judicial appeal. Order
Number 2/89 instructed and empowered military tribunals to impose
death sentences "regardless of the provisions under existing
laws". Death sentences must be approved by the regional
military commander alone, and the only recourse of the condemned is
to ask the army commander-in-chief within 30 days to "revise"
the sentence.
According to the SLORC, 100 people were
sentenced to death in the three months after the military tribunals
began to operate, 24 of them by military tribunals. It is not known
whether any executions have taken place. Several prisoners have
been condemned for offences such as bombings or killing police
officers; Amnesty International has information on 22 such cases.
In one of the first cases to come before a military tribunal, Moe
Kyaw Thu, aged 17, Nyi Nyi U, and Zaw Gyi, aged 27, three young NLD
activists, were condemned to death for causing an explosion at the
Syriam State Oil Refinery to the south of Yangon, which killed two
people and seriously wounded a third on 7 July 1989. However,
spokesmen for the Kayin (Karen) National Union have claimed
responsibility for the bombing.
Martial law restrictions
were further elaborated in 1990. On 23 February 1990 the SLORC
issued Order Number 3/90, "relating to the right to assemble
and campaign". This order prohibits denigration of the state
and regional law and order restoration councils and the defence
forces, as well as incitement to "undermine security, the
prevalence of law and order and regional peace and tranquility".
Fines of up to 5,000 kyat, or three years' imprisonment, or both,
are prescribed for violations of the order. In a press conference
held on 1 March 1990 the information committee of the SLORC
explained that Order Number 3/90 had been issued because: "We
have to lay down rules for assembly and campaigning in order to
prevent overt and covert subversive elements and the
colonial-imperialists from exerting their influence, and to ensure
that law and order prevail and campaigning is disciplined...".
The SLORC also required that opposition parties obtain prior
government approval for campaign speeches: local authorities were
to vet speeches before they were delivered at campaigning rallies.
Order 3/90 was invoked to arrest 13 DPNS members on 24 April 1990,
one month before the general elections, for giving campaign
speeches without obtaining prior approval from the authorities.
On
22 May 1990 the SLORC issued Order 1/90, which states that people
who do not "report people illegally residing in their houses"
may be punished with up to seven years' imprisonment and a fine.
This order refers back to an earlier directive of 18 July 1989
which ordered residents of Yangon's 41 townships to report guests
staying in households in Yangon as well as people missing from them
to the local Law and Order Restoration Council. The lifting of
martial law has been announced in some townships, but it is unclear
which martial law orders cease to have effect or whether military
tribunals cease to operate in these areas. Notification 8/88 and
Martial Law order Number 2/88, which severely curtail the rights to
freedom of expression and assembly, remain in force throughout the
country.
3. ARREST AND DETENTION PROCEDURES
UNDER MARTIAL LAW
Myanmar law in times of
normality appears to prohibit the arbitrary detention of suspects.
The 1974 Constitution and the Code of Criminal Procedure guarantee
the right to be brought promptly before a judicial authority. They
provide that no citizen may be detained for more than 24 hours
without judicial approval. The Code of Criminal Procedure indicates
that an arrest should normally be carried out with a warrant issued
by a court. However, under the 1974 Constitution all such rights
may be abridged during a declared State of Emergency.
Myanmar
has not ratified or acceded to the international covenants on human
rights. However, the Body of Principles for the Protection of All
Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment, which
stipulates that detainees "be heard promptly by a judicial or
other authority" was adopted without a vote in the United
Nations General Assembly on 9 December 1988. Principle 11.2 states
that each detainee "shall receive prompt and full
communication of any order of detention, together with reasons
therefore". Principle 13 provides that "Any person shall,
at the moment of arrest and at the commencement of detention or
imprisonment, or promptly thereafter, be provided by the authority
responsible for his arrest, detention or imprisonment,
respectively, with information on and an explanation of his rights
and how to avail himself of such rights." Principle 4
guarantees that "Any form of detention...and all measures
affecting the human rights of a person under any form of
detention...shall be ordered by, or be subject to the effective
control of, a judicial or other authority". The Body of
Principles applies even to legal States of Emergency.
Although
political detainees themselves often do not know under what
legislation they are being held, most are thought to have been
detained under either Section 10(a) of the 1975 State Protection
Law, which concerns supposed threats to state security or Section
5(j) of the 1950 Emergency Provisions Law, which concerns promoting
disloyalty to the state. Those held under the 1950 law are
generally tried under Section 5(j). Prior to the establishment of
military tribunals in July 1989, most prisoners held under this law
were tried by ordinary courts and those convicted were sentenced to
two to three years' imprisonment. Since July 1989 such trials have
been before military tribunals and sentences handed down have
ranged from three to 20 years' imprisonment. Political prisoners
held under the 1975 law are detained without trial under its
preventive detention provision. Some of those held initially under
Section 5(j) of the 1950 Emergency Provisions Law have subsequently
been detained under Section 10(a) of the 1975 law, which permits
their detention for up to three years without trial. The SLORC has
repeatedly made general statements to the effect that detainees
have been arrested for breaking martial law provisions and that no
one has been detained solely for their political beliefs.
The
authorities generally give reasons for the detention of well-known
political leaders and activists. For example, it has been announced
that NLD General Secretary Aung San Suu Kyi and former Prime
Minister U Nu are detained under the preventive detention
provisions of the 1975 State Protection Law. Other prisoners of
conscience such as lawyer Nay Min and NLD leader U Ba Thaw are held
under the 1950 Emergency Provisions Act. Both of the latter have
been tried by military tribunals and sentenced to 14 years' and "20
years' life imprisonment with labour" respectively. Still
other political prisoners are detained under Section 17-1 and 17-2
of the 1957 Illegal Associations Act - Tin Nain Tun (whose case is
discussed in section 4), and ethnic Kachin lawyer Bawk La are
reportedly held under this legislation. In a recent censorship case
four political activists were arrested under the 1962 Law for the
Registration of Publishers and Printers for distributing campaign
leaflets in Pathein (Bassein) on 12 May 1990.
Although many
political prisoners in Myanmar are held without charge or trial,
the official media does sometimes announce sentences handed down on
individuals tried by military tribunals. These have included
several political leaders such as Tin U, the 64-year-old Chairman
of the NLD, who was sentenced to three years' imprisonment with
hard labour in December 1989 for engaging in "agitation aimed
at the disintegration of the armed forces", "helping and
encouraging military protestors during the 1988 pro-democracy
demonstrations", inciting people "to misunderstand the
government" and "creating public
disturbances".
Circumstances of arrest
Many
arrests of government opponents have been carried out by the
Directorate of Defence Services Intelligence (DDSI), the military
intelligence agency, often with army support. This agency is known
by the acronym MIS. Other arrests were conducted by police
agencies: the Special Investigation Department (SID), and notably
the Bureau of Special Investigation (BSI) and the Criminal
Investigation Department (CID).
Former detainees have told
Amnesty International that they were shown no warrant at the time
of their arrest, were not informed of any charges against them, and
that their cases were never brought before a judicial authority. A
former civil servant detained in January 1989 said he had been
interrogated and beaten for three days by military intelligence
officers before being transferred to police custody:
"The police told me my arrest was not pursuant to any law. They said they were still holding me because they had been ordered to do so. I was kept without being accused of any specific act. Throughout the entire period I was in the police prison. I never went to court...After two months in prison, I was released by a Law and Order Restoration Council order."
Another former detainee, a
26-year-old student from Mandalay arrested in late 1987, said he
was interrogated under torture for two weeks by police Special
Branch officers and then transferred to a regular prison: "I
did not see a judge or any official from the court for the
following eight months during which I was held there. I just stayed
in my cell. I had no trial".
Political detainees
sometimes have their heads covered upon arrest, apparently so that
they will not know where they are being taken and to conceal their
identities from witnesses. One student arrested in October 1988
said he was taken from a Yangon tea-shop with two friends by
Military Intelligence Service (MIS) officers in civilian clothes
accompanied by about 40 soldiers: "We were blindfolded with
ricebags which they pulled over our heads and were made to lie on
the floor of the army truck that was taking us away to an unknown
destination".
Some arrests were carried out at night
during raids on people's homes. The son of a former civil servant
arrested in July 1989 in Yangon told Amnesty International:
"My father was arrested...in the middle of the night, at about 3am. Everybody was sleeping in the house...He was arrested by...maybe 50 soldiers and MIS people. They surrounded the house and 10 of them came in to catch my father. My mother was at home. They took my father away...While he was being taken away, other soldiers searched the house for documents."
In another case, a teacher was
also arrested in Yangon in July 1989 when police were searching for
one of his sons: "[They] found some books deemed 'leftist' so
they arrested [him], accusing him of being inspired by leftist
ideas".
Detainees' families invariably are not informed
of their whereabouts by the authorities, although some have been
able to find out unofficially. Relatives usually do not know the
prisoner's whereabouts until they are either released or handed
over to police custody and transferred to a regular detention
facility within the prison system. Even then, months may pass
before they are authorized to visit the prisoner, although
sometimes relatives may be allowed to send food and clothing to the
prisoner during these periods.
