COLLECTED REPORTS TO THE COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS BY THE SPECIAL RAPPORTEURS ON MYANMAR

 

PROFESSOR YOZO YOKOTA (1992-1996)

JUDGE RAJSOOMER LALLAH (1996-2000)

PROFESSOR PAOLO SERGIO PINHEIRO (2000- )

 

 

INTRODUCTION

 

Basic starting points for an assessment of human rights conditions in Burma/Myanmar are the UN resolutions on the situation of human rights in Myanmar and the body of reports submitted since 1992 to the UN General Assembly and Commission on Human Rights by the UN Special Rapporteurs on Myanmar.

 

Special Rapporteurs are independent experts appointed by the Commission on Human Rights to examine and report on particular human rights themes or on the situation of human rights in particular countries. Country Special Rapporteurs are only appointed to examine the most serious human rights situations. The Commission appointed Professor Yozo Yokota as Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Myanmar in 1992 following two years when Burma/Myanmar had been examined by the Commission under its 1503 (confidential) procedure. He was succeeded in 1996 by Judge Rajsoomer Lallah, who was followed in 2000 by Professor Paolo Sergio Pinheiro.

 

Not only are the reports of the Special Rapporteur the most authoritative general reports on the human rights situation in Burma/Myanmar, including analysis of the legal framework governing the exercise of human rights in the country, but they also contain an abundance of summaries of testimonies gathered by the Special Rapporteurs over 12 years, as well as the responses of the Government of Myanmar to specific allegations.

 

By reading the reports as a body it is thus possible to see the patterns of violations over a number of years, to assess the degree to which they are systematic, widespread and persistent over time, to track particular themes from 1992 (e.g. killings, rape, torture, forced relocation, forced labour) but also to inquire whether there has been any development, positive or negative, since the United Nations human rights bodies began their examination of the situation.

 

The present document and the parallel collection of reports to the General Assembly are intended to facilitate searching of the reports as a body. Since they are rather large documents, they are presented in Text. Text does not permit tables, and although I have presented the information from the tables as clearly as possible, some readers may wish to check the original (and authoritative) versions -- go to http://www.burmalibrary.org and search for the document number, e.g. A/48/578, and click on the link, or to the website of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, http://www.unhchr.ch and search. Otherwise, go to http://www.unhchr.ch/huridocda/huridoca.nsf/FramePage/Myanmar%20En?OpenDocument&Start=1&Count=15&Expand=2 for links to the individual reports, or to the web-page of the Special Rapporteur on Myanmar at http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu2/7/a/mmya.htm

 

David Arnott,

Geneva.

 

Last updated, August 2003

 

 

 

CONTENTS

 

E/CN.4/1993/37

17 February 1993

(Professor Yokota's first report to the Commission)

 

E/CN.4/1994/57

16 February 1994

 

E/CN.4/1995/65

12 January 1995

 

E/CN.4/1996/65

5 February 1996

 

E/CN.4/1997/64

6 February 1997

(Judge Lallah's first report to the Commission)

 

E/CN.4/1998/70

15 January 1998

 

E/CN.4/1999/35

22 January 1999

 

E/CN.4/2000/38

24 January 2000

 

(There was no written report in 2001)

 

E/CN.4/2002/45

10 January 2002

(Professor Pinheiro's first report to the Commission)

 

E/CN.4/2003/41

27 December 2002

 

 

********************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************

 

 

Economic and Social Council

E/CN.4/1993/37

17 February 1993

 

Commission on human rights Forty-ninth session Agenda item 12

 

QUESTION OF THE VIOLATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS IN ANY PART OF THE WORLD, WITH PARTICULAR REFERENCE TO COLONIAL AND OTHER DEPENDENT COUNTRIES AND TERRITORIES

 

Report on the situation of human rights in Myanmar, prepared by Mr. Yozo Yokota, Special Rapporteur of the Commission on Human Rights, in accordance with Commission resolution 1992/58

 

 

CONTENTS

 

Paragraphs

 

Introduction 1- 6

 

I. Background 7-31

A. General 7-8

B. Chronology of events pertinent to the situation 9-31

 

II. Activities of the Special Rapporteur 32-68

 

III. Allegations 69-138

A. Right to life 69-96

B. Torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment 97-114

C. Disappearances 115-116

D. Arbitrary and prolonged detention 117-119

E. Freedom of expression 120-127

F. Situation of Myanmar Muslims of Rakhine state 128-138

 

IV. Legal framework 139-199

A. International law 140-179

B. Myanmar law relevant to the question of human rights 180-198

 

V. The National Convention for drafting a new Constitution and the transfer of power to a civilian government 199-217

 

VI. Conclusions 218-241

 

VII. Recommendations 242

 

 

Introduction

 

1. On 3 March 1992, at its forty-eighth session, the Commission on Human Rights adopted resolution 1992/58, entitled "Situation of human rights in Myanmar". In that resolution, the Commission noted that, in accordance with the Charter, the United Nations promotes and encourages respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms for all, and that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that "the will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government". It also noted with particular concern in that regard that the electoral process initiated in Myanmar by the general elections of 27 May 1990 had not yet reached its conclusion; that no apparent progress had been made in giving effect to the political will of the people of Myanmar, as expressed in the elections; and that the final results of the elections had not even been officially released; also noted that many political leaders, in particular elected representatives, remained deprived of their liberty and that Daw Aung San Suu Kyi was still under house arrest; and noted with concern the seriousness of the situation of human rights in Myanmar, the existence of important restrictions on the exercise of fundamental freedoms and the imposition of oppressive measures directed, in particular, at minority groups and the continuing exodus of Myanmar refugees to neighbouring countries, including Myanmar Muslim refugees to Bangladesh.

 

2. By paragraph 3 of resolution 1992/58, the Commission on Human Rights decided to nominate a special rapporteur to establish direct contacts with the Government and with the people of Myanmar with a view to examining the situation of human rights in Myanmar and to report to the General Assembly at its forty-seventh session and to the Commission on Human Rights at its forty-ninth session.

 

3. After consultation with the Bureau, the Chairman of the Commission appointed, on 10 June 1992, Dr. Yozo Yokota (Japan) as Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Myanmar, pending approval of Commission resolution 1992/58 by the Economic and Social Council.

 

4. At its substantive session of 1992, the Economic and Social Council adopted decision 1992/235 of 20 July 1992, approving Commission resolution 1992/58.

 

 

5. The preliminary report of the Special Rapporteur was submitted to the Secretary-General of the United Nations for dissemination to all States Members of the United Nations at the forty-seventh session of the General Assembly in November 1992 (A/47/651, annex).

 

6. This comprehensive report is submitted to the Commission on Human Rights at its forty-ninth session for consideration by the Commission.

 

 

I. BACKGROUND

 

A. General

 

7. The situation of human rights in Myanmar was first considered by the Commission on Human Rights at its forty-sixth session, in 1990, under the procedure established by Economic and Social Council resolution 1503, after having been considered by the Sub-Commission on the Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities at its fortieth and forty-first sessions, in 1988 and 1989, respectively. In 1991, the Commission continued its consideration of the situation in Myanmar under the procedure established in resolution 1503.

 

8. As mentioned above, the Commission decided at its forty-eighth session to appoint a special rapporteur to examine the situation of human rights in Myanmar and to report to the next sessions of the General Assembly and the Commission on Human Rights. The Commission also charged the Special Rapporteur with the expressed tasks of following any progress made towards the transfer of power to a civilian government and the drafting of a new constitution, the lifting of restrictions on personal freedoms and the restoration of human rights in Myanmar.

 

 

B. Chronology of events pertinent to the situation

 

9. In 1948 the Union of Myanmar (then called Burma) gained its independence from British colonial rule. From 1948 until 1962, the country was governed by a parliamentary democracy based on the Constitution of 2 September 1947.

 

10. The Constitution was drafted by consensus among the Barmar ("ethnic Burmans" who comprise approximately two thirds of the population) and most of the ethnic minorities including the Shan, Rakhine (Arakan), Kayin (Karen), Mon, Kachin, Chin, Karenni and Pa-o. It provided for a federal system of government with separate executive, legislative and judicial branches. The states, while belonging to the Union, were considered autonomous.

 

11. According to Article 201 of the Constitution, ethnic minorities had, in theory, the right to secede from the Union, but, under Article 202, this right was not to be exercised until ten years from the date of entry into force of the Constitution.

 

12. In March 1948, an armed insurgency against the then Government of Burma was begun by the Communist Party of Burma. From 1948 through 1961, various minority ethnic groups joined the armed insurgency.

 

13. In March 1962, General Ne Win took power in a coup d'‚tat. He installed a one-party (Burma Socialist Programme Party) military regime with military tribunals and courts and operated without a constitution. He embarked upon a programme known as the "Burmese Way to Socialism".

 

14. On 28 March 1964, the Law to Protect National Unity was promulgated, banning all political parties except the Burma Socialist Programme Party.

 

15. In 1974 a new Constitution was drafted. However, one-party rule continued.

 

16. By 1988, widespread dissent and demonstrations began in reaction to two factors, firstly, the suppression of all civil and political rights since the 1962 overthrow of the constitutional Government; and secondly, the economic failure caused by the Burmese Way to Socialism.

 

17. The economy was in crisis. In September 1987, the major currency notes had been demonetized and approximately 70 per cent of all currency in circulation had been rendered valueless. There were also severe shortages of domestic goods and the country, once one of the world's major rice producers and exporters, lost its capacity to maintain its international market.

 

18. From March until June 1988, students and workers demonstrated, and were attacked by the military. Hundreds of civilians were arrested, many were severely injured or died from ill-treatment in detention and many persons were summarily or arbitrarily executed. On 21 June 1988 the Government imposed a ban on all public gatherings.

 

19. On 23 July 1988, General Ne Win resigned as party leader, promising economic reform and the holding of a referendum to end one-party rule and institute a multi-party system.

 

20. Demonstrations continued and the army and riot police continued the crackdown on demonstrators. It is reported that between 8 August, when a nationwide strike was held, and 12 August approximately 3,000 persons were killed. All educational institutions were closed.

 

21. On 18 September 1988, the military took power. The State Law and Order Restoration Council (SLORC) was set up under the chairmanship of the Chief of Staff, Senior General Saw Maung.

 

22. The National Assembly (Pyithu Hluttaw), the Council of State and other governmental bodies were dissolved. Senior General Saw Maung became Prime Minister, Minister of Foreign Affairs and Minister of Defence.

 

23. Free elections were promised by SLORC. In response, three main opposition parties were established: the National League for Democracy (NLD); the National Unity Party (NUP, reconstituted from the Burmese Socialist Programme Party) and the League for Democracy (LDP).

 

24. On 23 September 1988, Senior General Saw Maung, as Chairman of SLORC, made a statement to the effect that three conditions for the holding of elections would have to be met:

 

"1. Maintenance of law and order.

 

"2. Providing smooth and secure transportation.

 

"3. The State Law and Order Restoration Council will strive for better conditions of food, clothing and shelter of the people and render necessary assistance to the private sector and the cooperatives to do so."

 

25. In 1988, Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, daughter of U Aung San (the national hero of independence) and General Secretary of the National League for Democracy, was banned from campaigning on the grounds that she maintained unlawful association with insurgent organizations.

 

26. On 20 July 1989, Daw Aung San Suu Kyi was detained by Government forces. Numerous others, including most of the important opposition political leaders to SLORC, were also arbitrarily detained, and many of them remain so to date.

 

27. In May 1990, general elections were held. The opposition (NLD) was reliably reported to have won the elections overwhelmingly.

 

28. SLORC set up an Election Commission to scrutinize the results of the elections and all expense accounts of all elected representatives (SLORC has stated it does not want to rush the Commission), the winners of the elections will be announced and certificates to the winners will be issued.