Sany Ko Ko Gyi, a 25-year-old
tutor at the Department of History, Yangon Arts and Sciences
University, was one of the 43 arrested at the NLD headquarters on
20 July 1989. He was a member of the NLD Youth Organization. By the
end of the year his family had reportedly still not been permitted
to visit him.
Similarly, a relative of U Aung Khin (see
section 4), who had still not been seen months after arrest,
expressed the family's fear for his life: "I do not know why
they used an old photo of [him] in the Red Book instead of
taking a fresh picture of him, as they have done for most of the
people in the Red Book. But it is possible that he died in
custody or that he was severely mistreated and that they could not
publish a photo which would have condemned them". (The Red
Book is a SLORC publication about the Communist Party of
Burma's alleged infiltration of major opposition groups).
A
student activist from Moulmeingyun, Ayeyarwady Division, who was
held for two weeks and interrogated in a place he could not
identify (he was taken there blindfolded), said: "While I was
detained, my family had no information about my whereabouts; they
did not know where I was and what had happened to me". A
26-year-old student who was allegedly tortured by Special Branch
officers in Mandalay in 1989 said: "After five months of
detention in Mandalay prison, my mother was allowed to visit me for
the first time". The family of a Yangon medical doctor
arrested in July 1989 by MIS personnel reportedly still had no news
about him in September 1989. A relative said:
"He may have been taken to Ye Kyi Aing [an army camp outside Yangon], because it is usually there that they detain suspects for interrogation. I am not sure where he is really detained...Since his arrest he has not been allowed to receive family visits in prison. We have no news about him since. We do not know whether he is dead or alive or whether he has been mistreated during interrogation."
Detaining authorities sometimes
refuse to identify places of detention to parents or other
relatives making enquiries. A 19-year-old student from Mawlamyine
(Moulmein), who reportedly spent 10 months in a rebel student camp
near the border with Thailand, returned home under a government
program in July 1989 but was arrested two months later by LORC
officials. In late November, according to a source close to the
family, his whereabouts were still unknown: "His place of
detention is unknown. Nobody knows. Even his parents whom I met a
week ago...They inquired with the Law and Order Restoration Council
authorities and were answered that they had to investigate his case
and would release him afterwards".
This also occurred
in the case of an 18-year-old student activist from South
Okkalappa, Yangon, who was reportedly arrested in February 1989 by
the military and taken to an unknown place. When his parents went
to the LORC office to ask where he was being held, the authorities
reportedly refused to provide any details: "They just said
they had to keep him for questioning and things like 'what are you
worried about?', 'what do you take us for?', and 'you should not
ask too many questions'".
A 24-year-old who had been in
Thailand was reportedly arrested in his home in Hpa-an (Pa-an),
capital of Kayin (Karen) State in early 1989, a few days after his
return. In July, six months after his arrest, he was apparently
still held incommunicado and "even his mother did not know
where he was detained" according to a friend of his who added:
"In October, [his parents] learned that he was held in Hpa-an
prison and were authorized to send him food or other things via
prison authorities. But they were still not permitted to visit him
and to have a face-to-face meeting with him".
4.PRISONER
PROFILES
Thousands of critics and opponents of
the government, including many prisoners of conscience, have been
detained without trial or imprisoned since the SLORC took power in
September 1988. They include opposition party leaders, students,
teachers and academics, lawyers, doctors, civil servants, former
armed forces and police officers, writers, and others. Buddhist
monks have also been imprisoned.
Many arrests have occurred
because of repeated efforts by students and opposition party
activists to challenge martial law restrictions by holding
political meetings and other peaceful political activities. These
protests have resulted in successive waves of arrests, the most far
reaching of which occurred in July 1989 when hundreds of people
were arrested throughout the country, including student and
political opposition party leaders.
Official restrictions on
dissemination of information make it impossible to fully document
cases of political imprisonment in Myanmar. Although thousands have
been detained, only the fate of a few is known. Nevertheless
Amnesty International has to date identified dozens of prisoners of
conscience, including the following individuals whose cases may be
seen as typical.
Nay Min: Nay Min is a lawyer who
also worked as a journalist. He was detained in October 1988 and
sentenced a year later to 14 years' imprisonment with hard labour
under the 1950 Emergency Provisions Act. According to the official
news media, he "had become dissatisfied with the government"
after "hearing rumours in connection with the March and August
disturbances in 1988", an apparent reference to the killing by
security forces of hundreds of peaceful demonstrators during these
two months. Unofficial sources say that Nay Min became close to
student and other leaders of the emerging democracy movement during
that period.
The official media said he was detained for
"sending false news and rumours" to the British
Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) in August and September 1988. He was
reportedly first held under the provisions of the 1950 Emergency
Provisions Act for "defaming the government" and
"inciting unrest". According to a foreign news report,
Nay Min complained of ill-treatment during a court appearance when
he was remanded for further detention and asked to be admitted to a
hospital, but this request was denied. Other unofficial sources
also alleged that he had been ill-treated. The authorities then
invoked the 1975 State Protection Law, which allows for detention
without charge or trial, to prolong his imprisonment. On 21 January
1989 the authorities confirmed his detention and said he was in
good health.
Nay Min was sentenced by a military tribunal
under summary procedures on 5 October 1989, and therefore has no
judicial right of appeal. In May 1990 Amnesty International
received reports that he had developed an acute heart condition
which may be a consequence of torture by electric shocks. He was
apparently not receiving medical treatment for heart disease and is
being held in a cold, damp cell at Yangon's Insein Prison. Amnesty
International believes he is detained solely for exercising his
right to freedom of expression and to seek, receive and impart
information and ideas through any media and regardless of
frontiers.
Nan Zing La: Nan Zing La, an ethnic
Kachin, is a 60-year-old lawyer from Myitkyina, capital of Kachin
State. He is married and has several children. Nan Zing La is a
leader in the Baptist Church in the state. He was previously
imprisoned for five years and was released in 1963 when Ne Win
granted an amnesty for political prisoners. He was reportedly the
first Kachin to graduate in law. An associate described his
background and his arrest:
"He talks well, is a good orator and is very fond of his Kachin origin and of his people. He would advise younger lawyers about points of law...He is a high grade lawyer which means he can take up a case anywhere in the country. He was arrested on the same day as [lawyers] Bawk La and U Kyaw Zaw and for the same reasons: he gave speeches on two occasions during the demonstrations last year. He...gave two speeches but did not intend to play any particular leading role in the movement. He was not tortured or beaten to my knowledge. He was sentenced to five years' imprisonment..."
Nan Zing La was reportedly
arrested in October 1988 and his relatives were reportedly not
permitted to visit him until six months had passed although they
had been allowed to send him food. Amnesty International believes
he is detained solely for exercising his right to freedom of
opinion and expression.
Ba Thaw: Ba Thaw, also known
as Maung Thawka, is a 62-year-old writer, cartoonist and former
naval officer. A senior member of the NLD, he was found guilty of
inciting naval personnel to join the 1988 pro-democracy movement
and was sentenced to "20 years' life imprisonment with labour"
on 5 October 1989. He was tried under summary procedures by
Military Tribunal 2 and has no judicial right of appeal.
U
Ba Thaw is one of the best-known novelists in Myanmar and was also
the president of the Writers' Union. His novels recount his
experiences in the navy and his most recent book is about a
shipwreck which took place over 30 years ago. He is said to be held
in solitary confinement at Insein Prison. He suffers from chronic
spondilitis, which is an arthritic-like condition of the spine
causing pain and stiffness. Amnesty International believes he is
detained solely for exercising his right to freedom of expression
as a leader of a legal political party.
Ma Theingi:
Ma Theingi is a well-known painter and art teacher in her early 40s
who acted as personal secretary to Aung San Suu Kyi. She has also
written a book on the tradition of puppet theatre in Myanmar which
is awaiting publication in Bangkok. Arrested along with U Ba Thaw
and 41 others on 20 July at the NLD headquarters, she is believed
to be held in Insein Prison. Like many people arrested in the 1989
sweep, she is thought to be held without charge or trial. Amnesty
International believes she is detained solely for exercising her
rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and association in a legal
political party.
Dr Tin Myo Win:
Thirty-seven-year-old Dr Tin Myo Win, also known as U Tin Myo Win,
was arrested on 11 August 1989. Chairman of the NLD Supervisory
Committee for students and a member of the NLD Central Committee,
he was politically active in the Mawlamyine and Mergui areas. He
taught at the Institute of Medicine Number 1 in Yangon and had
worked as a surgeon at Yangon General Hospital for nearly 10
years.
Dr Tin Myo Win led doctors and nurses' protests
against the security forces' shooting of demonstrators in 1988. In
December 1988 he left Yangon General Hospital to work in a private
clinic. He reportedly believed he would have been forced to resign
from the General Hospital as were many of his colleagues who had
participated in peaceful demonstrations. Dr Tin Myo Win is
reportedly held without charge or trial in Insein Prison. His
family, apparently, is not permitted to visit him, although they
are allowed to bring food for him to the prison every two weeks.