 

29. A Constitutional Convention to decide the terms of the drafting of the constitution has been announced by SLORC with the participation of all parties. According to SLORC order No. 11/92 of 24 April 1992 and citing SLORC order No. 1/90 of 27 July 1990 (contained in Government of Myanmar Press Release No. 82, dated 26 June 1992) and according to SLORC order No. 9/92 dated 28 May 1992, SLORC, through its Steering Committee, was given responsibility for the preparation of the Coordinating Meeting for the Convening of the National Convention. Leaders of lawfully existing political parties were to attend in numbers designated by the Steering Committee. The nomination list of those representatives were to be sent to the Steering Committee 11 days prior to the meeting. The Steering Committee was given responsibility for inviting those elected individual representatives "standing lawfully" on the day the Order (28 May 1992) was issued. The Steering Committee was deemed responsible for: determining the programmes related to the holding of the meeting; the topics to be discussed; determining the procedures; determining as necessary the daily and travel allowances of representatives attending the meeting; submitting the report on the meeting to SLORC within one month of the meeting; and carrying out all administrative functions.

 

30. The National Convention was convened for one-and-a-half days in January 1993 and was then postponed until 1 February when it was reconvened.

 

31. Beginning in early 1992, a mass exodus of Myanmar Muslims from Northern Rakhine state into Bangladesh was reported. At least 250,000 such persons are reliably reported to have sought refuge for fear of persecution. On 28 April 1992, the Governments of Myanmar and Bangladesh signed an agreement for the safe, voluntary return of the refugees. The repatriation programme was suspended and has now been resumed. At present many refugees appear unwilling to return to Myanmar without adequate international monitoring. According to sources, as of January 1993, approximately 17,000 refugees have returned to Myanmar; however the voluntary character of the return has been questioned and is of great concern to the international community.

 

 

II. ACTIVITIES OF THE SPECIAL RAPPORTEUR

 

32. At the invitation of the Government of Myanmar, conveyed by a letter of the Minister for Foreign Affairs dated 27 August 1992, and accepted by the Special Rapporteur on 17 September 1992, the Special Rapporteur undertook a visit to that country from 7 to 14 December 1992. Prior to the visit, the Special Rapporteur had been in frequent contact with the Permanent Representative of Myanmar to the United Nations at Geneva and with the Minister for Foreign Affairs who cooperated fully and facilitated the visit which was originally scheduled for October but was, however, postponed until December for technical reasons.

 

33. The Special Rapporteur visited Myanmar from 7 to 14 December 1992. During this visit he was received by the Secretary I of SLORC, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, the Deputy Minister for Foreign Affairs, the Chief Justice, the Attorney General, the Minister for Development of Border Areas and National Races, the Information Committee and other high-level authorities of the Government. He also met with the Myanmar Red Cross Society. He visited some sites relevant to his mandate including Insein Prison, Rakhine state, the Dagon, Shwe Pyi Thar and Hlaing Thaya New Townships.

 

 

Meetings with the Minister for Foreign Affairs

 

34. The Minister for Foreign Affairs, U Ohn Gyaw received the Special Rapporteur on 8 and 14 December 1992. During these meetings he discussed a number of different issues relevant to the mandate of the Special Rapporteur. He stressed that, in regard to the National Convention and the drafting of the constitution, over eight different groups would be allowed to participate, representing all segments of society. He said that only the elected representatives were considered competent to draft the constitution, but that they required a mandate to do so. The National Convention would provide that mandate.

 

35. In regard to turning over the Government to the elected representatives, the Foreign Minister said that from the beginning, there had been a misconception. The mechanism for the transfer of power requires a basis for the transfer. There must be a constitution to determine who, for how long, under what circumstances. All of this had been laid out in SLORC Order No. 1/90. He further stated that the idea that power would be transferred within a certain period, so that the elected representatives could draft their own constitution, had been misunderstood by the international community. This was why Myanmar had "disassociated itself" from Commission resolution 1992/58 on the situation of human rights in Myanmar. The international community was interfering in the internal concerns and sovereignty of Myanmar. In any case, Myanmar was a country with many different ethnic groups and the Government must maintain the integrity of the State.

 

36. The Convention would be a step towards democracy and the Government wanted to be doubly sure and not make a mistake and go back to the situation of 1988 (to the democracy movement demonstrations). The Foreign Minister said that the United Nations or another country may tell Myanmar to go ahead, but that they could not risk losing a century by making a mistake. He stated that the constitutional process was not held before the elections because of caution regarding the 1988 events. He stated that there were some insurgents who would like to move in from the outlying areas and the Government had a responsibility to maintain normal law and order.

 

37. Mr. Ohn Gyaw stated that there would not be any international observation of the process because "it is a matter of internal affairs not for too many cooks".

 

38. In regard to the 1982 Citizenship Act, he said that there were citizens, associate citizens and foreigners. The second group is the offspring of those who were citizens of Myanmar and intermarried with foreigners. For example, he cited that his son was a citizen, while he was not. Under the new law, his son would be granted all the rights of citizens, such as the ability to own land and benefit from all business rights which he had not been allowed to enjoy. He said that 98 per cent of the people benefitting from this new act were of Bengali descent and would thus be able to hold land, but he was not sure associate citizens would be allowed to hold or own land. He stated that persons who could not produce an identity card would have a problem.

 

39. Concerning the utilization of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) to facilitate the repatriation of Myanmar Muslims to Rakhine state, he said that Myanmar had not asked for one penny from the international community or UNHCR for the repatriations. The Government was paying for all of the aid. He further stated that the idea that these persons' goods, lands, and houses had been taken away is false. Myanmar is taking care of the problems and is able to cope with the flows. Nor does Myanmar need the aid of the International Committee of the Red Cross.

 

40. He stated that some subversive campaigns in Bangladesh, kept persons from coming back. These insurgents are causing trouble to the Bangladesh Government and they are trying to convince people not to repatriate. There are some persons from the Middle East who are promising jobs and other things, but most of these people realize they must repatriate. He said that when the regular immigration process resumes, the Government will send back to Bangladesh those who did not get immigration cards.

 

41. He said however, that "it is a rubbish thing that people have left Myanmar. These people who are in the refugee camps in Bangladesh are perhaps from Dhaka, but not one single person has left Burma."

 

42. The Foreign Minister stated that the allegations received as to human rights violations regarding forced portering by the military were completely false. This, he stated was the weakness of the United Nations. It was being manipulated by the insurgents.

 

 

Meeting with Secretary I of SLORC, General Khin Nyunt

 

43. General Khin Nyunt received the Special Rapporteur by stating that his Government had accepted the Special Rapporteur more on a personal basis than on an institutional one.

 

44. He stated that there were many accusations of human rights violations in Myanmar, but that the Special Rapporteur should understand that Myanmar has a population of 43 million. The Government, he said, was giving priority to the economic well-being of these people. This should not be hampered by a small group of illegal persons. In fact, before the arrival of the Special Rapporteur, there were rumours that some anti-government groups might "stage up" to give a distorted image of the country. They had heard that a person would dress like a monk and lie down in front of the Special Rapporteur's car. But, in fact, during the short period of four years since the SLORC had assumed power, the Government of Myanmar was doing its best to improve the life and welfare of all the people in that country. In the case of Myanmar, whatever the Government does, it is criticized. All countries should respect human rights without distinction and Myanmar had done its best in that direction.

 

45. In this regard, General Khin Nyunt said that the three new townships seen by the Special Rapporteur were projects which has endeavoured to improve the life, welfare and economic and social rights of the people. Hlaing Thaya was a place where the poorest people of Yangon had moved. They used to be the illegal dwellers of temples and cemeteries. In this township, the Government had tried to improve the living conditions of the residents by establishing schools, hospitals and other facilities. People were given land free of charge. In Dagon New township, there are also some more well-to-do people. There are markets and schools and a university would be established soon.

 

46. He cited the border areas' construction projects of roads and bridges. He said that local inhabitants were voluntarily cooperating in these development projects. Accusations of forced labour were distorted. Such accusations, he said, "are disseminated by the terrorist people and groups".

 

47. He said in regard to persons who did not make contact with the Special Rapporteur, that there may have been some who did not wish to see the Special Rapporteur. It was not because the Government prevented them from doing so, but because they are engaged in illegal activities. Those who break the law will do the same after their release. He said that some released prisoners were having relations with the minute terrorist groups. There are also some people from political parties who may break the law. They were free to engage in business or other legal activities, but not illegal activities. In any country, law and order must be maintained. Those who break the law must be punished.

 

48. He said that the slanderous stories about torture and ill-treatment were not true. There may be some prison wardens who treat prisoners badly. They are disciplined in accordance with the law. He said that the Special Rapporteur had been allowed to see more than he had seen the previous year at Insein Prison. The reason why he was not shown more this year, was that there was concern that some prisoners might have caused harm or presented danger to the visitors.

 

 

49. He said that during the Special Rapporteur's visit to Rakhine state he saw a lot and could see that the stories coming out were not true. He said that the Special Rapporteur had observed the Mayor's (foot) marathon. The people were enjoying that event enthusiastically. It was not something that a Government could arrange. The event was the third one and had been planned way in advance and not to coincide with the visit. At the end of the month, there would be the traditional boat regatta which many people would attend.

 

50. He stated that regarding actions by military personnel, Myanmar has a green book which explains rules and regulations to be followed by the members of the armed forces including those concerning punishment in case of violations. Such violations will be tried by a court martial. In the case of serious offenses such as murder or rape, the case may be transferred to an ordinary court to assure impartiality. These rules and regulations are strictly applied and there is no way that a member of the armed forces would violate the human rights of the ordinary people.

 

51. He said that the green book was distributed from generals down to the lowest soldiers. The Government does not deny that in the heat of fighting, these regulations may be violated, but the media exaggerates. As soon as such an incident is known, immediate action is taken.

 

52. He said that his Government knew that one of the two ladies accompanying the Special Rapporteur (the person referred to was the qualified interpreter for the Special Rapporteur) participated in an anti-government demonstration in front of the Embassy of Myanmar in London on 27 May 1991. He said he would show the Special Rapporteur two pictures to prove this. In spite of knowing this, the Government accepted the Special Rapporteur because they thought they should pay respect to him. He said that even after the Special Rapporteur came to Myanmar, her orientation was to organize meetings between the Special Rapporteur and anti-government groups. He stated that he said this not to complain, but simply to call the Special Rapporteur's attention to the fact.

 

53. He ended the meeting by stating that the Government was attempting to develop the country politically, economically and socially, and that although there were problems, they would overcome them. They could not destroy or disintegrate the country. They would carry on action in accordance with the law against any activity aimed at disunity and destruction of the country.

 

54. Politicians were quite free to go about their business and to travel freely in the country with the permission of the Government. However, they could not be allowed to disturb the peace and tranquillity or bring about disorder. In order to understand the human rights situation in the country, the situation had to be seen in the total framework as explained by him. The Government is not repressing the people tightly.

 

 

Visit to the three new townships

 

55. The Special Rapporteur was taken on 11 December 1992 to the three new townships, Dagon, Shwe Pyi Thar and Hlaing Thaya. Dagon Township lies about 45 minutes outside of Yangon on the banks of the Nayoma Creek and can be reached by crossing a small bridge on the road which connects it to Yangon. At Dagon New Township, the Special Rapporteur was shown the site of the new university which is to replace Yangon University. The professors from Yangon University will be transferred to the new university. Yangon University will then be used as a post-graduate University. In the first phase the University will accept 5,000 students in August of 1993 and eventually will accommodate up to 80,000 students in a self-contained community with its own water system, hospital, transportation and residential facilities. The education will be partly subsidized by the State.

 

56. The Government informed the Special Rapporteur that people from Yangon and other areas voluntarily moved to Dagon for a better life. There, they were afforded a plot of land for a nominal fee and were allowed to construct their own homes. There is a hospital, a new water system, elementary and secondary schools, businesses and other means of livelihood for the inhabitants and low-cost transportation to Yangon.

 

57. Shwe Pyi Thar is a new township populated by some people who, according to the Government, moved voluntarily, and others who were forced to move because they were living illegally in the city as squatters or homeless persons. For 5,000 kyats they may buy a plot of land 20 feet by 60 feet and may build their own home. Most of the inhabitants are day labourers who earn between 30 to 75 kyats per day and the Government gives some subsidies for the purchase of the land.

 

58. Here too, there is a hospital, markets, schools and other facilities for the self-containment of the community. The Special Rapporteur was taken for a tour of the approximately 20 to 25 bed hospital where the Special Rapporteur was told that people were being treated for dysentery, tuberculosis and other respiratory diseases, natural and problematic pregnancies and some nutritionally related diseases. The Special Rapporteur was also shown a new youth sports facility with a demonstration by the children of all the activities.