Amnesty International believes he is detained solely for his role
as a leader of a legal political party.
U Aung Khin:
U Aung Khin, a retired civil servant, was detained in the wave of
arrests in the summer of 1989. One of his relatives described the
circumstances of his arrest:
"He was arrested in the middle of the night on 11 July 1989 at home...He used to be a government official working at Yangon People's Council office until he retired and became a merchant selling and buying goods between Thailand and Myanmar...He was arrested by a mixed team of maybe 50 soldiers and MIS people. They surrounded the house and 10 of them came in...They took him away to Ye Kyi Aing camp, I believe, or to MI-6 which is located near the Mingaladon airport and which is the MIS headquarters. While he was taken away, other soldiers searched the house for documents. They did not find anything..."
The relative speculates on the
reasons for his arrest:
"Many of his friends are political
figures, all of whom are now under detention: some were arrested
before him, some at the same time and others after. He was not
actively involved in actual opposition activities...I have had no
news since he was arrested...he is accused of being a CPB
underground agent. To my knowledge he had never been in touch with
or sympathetic to the CPB. This accusation is impossible, he was
not pro-communist. He was a trader going to the Shan State..."
U
Aung Khin's family had reportedly not seen him by the end of 1989
and did not know his whereabouts. To Amnesty International's
knowledge he had neither used nor advocated violence: he is
believed to have been detained solely for the real or imputed
political activities of friends and relatives.
Tin Nain
Tun: Tin Nain Tun is a 26-year-old Yangon Arts and Sciences
University student from Myaungmya in the Ayeyarwady Division. He
was the vice-chairman of the DPNS Ayeyarwady unit and had been one
of the leaders of the Myaungmya strike committee during the 1988
protest movement. He was arrested on 14 May 1989 at his home by MIS
personnel and taken to the Pathein MIS office where he was
interrogated for over a month and reportedly tortured. He was
apparently charged under Section 17-l of the 1957 Illegal
Associations Act for membership in an illegal organization and
sentenced to five years' imprisonment by a military tribunal in
Yangon in September 1989. Tin Nain Tun reportedly advocated
peaceful political protest through legal means: Amnesty
International believes he is detained solely for his leadership
role in a lawful political party.
U Than Nyunt: U
Than Nyunt, in his early 50s, was arrested in mid-1989. He was the
headmaster of Thanbyuzayat State High School, Mon State, and is
married with three children. He was a civil servant, and was
reportedly not involved with any political party (participation in
a political party is forbidden to government employees). Most of
the students in his school joined in the 1988 demonstrations, and,
according to his colleagues, he participated in them as well in
order to advise and help his students. According to reports, he
opposed confrontation with the army and police, but helped to
organize peaceful demonstrations.
Reportedly because of his
participation in demonstrations, he was dismissed in early 1989. He
found a new job as a translator on a merchant ship trading with
Singapore. The boat was reportedly involved in black-market
activities in other Indian Ocean ports. The government issued a
warrant for his arrest and he was detained in Nhit Aing village,
near Amherst, Thanbyuzayat township, after disembarking from the
ship. By mid-October 1989 his wife had no information as to his
whereabouts. Amnesty International believes he is detained solely
for having participated in political demonstrations without having
used or advocated violence.
5. TORTURE
Torture
has been widely reported in Myanmar for many years. The victims
have included students and others detained during periodic unrest
in the cities and members of ethnic minority groups arrested in the
course of army counter-insurgency operations. Torture has been a
persistent feature of military operations in the areas in which
ethnic minority and communist guerrilla forces have been engaged in
armed opposition to the government. In such areas, torture often
assumed a further dimension in that it culminated in summary and
arbitrary extrajudicial execution. In recent years overwhelming
evidence of torture - and extrajudicial execution on a large scale
- became available as thousands of ethnic Kayins (Karens), Kachins,
Mons and Shan fled across the frontiers to seek refuge in
neighbouring countries from the conflict within Myanmar's border
areas. Many could describe both their own experiences as prisoners
and the detention or deaths of friends and relatives. The mass
killings of urban demonstrators in 1988 and subsequent waves of
arrests generated a similar flight across the borders, this time of
students and others associated with opposition to the military
government.
The information summarized here is primarily
based on detailed testimonies of torture given to Amnesty
International in November and December 1989 by 16 recently released
people, as well as on other detailed reports of torture received
over the past two years. In addition to reports of torture, Amnesty
International has received numerous accounts of beatings and other
ill-treatment, sometimes resulting in death, in police or military
custody, of demonstrators arrested during street protests between
March and September 1988.
Victims of torture
People
suspected of organizing or participating in political activities
critical of or in opposition to the government run a high risk of
torture. Most victims of torture outside the insurgency areas,
whose cases are known to Amnesty International, were opposition
activists and organizers. Among them were student union activists
and supporters and leaders of student organizations, notably of the
All Burma Federation of Student Unions (ABFSU). Other torture
victims included members and leaders of the main opposition
parties, notably the NLD and the DPNS, and local civic leaders who
had delivered speeches or organized strike committees during the
1988 unrest, and later joined opposition parties. Also tortured
were a number of returnees from Thailand - students and others who
returned, often through government programs, after having fled from
the country in the immediate wake of the military takeover. Others
were detained and tortured after returning from a period in hiding
in jungle areas under the control of insurgent groups; they were
often suspected of having been involved in the violent opposition
activities of the insurgent All Burma Student Democratic Front
(ABSDF). In the ethnic minority areas affected by conflict, entire
communities appear to be at risk of random detentions, torture or
extrajudicial execution by government soldiers engaged in
counter-insurgency operations.
Agencies responsible
for torture
At least six state security forces and
agencies have been implicated by former torture victims in the
torture and ill-treatment of political and other detainees in their
custody. In addition to the regular army (Pyithu Tatmadaw,
or People's Defence Forces) and the People's Police Force, the
Directorate of Defence Services Intelligence (DDSI), the Special
Investigation Department (SID), the Criminal Investigation
Department (CID) and the Bureau of Special Investigation (BSI), are
all alleged to have tortured or ill-treated prisoners.
The
activities of the DDSI, the SID, BSI and CID are coordinated by the
National Intelligence Bureau (NIB). The NIB was formally
responsible to the Prime Minister and to the ruling Burma Socialist
Programme Party (BSPP) until the party's formal dissolution in
September 1988; it is now believed to be under the direct control
of the SLORC.
Directorate of Defence Services
Intelligence: The military intelligence agency, the Directorate
of Defence Services Intelligence (DDSI), appears to be the largest
security agency and to be responsible for most reported arrests and
investigations of political suspects in Myanmar. It is the agency
most frequently identified by former political prisoners who
described prolonged interrogation under torture. The DDSI directs
the Military Intelligence Services and as a result, is commonly
known in Myanmar by the acronym MIS.
The DDSI is officially
an agency of the Ministry of Defence. Its primary task is military
intelligence and investigation, particularly in regard to armed
insurgencies. In practice, it appears to have almost unrestricted
authority to arrest without warrant, detain and investigate anyone
suspected of political dissent, violent or non-violent. It operates
a network of agents organized throughout the country in at least a
dozen detachments that report directly to the DDSI. These
detachments are designated by the letters MI (Military
Intelligence) and a number (MI-1, MI-2, MI-7, etc.). They are said
to report only to the DDSI. The Military Commands based in each
military region reportedly have their own intelligence networks of
informants.
Major General Khin Nyunt, the SLORC's Secretary
1, is currently the director of the DDSI. The DDSI's headquarters
are believed to be located in Kone Myint Thaya, Mayangon township,
in north Yangon. DDSI personnel are reportedly co-opted exclusively
from the ranks of the army and often operate in civilian clothes.
Since the military reasserted control in 1988, the DDSI appears to
have become the most powerful of the agencies which investigate and
suppress activities considered to represent a threat to state
security.
The DDSI administers detention and interrogation
centres across the country in which torture and ill-treatment
appear to be routinely applied by interrogators. Former prisoners
have described torture in the DDSI headquarters in Yangon, in
detention and interrogation centres in Mingaladon township and
Dagon township and at Ye Kyi Aing camp. Former prisoners of the
DSSI who were held in Pathein, the capital of Ayeyarwady Division,
in May 1989, said they were beaten and kicked all over, nearly
drowned and had iron rods rolled over their shinbones. Another
former detainee said he was tortured in early 1989 by MIS officers
in a place he identified as the MI-5 office in Hpa-an, "behind
the golf course near Kan Thaya pond".
The main
detention and interrogation centre administered by the DDSI in the
Yangon area is the Ye Kyi Aing camp, north of the capital, near
Taukkyan township. It was reportedly opened following the 1962
military takeover and has, according to former political detainees,
been used continuously since then for the interrogation and
confinement of political prisoners. Many of the political prisoners
arrested in Yangon since 18 September 1988, and particularly those
arrested since July 1989 in connection with alleged "communist"
and "right-wing plots", are thought to have been
"investigated" in this centre. Prisoners taken there are
reportedly always blindfolded and held and interrogated under
conditions which are intended to disorient them.