 

59. Hlaing Thaya is the largest of the new townships with 150,000 inhabitants. It may be reached by ferry boat. The Special Rapporteur was shown the sections first developed and inhabited before 1988. The inhabitants are mostly formerly homeless persons who had been living illegally in cemeteries in Yangon. The Government told the Special Rapporteur that the persons were not forcibly moved, but that once they were told that they were living illegally, they chose to move to Hlaing Thaya. There is a Yangon City Development Committee, which oversees its development and a Director of the Human Settlement Housing Development. There is a committee for the development of plots of land 20 feet by 40 feet, which generally cost 1,500 kyats, but if the family cannot afford this, the Government subsidizes the land. The families build their own homes.

 

60. Most of the inhabitants were said to be jobless but the Government is trying to find jobs for them. There is social welfare and schooling. There is a 25 bed hospital, which the Special Rapporteur was unable to see due to lack of time. On the way back to Yangon, the Special Rapporteur was shown a modern highway and overpass construction site which had been recently built.

 

 

Visit to Insein Prison

 

61. At Insein Prison the Special Rapporteur was given an extensive tour of the grounds, on which new vegetables and flowers had been planted. He was shown the workshop buildings, the tower, prisoners taking their afternoon bath, the hospital, which appeared to house prisoners instead of sick persons, and a small kitchen with freshly prepared pots of food. The facilities had been freshly painted.

 

62. The Special Rapporteur was not allowed to see any of the detainees he had requested to meet. These prisoners were detained under SLORC Order 1/88 prohibiting the assembly of five or more persons or under the 1950 Emergency Provisions Act. Several of them belonged to political parties, some were students and one was a monk. In the case of the monk, U Zaw Tika, the Special Rapporteur received allegations while in Myanmar, that he had died from torture received while in custody at Insein Prison. The authorities told the Special Rapporteur that such a person, as far as they knew, did not exist. The authorities stated that when a monk is arrested, he is defrocked and given a lay name, and suggested that this could be the reason why they were unaware of any such person. According to the prison authorities, five of the detainees the Special Rapporteur requested to see were in good health. These are: U Tin Oo, U Kyi Maung, Zagana, Min Lo Naing and Tin Tun. Five others were reported as "not known to the authorities". They are: U Win Tin, U Khun Sai, U Tun Shwin, Myint Sein and U Shwe Tin.

 

63. The Special Rapporteur had made a request in writing on the first day of his stay in Myanmar as to the detainees he wished to see and asked for free access to those and other detainees at Insein Prison.

 

64. After repeated requests made orally, the Special Rapporteur was told that the higher authorities do not interfere with the running of the prison and that the request should be made to the prison authorities. At the time of the prison visit, the prison authorities stated that they were unable to comply with the Special Rapporteur's request to see the detainees because they required authorization from higher authorities. Subsequent to the prison visit, it was explained to the Special Rapporteur that the reason he was not allowed to see the detainees is because the Government was concerned "that some prisoners may give harm or danger to visitors".

 

 

Visit to Rakhine state

 

65. The Special Rapporteur made a one-and-a-half day trip to Rakhine state where he was able to speak with a number of Myanmar Muslim village leaders and to ask them about religious and ethnic tolerance. The villagers were assembled by the Government and Government authorities were seated with the Special Rapporteur during the encounter. Some other villagers were also asked questions by the Special Rapporteur as he passed by with the Government officials.

 

66. Other persons in Yangon whom the Special Rapporteur had formally requested to see and many persons with whom he either wished to make contact or who had expressed a wish to see him, were not allowed to receive or speak to the Special Rapporteur. Almost all of these persons were visited by the military intelligence. The Special Rapporteur was told that "... persons are free to engage in business or other legal activities but not in illegal activities. There may be some who do not wish to come to see you. It is not because the Government is preventing (them) from seeing you but because they are engaged in illegal activities."

 

67. In regard to this situation, the Special Rapporteur transmitted on the last day of his visit, 14 December 1992, the following letter to the Government:

 

"Excellency,

 

"I have the honour to refer to your letter of 27 August 1992 in which your Government stated that it looked forward to welcoming me to Myanmar as an expression of continuing cooperation with the United Nations.

 

"As you are aware, by operative paragraph 3 of Commission on Human Rights resolution 1992/58 on the situation of human rights in Myanmar, the Commission decided to nominate a special rapporteur for the purpose of, inter alia, establishing direct contacts with the Government of Myanmar and with the people of Myanmar, including political leaders deprived of their liberty ... I wish to bring to the attention of your Government my concern that, in addition to being prohibited from establishing direct contact with any of the political leaders deprived of their liberty, direct contact with many of the people of Myanmar useful to my mandate, was made impossible.

 

"It has come to my attention that during the course of my visit, several persons wishing to make direct contact with the Special Rapporteur or persons whom the Special Rapporteur requested to contact, were reportedly visited by members of the intelligence services and told not to establish or receive contact with the Special Rapporteur and the accompanying United Nations staff members. Under Commission on Human Rights resolution 1992/59 regarding reprisals directed at groups or individuals cooperating with the United Nations' bodies, it is stated that threats or intimidation against witnesses or persons wishing to cooperate with the United Nations are prohibited. This resolution further states that Governments should take all steps necessary to protect the lives and physical integrity of these persons.

 

"I urge the Government of Myanmar to take the necessary steps to comply with the above cited resolution.

 

"Accept Excellency, the assurances of my highest consideration."

 

68. By letter dated 23 December 1992, the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Myanmar responded to the Special Rapporteur's letter:

 

"Dear Professor Yokota,

 

"I refer to your letter dated 14 December 1992 and I wish to convey that I am quite dismayed at the tone and the substantive thrust of the various points you raised.

 

"As you are aware, we in Myanmar are consistently sincere in our wish to have a continuing cooperation with the United Nations. But this cooperation cannot be a channel to override the fundamental principles of national sovereignty and non-interference in the internal affairs of Nation States, as enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations.

 

"To be specific, you mentioned your mandate as 'establishing direct contacts with ... including political leaders deprived of their liberty...'. As explained many times previously, I reiterate that there are no political prisoners in this country, but only some politicians who are under detention for breaking the established laws of this nation.

 

"You also mentioned that 'persons whom the Special Rapporteur has requested to contact were reportedly visited by members of the intelligence service and told not to establish or receive contact with the Special Rapporteur ...'. In this regard, I do regret that you have put in your official letter one side of the story which you were kind enough to qualify by 'reportedly'.

 

"Even if such an unfounded allegation has taken place, being 'told not to' cannot conceivably be construed as 'threats or intimidation'.

 

"I avail myself of this opportunity to convey to you our sincere and continuing wish to cooperate with the United Nations in the belief that it is an important element of our systematic endeavour towards establishing the democratic system in an atmosphere of peace, tranquillity, prosperity and orderly processes rather than under anarchy, disintegration of the nation, and tragic and senseless destructive acts,.

 

"This democratic system we aim to establish will be on foundations that are within the parameters of our history, traditions and culture."

 

Please accept, Professor, the renewed assurances of my high consideration.

 

Yours Sincerely, Ohn Gyaw

 

 

 

III. ALLEGATIONS

 

A. Right to Life

 

 

1. Death Penalty

 

69. The death sentence is permitted under Myanmar law; nevertheless, no death sentence has been carried out since 1988. In July 1989, SLORC Order No. 1/89 established military tribunals and SLORC Order No. 2/89 established the procedures for adjudication through military tribunals of persons contravening any SLORC Order. Under these provisions, military tribunals were competent to hand down penalties of no less than three years' imprisonment, life imprisonment or the death penalty.

 

70. On 6 September 1992, by SLORC Order No. 12/92, military tribunals were revoked and on 1 January 1993, by SLORC Order No. 1/93, all death sentences passed by civil or military courts or tribunals between 18 September 1988 and 31 December 1992 were commuted to transportation for life (life imprisonment).

 

 

2. Summary or arbitrary executions in the context of armed conflict

 

71. On 5 October 1992, the Myanmar Minister for Foreign Affairs, U Ohn Gyaw, addressed the United Nations General Assembly stating that in April 1992, the SLORC had suspended "all offensive operations in Kaying state and other parts of the country to consolidate national solidarity and unity". (See statement by His Excellency U Ohn Gyaw, Minister for Foreign Affairs and Chairman of the Delegation of the Union of Myanmar, in the general debate of the General Assembly at its forty-seventh session, p. 10).

 

72. According to other information provided by non-governmental sources to the Special Rapporteur, many of the violations described below that had occurred before the cease-fire reportedly continued to occur. Although the direct military attacks did cease during the rainy season, they are alleged to have begun again. In addition, many of the violations reported did not take place as a result of the direct military "offensives". The Special Rapporteur was told that in areas within or near conflict zones in the Kayin, Kachin and Karenni states, many persons had been summarily executed for being suspected of insurgency by the army. In other cases, civilians suspected of giving aid to insurgents, either materially or by providing food or shelter were executed.

 

73. One woman from Kayin state told the Special Rapporteur that the military had recently entered her village because they suspected the villagers were lending support to the insurgents. She stated that as she and some other villagers were attempting to escape into the jungle, the military shot dead the two persons behind her.

 

74. The Special Rapporteur was informed that if the military suspected that villagers were insurgents or were providing aid to insurgents, that entire village was often given orders to relocate by the Township Level Law and Order Restoration Council (LORC). In a number of cases reported to the Special Rapporteur, civilians were executed when they either refused to relocate upon orders or when they attempted to escape to avoid relocation.

 

75. One 18-year-old woman from Pruso Town told the Special Rapporteur that her 20-year-old husband had been shot dead in front of her for having disobeyed orders to relocate. The woman told the Special Rapporteur that the military had come to her village with location orders. She, her husband and two other persons had fled nearby to work on another parcel of land. The military continued the relocation operation in the area and when they arrived one week later at the location where the woman and her husband had fled, they did not speak or give any warning before shooting. The woman's father-in-law later came out of hiding to fetch some water and was shot dead by the military.

 

76. The Special Rapporteur was shown a relocation order dated 6 March 1992 (Pruso LORC 385) from Pruso Township, Kayah state. Fifty-seven villages were listed as being required to move. The Order stated that those who did not move by 20 March 1992 would be considered "bandit-insurgents" and "would be eliminated".

 

 

3. Death as a consequence of rape

 

77. Information received from over 30 interviews with Myanmar Muslim women from Rakhine state and other women from areas of armed conflict indicated that a large number of rapes by entire groups of Myanmar military had been taking place. Many women provided testimony that women in villages relocated by the army were rounded up and taken to military barracks where they were continually raped. In other circumstances, women have allegedly been taken by the military when the husband, or other male in the family, had fled at the approach of the army. Often, the "pretty" or young ones were raped immediately in front of family members and then taken away. Women who had returned to their villages stated that some of the women among them had died as a result of the continual rapes. Two female health workers interviewed by the Special Rapporteur reported that in their clinic, women with rape wounds had been admitted and had later died from bleeding or subsequent infection. It was reported to the Special Rapporteur that on 9 March 1992, members of SLORC Regiment 254 raped and killed nine women (Tomg Du Kai, Lamung Tu, Marau Htu, Jingphaw Lu, Mi Htoi Roi, Hpau Roi, Shi Hpau La Hkawn, Shi Hpau Rim Roi) near Yonan stream, Bhamo township in Kachin state.

 

78. Due to time constraints and the difficulty in obtaining data on this delicate subject, the Special Rapporteur wishes to point out that his findings are not complete and that the true extent of the problem could not be ascertained during this initial visit.

 

 

4. Death of forced porters

 

79. According to testimony received by the Special Rapporteur, thousands of persons have been killed since 1988 by the military throughout Myanmar while providing forced portering for the military. Amongst the most affected groups seem to be the Myanmar Muslims of Rakhine state, the Karen, Shan and the Mon.

 

80. Dozens of persons from different states interviewed by the Special Rapporteur provided testimony. Witnesses from several areas told the Special Rapporteur that although some persons were able to bribe their way out of portering, most could not afford to. From the number of persons interviewed who gave corroborating evidence, there is strong evidence suggesting a systematic pattern of summary or arbitrary execution of forced porters.