Police
intelligence agencies: The Criminal Investigation Department
(CID), the Special Investigation Department (SID) and the Bureau of
Special Investigation (BSI) are part of the People's Police Force
(the national police). They are responsible to the Ministry of Home
and Religious Affairs (the Ministry of Interior), although they
also report to the National Intelligence Bureau.
The
Criminal Investigation Department (CID) is responsible for
investigating common criminal offences, but also appears to deal
with political suspects. A student arrested during street
demonstrations on 18 March 1988 in Yangon said he had been
transferred from Insein Prison to Tharawaddy Prison, some 70 miles
north of Yangon, on the following day together with hundreds of
other prisoners, most of them students. He alleged that most of the
60 students held in his cell were tortured or severely ill-treated
during their interrogation by CID officers who were dispatched to
the prison especially to investigate them. He said he was twice
beaten unconscious and saw two other students returned to the cell
unconscious after interrogation.
The SID is most often
referred to as Special Branch-II or SB-II and is a law enforcement
agency responsible for investigating political matters. Its
headquarters is believed to be located on 47th Street, near the
YMCA building in Yangon. It administers a number of interrogation
centres throughout the country, located mostly in state and
division capitals and the main townships. In Mandalay, the second
largest city in the country, one of its centres is apparently
located in the vicinity of the old palace; a former prisoner
described interrogation under torture there for several weeks in
late 1987 in a dark underground room.
The Bureau of Special
Investigation (BSI) is primarily responsible for investigating
economic crimes such as black marketeering activities and
corruption. Its headquarters behind the Strand Hotel, on Lewis
Street, Yangon, reportedly has several interrogation rooms. The
former prisoner who was held at Lewis Street for several days in
March 1987 alleges that he was tortured with electric
shocks.
Detention centres: Amnesty International's
reports about human rights violations in ethnic minority areas,
published in 1987 and 1988, identified a dozen detention centres
where torture or ill-treatment had allegedly occurred since 1984.
These were administered mostly by army personnel - regular troops
assigned to counter-insurgency duties in the Mon, Kayin (Karen),
Kachin and Shan States. They were usually located inside military
barracks or compounds at the regimental (ka.la.ya
or ka.ma.ya), brigade (ta.ma)
and regional military command levels. Other, temporary, military
camps were identified in remote areas of counter-insurgency
operations. Former prisoners reported having been held in pits and
tortured or ill-treated in these camps both as a part of the
interrogation procedure and as a punishment.
Recent research
among former political detainees enabled Amnesty International to
identify 19 other detention centres throughout the country where
brutal interrogation has reportedly taken place since 1987. These
include major detention facilities such as Insein Prison, Yangon,
and state and divisional level prisons as well as township-level
police stations. They also include a number of other detention
centres which have either not been officially acknowledged by
Myanmar authorities or whose existence they have tried to conceal.
Among the latter is the secret DDSI interrogation centre at Ye Kyi
Aing camp, outside Yangon, as well as over a dozen other military
intelligence centres located in Yangon and elsewhere in the
country, and offices administered by state security agencies such
as Yangon's BSI and SID headquarters and Mandalay's Special Branch
office. Seven of these 19 centres are located in and around Yangon
and the rest in seven other divisions and states.
The 19
detention centres from which recent testimonies have emerged are:
the DDSI and BSI headquarters; Insein prison and its annex; Yankin
township military registration camp; Sanchaung police station;
Mingaladon and Ye Kyi Aing DDSI interrogation centres (Yangon
Division); Pathein township MIS office (Ayeyarwady Division);
Special Branch II office and Police Station No 8 (Mandalay);
Tharawaddy and Bago (Pegu) township prisons (Bago Division);
Regiment 31 Headquarters, Thanbyuzayat township, and Mawlamyine
(Moulmein) MIS office (Mon State); Hpa-an township MI-5 office
(Kayin [Karen] State); Regiment 59 Headquarters, Mawchi township
(Kayah State); the Myitkyina central prison, No 8 (Northern
Command) army headquarters, and Special Branch II office (Kachin
State).
Incommunicado detention
Torture
and ill-treatment of prisoners usually takes place during the first
phase of the detention process. Most people arrested on political
grounds in Myanmar are initially held in incommunicado detention
for investigation and interrogation. In almost all of the cases
documented by Amnesty International, torture or ill-treatment took
place during these sometimes prolonged periods in which prisoners
were isolated from the outside world and under the complete control
of their interrogators. Incommunicado detention sometimes persisted
for six months or more.
Outside the insurgency areas
prisoners were generally transferred to an interrogation centre
immediately after their arrest. Prisoners were often not permitted
their first contact with outsiders, whether lawyers or relatives,
until several weeks, and sometimes months, after they were
interrogated. Even then, prisoners were often not authorized to see
their visitors privately and therefore could not openly describe
their treatment. As a result, information about torture is rarely
obtainable before the victim is released and long after most
injuries have healed, although scars of beatings remain in some
cases.
Although immediate interrogation is reportedly the
norm, some former prisoners seized in mass arrests have described
waiting for up to five days as teams of investigators worked
systematically to process large groups of prisoners. A student
arrested in March 1988 in Yangon and taken to Insein Prison
described his experience:
"We were locked up in a large room. Altogether maybe 400 people. On the fifth day of my detention it was my turn to be interrogated. All of us were interrogated in turn, individually, one after the other, by MIS personnel. They had assigned large numbers of MIS personnel in the prison compound to carry out the job..."
In the insurgency areas prisoners
were reportedly subjected to summary interrogations in the field or
in temporary counter-insurgency camps or transferred for in-depth
interrogation to regional army bases. Speed and secrecy was
apparently the rule in such cases, as military interrogators sought
tactical intelligence about the armed opposition groups. Conditions
of confinement described in some remote army camps were in
themselves cruel, inhuman and degrading.
Former prisoners
who were held in army counter-insurgency camps have frequently
described being held in deep pits which were covered over with
heavy logs at night and stank with excrement; no sanitary
facilities were provided. Similar accounts have been received from
the Mon, Kayin (Karen) and Kachin States and from the Tanintharyi
(Tenasserim) Division. These accounts suggest that suspects are
frequently confined in such pits in the temporary army camps of
remote conflict areas. The conditions described in these pits may
have in themselves resulted in the death of prisoners. Prisoners
held in these conditions, however, were reportedly also taken for
sessions of systematic interrogation under torture which was itself
inherently life-threatening and frequently culminated in deliberate
killing.
Interrogation appears almost invariably to be the
primary purpose of incommunicado detention. Once the interrogation
is completed, detainees may be released, handed over to police
authorities, subjected to prolonged detention without charge or
trial under administrative detention orders, or sometimes brought
before a court to be formally charged with a crime.
Former
prisoners have maintained that prolonged incommunicado detention is
sometimes ordered to provide the necessary time for injuries
sustained during interrogation to heal and to allow the prisoner
"to get and look better". The authorities' refusal to
permit access to prisoners during prolonged periods of
incommunicado detention has often given rise to fears of death
under torture, or secret and summary execution.
A
methodology of pain, fear and intimidation
Victims
have said that torture was used both to punish them and to compel
them to cooperate with interrogators. Torture and ill-treatment in
the course of interrogation was carried out in conjunction with
demands that prisoners confess to unlawful activities, implicate
others, and respond to questioning about the activities, structure
and personnel of both illegal organizations and legal opposition
organizations. Descriptions by student demonstrators of beatings
they received at the time of their arrests suggest that they were
ill-treated simply to punish them: more systematic beatings often
ensued during structured interrogations.
Torture and
ill-treatment of prisoners has also served to intimidate others.
The prevalence of torture is well-known in Myanmar: arrest and
torture is seen as an ever-present threat by those contemplating
any public criticism of the government.
The reported
methodology of torture has been relatively consistent in Myanmar
over many years, from the isolated army camps in the areas of
insurgency to the urban detention centres of the security services.
Torture methods and even the vocabulary of torture have remained
the same, according to testimonies obtained by Amnesty
International from a wide range of prisoners whose times and places
of imprisonment have differed greatly. Some variations do occur -
some prisoners, for example, have been made to walk on their knees
over sharp gravel, rather than broken glass. In some cases the
"helicopter" has involved suspension by the wrists or
feet from a ceiling fixture, or a ceiling fan, or being placed in a
sack and spun around. Near suffocation has been termed the "wet
submarine" and prisoners have been subjected to the "iron
road" by torturers using a bamboo stick or a police officer's
truncheon to lacerate their skins.
Beatings, sometimes to
the point of unconsciousness, were a common denominator of the
treatment described by former detainees. They included slappings,
punches in the face or the body, and kicks with combat boots or
blows with the knees in the sides, chest or back. Detainees have
also reportedly been struck on the face, the chest or the back with
wooden sticks, truncheons or rifle butts. Beatings in many cases
were reportedly carried out after the body was padded with folded
rice bags, reducing external marks but providing no protection
against internal injuries. Prisoners were often blindfolded or
hooded with a black cloth or a rice bag.