 

81. One person told the Special Rapporteur that hundreds of young boys from Kalor and Palong had been taken between February 1989 and March 1990 as forced porters. He stated that most of them were taken when they went to fetch water at the reservoir near the military barracks where seven different regiments were posted including Regiment 114. He witnessed one truckload of about 80 boys being taken from Shan state to Kayah state. He reportedly witnessed boys being put on the front line carrying military equipment and huge rice bags. When they were caught in crossfire, many of the boys were killed. This same witness told the Special Rapporteur that the convicts (Gurkas) were even more at risk as porters since they were tied together so that they could not escape. In another incident, a young porter was seen being beaten to death by the military for talking back.

 

82. In a further reported case in Kayah state, porters were allegedly used as mine-sweepers. Two young boys had been taken as porters when they could not pay the 5,000 Kyats demanded as a bribe. They were forced to act as mine-sweepers. When a soldier ventured forth and stepped on a mine, one of the boys was told to carry him, but the soldier died. The porter was then reportedly severely beaten by the other soldiers. He managed to escape, but died a few days later in a hospital in Kalor.

 

83. The Special Rapporteur was told by dozens of refugees, all Myanmar Muslims from Rakhine state in the Jumapara Transit and Gumdum refugee camps in Bangladesh, that men were routinely taken from the villages for forced portering. Witnesses said that many of the men had been killed while attempting to flee. Numerous women told the Special Rapporteur that their husbands had been taken away for portering and had not been seen again. Furthermore, only a few of these women were able to verify if their husbands were in fact dead or alive.

 

84. One Karen witness told the Special Rapporteur that during the time he was forced to be a porter, he saw many others killed when they were unable to carry the heavy loads. In one such case, a porter fell and was unable to get up. A sergeant kicked and hit him with a rifle butt until he died. In another case, a man of Indian descent fainted. The same sergeant who had killed the above-mentioned porter, kicked him and then drowned him in a stream.

 

 

5. Death during forced labour other than portering

 

85. According to the testimony of persons taken to provide labour in the construction of railroads (Aung Ban-Loikaw railroad), roads or clearing jungle areas for the military, hundreds of persons were killed by the military when, as with porters, they were unable to carry loads and to continue the hard labour. The labour projects reportedly included two major railway projects, other border development projects of the Government, particularly along the Thai-Myanmar border, and labour for the military particularly in the areas of conflict in the Karen, Karenni, Shan, and Mon areas.

 

86. It was reported however that the labourers died most frequently as a result of constant beatings, unsanitary conditions, lack of food and lack of medical treatment, once they became sick or wounded and unable to continue work. Witnesses also provided information that some friends or relatives who returned from the work in the border development projects died afterwards as a result of the wounds and diseases contracted during their labour.

 

 

6. Death as a result of the prohibition of freedom of political participation, expression and assembly

 

87. Thousands of persons were reportedly summarily executed during the mass demonstrations for democracy in 1988 and during the student strike in December 1990. A number of persons who had participated in the demonstrations told the Special Rapporteur that the demonstrators were unarmed and had been attacked by the military. Students, professionals, workers and thousands of poor people including organized beggars were shot or beaten to death while demonstrating. One man in Yangon saw the military transporting bodies in trucks during the following days.

 

88. One person from the new township, Hlain Thaya, who had been in close proximity to the bodies of the students killed in the 1990 strike, told the Special Rapporteur that the military brought many bodies to Hlain Thaya for mass burial. In one truckload, most of the bodies had bullet wounds, but that in another, the heads and faces of most of the students had been beaten and crushed.

 

 

7. Death in custody

 

89. The Special Rapporteur was given extensive testimony as to the pattern of the deaths in custody, however, the number of persons actually reported to have died while in custody are limited to those who were well-known or persons who were related to or known by those who were able to make contact with the Special Rapporteur. According to evidence received, the true number of deaths are far greater.

 

90. In the cases received by the Special Rapporteur in which violations of the right to life occurred while in detention and in which charges were filed, these detentions were primarily carried out under SLORC orders, the 1950 Emergency Provisions Act, particularly 5(J) article 17 (1) of the 1908 Unlawful Association Act and article 122 (1) of the Penal Code regarding punishment for high treason. The Special Rapporteur received information that some violations of the right to life of leaders of political activities reportedly occurred after these persons were arrested under laws pertaining to common criminality.

 

91. Deaths in custody were most frequently reported to have been a result of torture or the result of torture aggravated by the conditions of detention. Detainees are reportedly provided with insufficient, often spoiled food. The vegetables grown within the prisons are allegedly cultivated with human fertilizer further provoking the spread of disease. The prisoners are kept in unsanitary conditions in small cells, forced to sleep on cold cement floors and denied blankets and clothing.

 

92. It was reported that a doctor made rounds once a week, but that he rarely stopped at any of the cells. In some cases, the Special Rapporteur was told that those who complained of a medical problem were beaten. Medical treatment, if provided, was insufficient in quality and quantity of both medication as well as medical supervision.

 

93. It was reported that when families tried to provide food, clothing or medicine to detainees, they were either confiscated by the authorities or thrown away.

 

94. The following provides a list of some political leaders and elected representatives, students and monks who are known to have died while in the custody of the Myanmar authorities:

 

(a) Maung Thawka, aka U Ba Thaw, 65 years old (NLD CC member) was arrested on 23 July 1989 and sentenced in October 1989 to 20 years' hard labour under Sections 5(A) and 5(B) of the Emergency Provisions Act. He was suffering from severe spondylitis, a spinal disease and was severely beaten during the September 1990 hunger strike in Insein Prison so that his right side was paralysed. He died on 9 June 1991.

 

(b) U Maung Ko, (NLD CC Member), 52 years old, was arrested on 23 October 1990 and died in jail on 9 November 1990 - while the High Commission for Refugees, Mrs. Ogata was on mission in Myanmar. He was not sentenced. He had been a close friend of ASSK, and died from torture.

 

(c) U Tim Maung Win, 50 years old, (NLD MP for Kayan Township Constituency-2), was arrested on 23 October 1990 and sentenced to 5 years' imprisonment, though it is not clear under which law. He died on 18 January 1991, allegedly from leukaemia, though his family and his family doctor insist that he was not known to have leukaemia before his arrest. He was believed to have died from torture.