Former detainees
frequently described prolonged kneeling on sharp gravel and
"motorcycle riding", entailing squatting for prolonged
periods in a position suggesting driving a motorcycle. Electric
shocks were reportedly applied to finger tips, toes, ear lobes,
penis or testicles. Some detainees described prolonged standing in
water, prolonged exposure to sun or to intense cold, burnings with
cigarettes, rolling iron or bamboo rods or bottles along the
shinbones until the skin scrapes off ("the iron road"),
near-drowning through immersion in water and hanging by the hands
or feet from a ceiling fixture or a rotating fan (the
"helicopter"). Beatings with whips and clubs while
suspended have also been reported. Salt, salted water, urine and
curry powder have reportedly been applied to open wounds inflicted
by whippings or by slitting parts of the body with a knife or the
tip of a bayonet.
Detainees undergoing interrogation have
often been deprived of sleep, food and water and some have been
held for prolonged periods in solitary confinement in dark cells.
They have also been intimidated with pistols, threatened with
execution and humiliated while stripped naked for interrogation. In
other instances, psychological pressures have been used to break
the prisoner's will and force confessions. Several former prisoners
have alleged they were interrogated continuously for several days
by teams of interrogators working in relays. This technique has
sometimes been combined with deprivation of sleep, food, water or
washing facilities.
The practice of torture by government
security forces is a long-term and endemic problem in Myanmar.
Amnesty International has documented a pattern of widespread
torture of civilians since 1984 in areas of ethnic insurgency.
Evidence gathered by Amnesty International in the last two years
reveals that the practice of torture by the security forces occurs
throughout the country -- in urban centres as well as in rural
areas. Testimonies summarized below describe incidences of torture
ranging from early 1987 and continuing throughout the civil unrest
of 1988 and the subsequent mass arrests of 1989. Just as civilian
members of ethnic minority groups continue to be victims of
torture, so students and other political activists have become
targets of the same security forces and the nationwide network of
intelligence agencies.
In a testimony of torture dating from
before the rise of the pro-democracy movement, a 30-year-old
graduate from Yangon University who made his living selling clothes
described his arrest in March 1987 by the BSI on suspicion of
illegal "economic activities". He was allegedly tortured
for three days before being held without trial for 16 months in
Yangon's Insein Prison. He was finally released by demonstrators in
August 1988. He said he was initially tortured by electric shocks:
"My whole body shocked and I almost fell from my chair...Each
time the electricity flashed inside my head...The pain is not
limited to your fingers or even your arms, your whole body shocks.
I had burns on my fingers for almost two weeks as a result."
He said he was then subjected to "the motorcyle" and "the
helicopter", and beaten severely. He was interrogated about
his clothing business, who his contacts were and who was involved
in smuggling goods into the country, but refused to answer for fear
of involving more people in arrests and torture. He was finally
transferred to Insein Prison. He said six other prisoners in his
cell had been interrogated by the BSI and the CID. The CID had
reportedly subjected them to beatings, slaps, kicks, water-cell
treatment (the prisoner is tied up in a small cell filled with
water) and had held them in solitary confinement in total
darkness.
In late 1987 a 26-year-old physics student and his
friend were arrested in connection with student protests which took
place in Mandalay after the September 1987 demonetization. (The Ne
Win Government had declared the three highest denomination
banknotes - 75, 35, and 25 kyats - to be worthless, which removed
over 50 per cent of all money from circulation and wiped out the
life savings of many ordinary citizens. Demonetization provoked
street protest demonstrations by students.) The student alleged
that he and his friend were both tortured by the Special Branch
police: "We were tortured repeatedly, both of us. We were
slapped, punched, kicked, burnt with cigarettes, hung from the
ceiling and whipped, had iron rods rolled across our shinbones, and
given electric shocks." He described one session in detail:
"At some point a team came in, stripped us of all our clothes...tied up our hands with handcuffs and hung us to the ceiling with a rope...They interrogated me again and asked the same questions, to which I made the same answers. So they whipped me with a car's fan belt...Altogether I may have been given 70 or 80 lashes...after a while I lost consciousness completely. They 'treated' my wounds the same way they treated my friend's...They took him down, poured salt and curry powder on his back...and then urinated on his back."
The student and his friend were
held until demonstrators released them on 27 August 1988 when
Mandalay was briefly in control of strike committees.
The
treatment of students and demonstrators seized during the mass
arrests of 1988 frequently entailed intensive interrogation
involving torture or ill-treatment, with more severe and prolonged
treatment accorded those suspected of having played leadership
roles in the pro-democracy movement or of having links with armed
opposition groups on the borders. A student detained during a
demonstration on 21 July 1988 in the capital said he was arrested
after being injured by an exploding tear-gas grenade. He said he
was beaten on the spot by riot police with their long wooden riot
batons and then taken to a police station where he was again beaten
on arrival. He and the dozens of other student detainees taken
there were interrogated in groups of three; as they were questioned
they were beaten by an officer standing behind them with a
truncheon. He said that his right index finger and the little
finger on his left hand were broken and one eye was swollen shut.
That night they were transferred to Insein Prison where a doctor
examined him and stitched up the cut in his scalp but said "he
could do nothing" about his other injuries. "My whole
body was in pain because of the beatings and I was feeling an
intense pain in the chest from the kicking at the police
station."
A student arrested with hundreds of others
when troops raided the Yangon university campus on 17 March 1988
described the procedure by which he and others were processed after
arrest. They were taken first in four trucks to the Buddhist
Association building, where MIS personnel recorded their names and
photographed each of them. After a brief stop at a police station
they proceeded to Insein Prison. From there, over 500 of them were
transferred to Tharawaddy Prison, north of Yangon, where they all
were interrogated by CID personnel. His turn came on the 20th day.
He was first asked to provide a "biography" and to
account for his actions on 17 March, and was then beaten while
questioned about incidents on that day.
"After each of my answers, the men behind me hit me in turn, with either the truncheon in the sides or in the back with the cable tube which he used as a whip. I was beaten maybe eight or 10 times and fell unconscious twice as a result of the knocks in the lower ribs, in the right side, and in the liver area, with the truncheon. The three men had obviously been drinking and smelled of alcohol. After I fainted for the second time the officer took down some notes and called the interrogation off. The interrogation lasted about 25 minutes after which I was taken back to my cell. In our cell we were about 60 detainees.
"Everyone was beaten by CID personnel...At least several students held in the same cell as I and who were interrogated several times were beaten on each occasion, especially those whose names had been given as being involved in the demonstrations or as ringleaders. The day I was interrogated for the second time, two inmates were brought back to the cell unconscious from interrogation."
Incidents of torture continued as
arrests increased in the months following the 18 September coup. A
22-year-old student from Ayeyarwady Division was arrested in a
tea-shop in October 1988 and interrogated for several days in a
secret detention facility. He gave the following account of his
treatment:
"They wanted to know...what organization I was involved with, who was leading it, who were our contacts, what sort of activities did I carry out during the demonstrations and since the military takeover...Because I refused to respond, they began ill-treating me...Throughout the interrogation period I was tortured unconscious twice, each time as a result of prolonged kneeling on sharp gravel. This caused severe pain. You first feel an intense pain and after a while your legs began shivering...your eyes begin to cloud over until you can see nothing, and then you lose control of your mind: you cannot answer the questions any longer. As a result they would beat you up...If you fell down, you would be kicked and put back into position...On several occasions I was threatened with execution..."
He also reported that his
interrogators avoided provoking external injuries: "For
instance they would pound my ribs one after the other with a drum
stick or a wooden rule...Three days before releasing me they looked
after the light bruises I had on my face and increased my food
ration."
The army continued to torture those suspected
of sympathizing with insurgency movements in ethnic minority
states. In early 1989 a Kachin jade trader was held for over two
months at the army headquarters in the state capital, Myitkyina. A
friend described his interrogation and torture:
"They asked him whether he was KIA...he denied their accusation because he had nothing to do with the KIA...he is not politically active. During the first three or four weeks of his detention he was beaten during interrogation."
After three or four weeks he was
again taken from his cell for further interrogation. He was
subjected to the "motorcycle" while being beaten
repeatedly. A few days later when he was again removed from his
cell the officer in charge told him: "'Three days ago you rode
a motorcycle. Today it will be a new experience.' They began
rolling an iron rod along his shinbones...until he fainted..."
A
week later, he was again taken out for interrogation. The officer
told him they had "prepared a new game for him". The
description continues:
"They made him sit on the ground, put a large plastic bag over him, and whipped him all over with electric wires. Then they took the bag off, threw a bucket of water on his body, put the bag over him again and whipped him again...They called this treatment 'having a bath'. They repeated the operation a third time and he fell unconscious..."
After two more weeks, an army
officer asked him: "Are you still here? What are you doing
here? Do you want to go home?" The officer reportedly said,
"okay, we let you out...but next time, you won't leave this
place alive..."
As the tempo of arrests accelerated in
1989, political party activists were detained in Yangon and other
parts of Myanmar. A high school teacher aged about 50 was one of
three DPNS members arrested in Moulmeingyun, Ayeyarwady Division.
He was arrested in mid-May 1989 at his home by army troops and
taken to the MIS office in Pathein. He was reportedly interrogated
and tortured, and then transferred to Pathein Prison where he is
still believed to be detained. Because of his political activities
as a leader of a strike committee during the 1988 demonstrations,
he had received an order requiring him to move to a remote town in
the Kachin state where he was unknown and would have less political
influence. At the time of his arrest he had not yet moved. Another
political prisoner, a 28-year-old lawyer who was arrested in the
first week of June 1989, was also tortured. He was said to have
been active in the 1988 demonstrations and had joined the NLD after
the coup. According to one of his relatives, he was interrogated,
beaten and given electric shocks at Insein Prison while being held
incommunicado for four months.
Among others reported to have
been tortured are three NLD workers arrested at the league's
headquarters on 20 July. They were reportedly tortured at Ye Kyi
Aing camp north of Yangon shortly after their arrest. One is said
to have suffered a broken arm as a result, while another was
reportedly beaten on the face and burnt with cigarettes. The third
NLD worker, a physics student at Yangon university, was said to
have been severely beaten and to have had his head submerged in a
bucket of water during interrogation. All three are believed to
have been detained solely because they were members of the NLD
headquarters staff. At the end of 1989 they were not known to have
been charged or tried or to have received any family visits. Their
present situation is unknown.
The consequences of
torture
Some student detainees are alleged to have
suffered severe psychological trauma, including memory loss, as a
result of torture or ill-treatment. A 25-year-old mathematics and
sciences student from Tamwe township who was detained in 1988, was
said by another student who saw him shortly after his release to
have been seriously affected by torture:
"I met him in Yangon just before the coup. He had become amnesiac. He did not recognize me. He could not recognize even his parents and had forgotten everything. When I...approached to greet him, he said, 'Don't come, don't approach me, go away, I am afraid of you, you want to beat me again'. This is all he said. He had just been released from Insein Prison...When I saw him, the only thing I noticed were dark marks on his right cheek and forehead."
Another student and former
prisoner, who had been held in Mandalay Prison until it was emptied
by demonstrators in August 1988, said that all the political
prisoners he spoke to while imprisoned there had been tortured
either by MIS, BSI, SB personnel or by the regular army, and that
"several of them had lost their mind". As a result "one
of them was scared away at the simple sight of a military or police
uniform..."
The treatment of a 40-year-old lawyer, Bawk
La, arrested in October 1988 and believed currently to remain in
detention, also appears to have involved torture, possibly with
lasting psychological effects. According to a colleague from
Myitkyina:
"He was severely beaten and tortured with electric shocks during interrogation. He had been arrested two or three times already since the coup...I had a chance to see him last summer, as he was getting out of the vehicle that was taking him from the prison to Myitkyina state court office...I asked him how he was and he did not recognize me although we know each other well. He did not respond. So I thought he had lost his memory as a result of electric shocks."
Detainees suffering injuries
during interrogation have sometimes been denied medical attention
or hospital admission after release. They included the jade trader
whose case is described above who was held in Myitkyina in early
1989. Despite severe injuries he was reportedly denied medical care
by state health authorities. Months after his release he was said
to remain seriously ill:
"His body was still aching all over, and he had two broken ribs. Sometimes, he said, blood would come out of his ears or he would cough blood. He was breathing with difficulties, as if all the muscles of his chest had contracted and did not relax. Breathing was painful. When he was released he went to the hospital but the doctors and nurses refused to admit him out of fear of military retaliation. So he bought medicine on the black market and tried to cure himself as he could. At night, he had nightmares that he was arrested or interrogated by soldiers and would awake shouting things like 'let me alone, leave me in peace'. He had difficulty talking."
Numerous deaths in detention have
been reported. Some occurred apparently as a result of torture or
ill-treatment, others because of the denial of medical attention.
In March 1988, 41 students died in a police van because of
suffocation arising from what would appear at least to be gross
criminal negligence.
In one case, a 25-year-old student was
arrested on 17 or 18 September 1987 with several other students
after two grenades were thrown at a police station in Mandalay. He
was severely ill-treated during interrogation and left overnight in
a police station lock-up. The following morning he was found dead
in his cell. A post-mortem carried out on behalf of his family
reportedly revealed that he had died as a result of internal
injuries. His death was reported in the press but there was
apparently no official investigation into the death or his
treatment in police custody. Eighteen officers from the police
station were, however, said to have been transferred to Kyaukse
township south of Mandalay after the incident.
Between March
and September 1988 many people were reported to have died in
custody as a result of severe beatings or gunshot wounds received
during street demonstrations or after arrest. Myanmar authorities
have been accused by student activists and opposition parties of
concealing information relating to these deaths.
A former
medical worker in Insein Prison's clinic described the case of a
15-year-old boy who, he said, died after torture in March 1988:
"On 17 March, a 15-year-old Muslim [boy] got severely burned on the abdomen and upper legs in an incident during which a car was set on fire by demonstrating students. It is not clear whether he was involved in the incident or whether he was just passing by when the car exploded. He was taken to Yangon General Hospital for treatment. After a few hours, security personnel, possibly from the Special Branch, came in and took him away. The next day he was handed over to the doctor in Insein prison's hospital. When the doctor examined him he discovered that both his upper limbs, from fingers up to the elbow, and lower limbs, from toes to knees, had been fractured many times. His bones had been systematically fractured several times, broken into pieces. The security people had suspected him of being involved in the bombing incident and interrogated him despite his already severe burns."
The boy reportedly died 17 days
after he was turned over to the prison's hospital. According to
reports, his relatives were not permitted to see him and his body
was not handed over to them but was cremated in Insein prison's
hospital. This is one of several unconfirmed reports that prisoners
who died after torture were secretly cremated at Insein Prison
without notification of their relatives.
Other deaths in
custody were reported in the aftermath of the September 1988 coup
and during 1989. Zaw Win Htun, also known as Po Zaw, aged 21, a
physics student at Yangon Arts and Sciences University, was
reportedly arrested at home along with his father on 21 October
1988, by MIS personnel. Two weeks later, his father was released
and allowed to return home. According to a detainee who shared his
cell, Zaw Win Htun was so severely tortured with electric shocks
that he could not speak and could hardly stand up by himself. On 16
November, he was reportedly released and sent home, where he is
said to have remained in bed, almost motionless. His legs and arms
began swelling and he apparently died suddenly on 30 December. A
short obituary was published in the official newspaper, The
Working People's Daily, announcing the date of the funeral
service as 1 January 1989.
The following account of the
death in custody of a student who returned from Thailand was given
to Amnesty International by a source close to the victim's family:
"Kyaw Soe, aged 22, a Yangon student, and his young brother fled to border areas in the immediate wake of the 18 September military takeover. They returned home in the first week of January 1989 by their own arrangement and not via one of the 'reception centres' set up by the army along the border with Thailand. Upon arrival home, they reported to the local township LORC authorities. A few days later both were arrested at home by MIS personnel and...taken to Insein Prison. Two days later, the young brother was released. Some three more days later, the authorities addressed a letter to the family explaining that Kyaw Soe had died, 'by accident' while he was being questioned. His body was not returned to his parents and was cremated in Insein Prison, so that no post-mortem could be carried out."
Torture in the insurgency
areas
Torture in the insurgency areas has frequently
been described as having involved a similar methodology to that
employed by the state security agencies in the capital and the
major towns.
A former detainee of Mon ethnic origin, Menh
Tun Ya, interviewed shortly after his release in 1989, had been the
subject of Amnesty International appeals to the Government of Burma
in December 1987. The organization had called for an investigation
into allegations that he had been tortured by military
interrogators at the headquarters of Infantry Regiment No. 31 in
Thanbyuzayat township in Mon State. Menh Tun Ya, a cultural
activist who worked as a medicine salesman, was released after
serving a two-year sentence imposed under Section 17-1 of the 1975
Unlawful Associations Act. He gave a detailed account of his
treatment in custody.
Menh Tun Ya said he was held
incommunicado for 16 days at the army's Thanbyuzayat base and
interrogated about travel abroad and contacts with armed opposition
groups, particularly the clandestine New Mon State Party (NMSP). He
said he was unaware of the reason for his arrest as he had had no
contact with the NMSP, and was "only involved in Mon culture
and literature activities...The problem is that if you are not a
Burman and you are involved in cultural and literary activities for
your own people, the authorities suspect you harbour nationalistic
ideas and are using your cultural activities against the
government. You are suspected of being connected to the nationalist
rebels".
He said he was "shackled in wooden
stocks" throughout the 16 days he was held by the army, apart
from interrogation sessions. "During the first interrogation
they removed the stocks but tied my elbows up together in the back
with a rope. A soldier beat me very brutally on the back with his
rifle until I bled and lost consciousness. My right elbow was
smashed and three vertebrae were broken as a result. When I
recovered I was lying outside my cell and my feet had been put back
into the stocks. Then they put me back into my cell". The next
day, he said, he was left in the sun without food or water. Torture
during subsequent interrogation sessions included electric shocks
administered by means of a hand-cranked generator: "The
electricity flashed into my brain and I almost suffocated because
the nerves and muscles of my chest contracted". He said he was
also stripped and hanged by his arms from the ceiling, with only
his toes touching the floor and burned with a cheroot and a candle
on the neck, chest and abdomen. At one of the final interrogation
sessions, Menh Tun Ya said, he was almost suffocated:
"[The interrogators] put a cloth over my head and began pouring water onto my face which made me begin to suffocate and scream. To prevent me from screaming they pushed a piece of cloth into my mouth. Then a soldier sat on my stomach and threatened me by poking his pistol in my mouth. He hit me with his carbine butt on the forehead and I began bleeding. Then he took his knife and drew a line from my throat to my stomach, pressing on the blade so that a red line appeared on my skin but the slit was only superficial. He said 'you are an insurgent, look how we deal with insurgents'.
"I spent the next three days in the cell, feet in stocks...By that time, my whole body was in pain. I did not receive any medical treatment and my injuries became infected. My broken elbow was swollen and so was my forearm, all black and blue. I could not sleep because of the pain in my back from my broken vertebrae".
In the more remote areas of the
ethnic minority states torture was frequently reported to result in
death. A relative of Thi Lwin, a prisoner, has described to Amnesty
International how he was detained with others from Kru Yi village
in Mon State in September 1987 because troops believed the village
rice reserve might have been stored for use by armed insurgents.
Those detained were all held in an underground pit. Thi Lwin was
beaten to death: "He didn't speak Burmese very well, so they
hit him really hard because he couldn't answer their
questions...the other prisoners were (also) kicked and beaten. Some
of them could speak a little Burmese, and...they weren't beaten as
badly...."
A former prisoner from Ta U Khi village in
Mon State, detained in February 1987 by troops of Battalion 75, was
interrogated about the Karen National Union. After an initial
beating, he said that the battalion commander ordered the soldiers
to put him "in the pit":
"The pit was south of the pagoda. It was nine forearm-lengths deep. The top of the pit was just big enough for one person to go through, but at the bottom inside it was big enough for maybe six people. It was very quiet. You could hear almost nothing that was happening on the surface. At night it was dark...it was very cold...it smelled badly...It was very difficult to breathe...There were also a lot of mosquitoes in the pit."
Although suffering from malaria,
he said, he was held in the pit for five days, being removed every
evening for interrogation sessions during which he was threatened
with death, had his fingers crushed together with bullets between
them, was cut superficially with knives and had his shins "rolled
with rough bamboo." His case was exceptional, he said, because
he was released after only five days.
Evidence emerged in
1989 that students and others detained in Myanmar's cities have
been taken into custody, transported to remote areas and forced to
work for the army as porters, an apparently punitive practice
without basis in law. In the aftermath of the September 1988 coup
the authorities announced that the army had been seizing "petty
criminals", "unsavoury elements" and "waifs and
strays" in the capital to serve as porters for rural
counter-insurgency operations. Other sources report that among
those press ganged into service were hundreds of Yangon residents,
including students and others active in the campaign for
multi-party democracy. The forcibly conscripted porters were also
reported to include numerous Indian Muslims who are believed to
have played an active role as a group during the
campaign.
Political prisoners have reportedly been
conscripted as porters in order to punish them for participating in
the pro-democracy demonstrations and to prevent them from engaging
in further anti-government political activities. In August 1989 up
to 500 students held in Insein Prison on political grounds were
said to have been taken by night by the army, via Mandalay and
Maymyo, to the northern Shan State town of Nong Cho. Their
transport by rail apparently took place a few days after the
official radio announced the imminent release of 1,500 prisoners
from Insein Prison. It is not clear whether the 500 prisoners were
among the 1,500 whose planned release was announced; the government
has made no formal acknowledgement that political prisoners were
sent into the conflict areas in the custody of operational army
units.
At Nong Cho, the detained students were reportedly
split into four or five different groups of varying size and
assigned to duties as food and ammunition porters for several army
units patrolling areas bordering China, including Kunlong, Nam
Hsan, Nam Hkam and Muser. Eye witnesses have reported seeing one
group of 48 such students on 7 September 1989 in Human village, Nam
Hsan township, northern Shan State. The same sources have also
alleged that at least five of those they saw were subsequently
beaten to death by soldiers in nearby Nam Tu township, apparently
because they could not perform their porter duties to the
satisfaction of their captors.
Further allegations were
received in 1989 that people arrested in ethnic minority areas
where armed insurgents were active had been tortured or ill-treated
during interrogation. In one case, a man arrested by soldiers of
the 22nd Light Infantry Division in Hpa-an, the Kayin (Karen) State
capital, in early 1989 said he was repeatedly beaten during three
days and nights of virtually non-stop interrogation by military
intelligence officers until: "I was unable to walk. I had to
be supported by two men in order to be able to move."
Information
has also been received from the Kayin (Karen) State that soldiers
have routinely seized people living in areas in which armed
opponents of the government operate or who participated in peaceful
anti-government demonstrations, forcing them to serve as porters.
One informant told Amnesty International that he had been
repeatedly kicked by soldiers in June 1989 because he "wasn't
able to stand up again quickly" after stumbling under a heavy
load. He said he saw another man forced to work as a porter knocked
unconscious with a rifle butt for the same reason. Amnesty
International urged the Myanmar authorities to investigate these
allegations in August 1989, but received no response.
Government
troops have reportedly seized local people and forced them to act
as porters and guides in ethnic minority areas, and have accused
those who fail to carry out their duties satisfactorily of being in
sympathy with anti-government rebels. Such individuals have then
often been ill-treated or summarily killed. For example, in May
1987 Pha Mu, from Me Ta Me village in Kayin (Karen) State, is said
to have returned home after three months of porterage service in a
seriously ill state. His wife said he had been accused of
collaborating with insurgents and had been subjected to frequent
beatings: "They hit him on the calves with bamboo and hit him
in the chest with their rifle butts...He came back on his own and
was with me for four days before he died...He had been released
because he was no longer able to do anything for them. Before...he
was strongly built" but on his return "he had terrible
chest pains, and...he was very thin, just skin and bones. You could
see a place where his rib was broken...He had blood in his
stool....He had a fever...He said before he died that if they
hadn't beaten him so much he would have survived despite the
diseases and the hard work...He said he was only given one can of
rice per day...".
Provisions against torture in
Myanmar and in international law
The 1974
Constitution of Burma contains two provisions which would appear to
prohibit torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or
punishment. Article 24 declares: "Punishments shall not be
awarded in violation of human dignity". Article 159 adds:
"Personal freedom and security of every citizen shall be
guaranteed". Articles 330 and 331 of the Burmese Penal Code of
1957, which is believed to remain in force with some modifications,
prohibit torture and ill-treatment during interrogation. In a state
of emergency, the norms of which appear to be applied under martial
law, all rights guaranteed in the Constitution may be abridged.
However, torture and ill-treatment of political prisoners violate
basic human rights guaranteed in international and human rights law
which can not be suspended under any circumstances.
The
prohibition of torture under international human rights law is
absolute. Torture and ill-treatment are prohibited by Article 5 of
the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: "No one shall be
subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or
punishment". The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is an
affirmation of the human rights and fundamental freedoms referred
to in the Charter of the United Nations, of which Myanmar is a
member. Torture is further condemned by the Declaration on the
Protection of All Persons from Being Subjected to Torture and Other
Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, which
describes torture and ill-treatment as a denial of the purposes of
the Charter of the United Nations. Torture is also condemned under
the Body of Principles for the Protection of all Persons under Any
Form of Detention or Imprisonment, which was adopted by the United
Nations General Assembly without a vote on 9 December 1988.
Principle 6 states: "No person under any form of detention or
imprisonment shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or
degrading treatment or punishment. No circumstance whatever may be
invoked as a justification for torture or other cruel, inhuman or
degrading treatment or punishment".
The
Government's Response
Myanmar's military government
has persistently rejected calls for the investigation of reports of
torture and denied that torture or ill-treatment occurs. On 22
March 1989 Director General Ohn Gyaw of the Foreign Ministry's
Political Department responded to reports of widespread human
rights abuse:
"People must understand that Burma is facing a difficult situation. There are not only human rights to consider...there is the national interest. Many accusations have been made about torture and the like while people have been in detention. The government has no record of torture taking place."
In a document dated 27 February
1990 and entitled "Right of Reply", which was read to the
United Nations Commission on Human Rights by Myanmar's
representative on the same day, the official position that torture
does not occur was reiterated:
"In the course of the discussion...a few [non-governmental organizations] and certain western countries referred to what...is supposed by them to be taking place in Myanmar. Some of their statements or allegations are too far-fetched to be believed by anyone in his or her right sense. They make complete travesty of truth. The statements merely betray the ignorance on their part of the history, the people, and the culture of my country which they do not seem to know anything about...Torture of detainees, inhuman and cruel treatment of prisoners, etc. are unknown to us except when we ourselves were under foreign domination. Hence, those allegations do not deserve our reply anymore."
In one of its regular press
conferences, the government also responded to an Amnesty
International report published on 2 May 1990(2) :
"The BBC, in a broadcast at 0640 on 2nd May, carried the allegations made by Amnesty International on Burma. In the broadcast, Amnesty claimed that the Burmese government was ill-treating political prisoners and torture was routinely being used...we describe the allegations as completely untrue. The allegations were made because of the activities of interfering in the internal affairs of Burma, in violation of their diplomatic status, by some diplomats..."
Another response to the 2 May
report was given by Soe Win, a first secretary in the Myanmar
embassy in Washington. He said that he had not read the report but
that "these allegations are not true". He commented
further: "The torture of detainees, inhuman and cruel
treatment of prisoners, etc., are unknown to us, except when we
were under foreign domination."
6.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Amnesty International
bases its work on international human rights standards which are
agreed by the international community through the United Nations
and other intergovernmental bodies. Amnesty International addresses
itself to governments because of the specific obligations they have
under international law.
Myanmar has ratified only one major
international human rights instrument, the Convention on the
Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. It is not party
to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
(ICCPR), the International Covenant on Economic, Social and
Cultural Rights (ICESCR) or the Convention against Torture and
Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. It is
also one of the few countries that has failed to ratify the Geneva
Conventions of 12 August 1949, nor has it ratified their Additional
Protocols. However, this cannot be interpreted as giving government
authorities the right to violate the internationally agreed human
rights standards which the provisions of these various instruments
reflect, or to act contrary to the United Nations Universal
Declaration of Human Rights.
Torture
Amnesty
International makes the following recommendations in regard to
reports of torture in Myanmar:
l. The government should
order an impartial inquiry into all allegations of torture.
Such
a step would be in accordance with international standards. Article
9 of the UN Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Being
Subjected to Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading
Treatment or Punishment stipulates that:
"Wherever there is reasonable ground to believe that an act of torture as defined in article 1 has been committed, the competent authorities of the State concerned shall promptly proceed to an impartial investigation even if there has been no formal complaint."
2. Criminal proceedings, in
accordance with national law, should be initiated in cases where
there is evidence of involvement in torture.
Article 10 of
the Declaration Against Torture states:
"If an investigation under article 8 or article 9 establishes that an act of torture as defined in article 1 appears to have been committed, criminal proceedings shall be instituted against the alleged offender or offenders in accordance with national law. If an allegation of other forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment is considered to be well founded, the alleged offender or offenders shall be subject to criminal, disciplinary or other appropriate proceedings".
3. Victims of torture should
receive redress and compensation, in accordance with national law.
Article 11 of the Declaration Against Torture specifies that a
victim of torture be afforded compensation.
4. Members of
the security forces should be trained to observe the prohibition of
all forms of torture, inhuman or degrading treatment or
punishment.
Article 5 of the Declaration Against Torture
stipulates:
"The training of law enforcement personnel and of other public officials who may be responsible for persons deprived of their liberty shall ensure that full account is taken of the prohibition against torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. This prohibition shall also, where appropriate, be included in such general rules or instructions as are issued in regard to the duties and functions of anyone who may be involved in the custody or treatment of such persons."
Article 3 of the Declaration
specifies that:
"Exceptional circumstances, such as a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may not be invoked as a justification of torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment".
5. As stipulated in article 12 of
the Declaration Against Torture, statements extracted under torture
or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment should
not be admitted in evidence in any legal proceedings.
Amnesty
International believes that the legal provision of habeas corpus
is one of the most important safeguards against torture and
extrajudicial execution, and that prolonged incommunicado detention
may facilitate these abuses. These considerations are also
reflected in international human rights standards.
Amnesty
International recommends that incommunicado detention be prohibited
and that the following international human rights standards be
applied:
1. Article 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which proclaims:
"No one shall be subjected
to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile".
2. Article
9.2 of the ICCPR which states:
"Anyone who is arrested shall be informed, at the time of his arrest, of the reasons for his arrest and shall be promptly informed of any charges against him".
3. Article 9.3 of the ICCPR, which specifies that:
"Anyone arrested or detained on a criminal charge shall be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorized by law to exercise judicial power and shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release".
4. Article 9.4 of the ICCPR provides
for habeas corpus for anyone who has been arrested and
detained.
Fair trial
Summary
trial procedures used by military tribunals, which were formed by
Martial Law Orders 1/89 and 2/89, severely restrict the defendant's
rights of defence and appeal. A resolution approved by the 40th
Session of the UN General Assembly in November 1985 on the
independence of the judiciary proclaims, inter alia, the
right to due legal process:
"Everyone shall have the right to be tried by ordinary courts or tribunals using established legal procedures. Tribunals that do not use the duly established procedures of the legal process shall not be created to displace the jurisdiction belonging to the ordinary courts or judicial tribunals."
The International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) represents internationally
recognized standards for, inter alia, the provision of fair
trials. In Resolution 35/172 on arbitrary and summary executions
adopted in December 1980, the United Nations General Assembly urged
member states "to respect as a minimum standard the content of
the provisions of Articles 6, 14 and 15" of the ICCPR.
Although the Government of Myanmar has not ratified the ICCPR
Amnesty International recommends that it consider the following
safeguards in order to ensure that procedures for fair trial are
followed, in accordance with Article 14, which states, inter
alia:
"l. All persons shall be equal before the courts and tribunals. In the determination of any criminal charge against him, or of his rights and obligations in a suit at law, everyone shall be entitled to a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal established by law."
"3. In the determination of any criminal charge against him, everyone shall be entitled to the following minimum guarantees, in full equality:
(a) To be informed promptly and
in detail in a language which he understands of the nature and
cause of the charge against him;
(b) To have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence and to communicate with counsel of his own choosing;
(c) To be tried without undue delay;
(e) To examine, or have examined, the witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him"
"5. Everyone convicted of a crime shall have the right to his conviction and sentence being reviewed by a higher tribunal according to law."
Imprisonment on grounds of
conscience
Amnesty International also recommends
that all prisoners of conscience, that is, those detained solely
for the peaceful expression of their opinions, be unconditionally
and immediately released.
The organization asks that the
legal basis for all arrests be clarified, and that political
prisoners charged with a criminal offence be brought to trial
fairly and promptly, or released. The prolonged detention of
political prisoners without trial is contrary to international
human rights standards, as stated in Article 9.3 of the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
Amnesty
International urges that prisoners who are held under
administrative detention laws be guaranteed the right to have the
legality of their detention examined. Article 9.4 of the ICCPR
states:
"Anyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings before a court, in order that the court may decide without delay on the lawfulness of his detention and order his release if the detention is not lawful."
A central register of detentions
should also be established to which lawyers and families have
access.
The death penalty
Amnesty
International is unconditionally opposed to the death penalty. It
believes all executions are a violation of the right to life and
the right not to be subjected to cruel, inhuman or degrading
punishment.
Amnesty International recommends that all death
sentences which were passed since the 1988 coup be commuted, and
that the death penalty be abolished, either as a punishment handed
down in military tribunals or civilian courts. Amnesty
International also urges the immediate suspension of all
executions. The ICCPR provides that "No one shall be
arbitrarily deprived of his life" (Article 6.1). This right is
also proclaimed unequivocally in Article 3 of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights.
Extrajudicial
executions
Amnesty International recommends that the
authorities initiate an impartial and independent inquiry into
alleged extrajudicial executions by government security forces,
including the deaths of thousands of people reported to have
occurred in 1988. It also urges that when the investigation has
been completed, the results are made public and criminal
proceedings be brought against those found responsible. The
families of the victims should receive redress and compensation for
the deaths.
These recommendations accord with those set out
in the Principles on the Effective Prevention and Investigation of
Extra-legal, Arbitrary and Summary Executions, which was endorsed
by the UN General Assembly on 15 December 1989. Principle 2 states:
"...Governments shall ensure strict control, including a clear chain of command over all officials repsonsible for the apprehension, arrest, detention, custody and imprisonment as well as those officials authorized by law to use force and firearms."
Principles 9 and 17 respectively
call for an independent investigation to be carried out of all
suspected cases of extra-legal, arbitrary and summary executions
and for the results of the report to be made public.
Amnesty
International urges the Myanmar Government to affirm its commitment
to respect for human rights by ratifying the International Covenant
on Civil and Political Rights and its First Protocol as well as its
Second Optional Protocol, which aims at the abolition of the death
penalty. Amnesty International also urges the Government to ratify
the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or
Degrading Treatment or Punishment.
****
(1)
In June 1989 the name of the country was changed to Myanmar. The
English spelling of the names of several cities and regions was
also changed.
(2) Myanmar: Prisoners of Conscience and
Torture, AI Index ASA 16/04/90