 

(d) U Nyo Win, 60 years old, Secretary of the People's Progressive Party, which was denounced by the SLORC as a communist organization. He was arrested in July 1989 and died as a result of torture on 15 March 1991. He was sent to the hospital in Ygn three days before he died and is reported to have asked after Tin Maung Win (mentioned above

-indicating that they had been tortured together. No reason for death was given. It is not known if he had been sentenced).

 

(e) Bo Set Yaung, aka U Khin Maung, over 80 years old. His wife and eldest daughter were also arrested. Both are still in jail on charges of being in contact with the Communist Party (BCP). He had poor health and was denied medical treatment. He died in solitary confinement in February 1990. It is not known whether he was sentenced.

 

(f) Kyaw Myo Thant, 25, arrested July 1989, died in May 1990. He was sentenced under SLORC Order 8/88.

 

(g) U Oo Tha Tun, 32 arrested on 7 May 1990 under 5(j) of the Emergency Provisions Act. Member of the Arakan League for Democracy. Died in July 1991. Cause unknown, also unknown whether he was given medical treatment.

 

(h) Soe Htay, 19 years old, was arrested on 12 April 1991 and died on 16 April 1991, reportedly as a result of torture. He was an active NLD member. He had not been sentenced.

 

(i) Mohamed Ilyas, over 65 years of age, a political leader from Arakan state. He was arrested on 16 June 1992 and died in hospital on 19 June. According to testimony received by the Special Rapporteur, he had been severely tortured.

 

(j) U Zawtikka, sayadaw of Shwe Phone Pyint monastery who died in custody in December 1992. He had been treated in a hospital for cancer but was returned to jail where he died. Sentence and arrest date unknown.

 

(k) U Soe Win, arrested in 1988, from Mandalay, and died in custody, the date cannot be confirmed.

 

 

8. Death of HIV-positive female prostitutes

 

95. According to information made available, a group of women from Myanmar were either forced (sold) into prostitution or lured into prostitution in Thailand by men promising jobs with high pay. The women contracted HIV/AIDS and were repatriated from Thailand to Burma. After this, according to some sources, the women were killed with cyanide capsules by Myanmar authorities. Another source indicated that the women "disappeared" after being returned to Myanmar. One source told the Special Rapporteur it was likely the women had been killed, although perhaps not by cyanide. Another explanation given was that they returned to their families; while another source indicated that they could never return to their villages and families, but that perhaps some of them went into hiding in other villages where they would not be known. The composite of evidence suggests they may have been killed upon their return to Myanmar but the information gathered by the Special Rapporteur was insufficient to come to a firm conclusion as to the fate of these women.

 

96. Persons providing information to the Special Rapporteur alleged that the following is only one such case known. Over a dozen rescued Myanmar prostitutes, ages 14 to 20, were seen by the Special Rapporteur, but it was not known how many of them were HIV-positive (estimates of infection of prostitutes in Thailand vary between 60 to 90 per cent).

 

 

B. Torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment

 

1. Treatment of persons during armed conflict

 

97. The Special Rapporteur received some allegations regarding the ill-treatment by the Myanmar military of insurgent prisoners of war (POWs), however, the Special Rapporteur was not able to assess these allegations because he did not have access to any sites of POW detention or to relevant witnesses, nor was he made aware of any released POWs who may have been able to provide first-hand testimony.

 

98. In regard to war-time violations, a high-level Government source stated that at the lower level, in the heat of fighting, the rules and regulations in the military manual prohibiting physical integrity rights may be violated, but, the media exaggerates, and as soon as the Government is made aware of such an incident, it takes immediate action.

 

99. The Special Rapporteur also received some allegations of physical ill-treatment of POWs detained by insurgent groups but due to a lack of access to witnesses, he was also unable to assess these reports.

 

100. Allegations were received of torture of persons suspected of being insurgents. One 30-year-old Karen man told the Special Rapporteur that he had been seen picking pumpkins in a field and was carrying some back to town when he was detained by some soldiers. He was taken to the officer-in-charge who was told by the soldiers that he had been carrying mines. He reported he was then tied up and taken to a location where porters had been rounded-up, and was kept bound while the porters were made to carry heavy loads. He was then told to inform on the insurgents. When he denied knowing anything, he allegedly was beaten and kicked and forced to dig, what he was told, was his own grave. Other forms of torture reportedly used during interrogation were rolling a metal pole up and down his shins, burning him with cigarettes on the feet and hands and covering his head with a cloth pulled tight to the brink of suffocation. After two and a half days, he escaped.

 

 

2. Forced portering

 

101. The Special Rapporteur received information from more than 30 persons regarding the occurrence of torture in the context of portering. The areas reportedly most affected were the Shan, Kayah, Mon, Kayin and Rakhine states. The porters told the Special Rapporteur that they were forced to carry munitions and other military equipment, sacks of rice and various provisions weighing 45 kilograms or more, often through mountainous terrain. They told the Special Rapporteur that the load cut into their shoulders, backs and legs and that when they were too weak or wounded to continue, or simply fell behind, they were beaten with rifle butts, bamboo or metal rods and kicked by the soldiers.

 

102. One man from Shan state told the Special Rapporteur that he had witnessed about 80 boys being taken away in an army truck from Kalaw town for portering. They were reportedly taken when they went to the reservoir to get water near the army camp and were transported to another military camp about 95 miles away. One of the boys, who was tortured but escaped from this group, told the Special Rapporteur that they were continuously beaten and that he saw many other porters succumb as a result of the beatings and the heavy loads. The Special Rapporteur has been informed that this witness has since died as a result of ill-treatment.

 

103. One man from Rakhine state showed the Special Rapporteur extensive scars on his back and shoulders allegedly received from the heavy loads and from beatings. He told the Special Rapporteur that he had escaped across the border and was afraid of being sent back to Myanmar.

 

104. The Special Rapporteur was informed that the harsh climatic conditions exacerbated the effects of the ill-treatment received by the porters. The mountain temperatures could be very cold at night but in some regions it was extremely hot during the day when they carried their loads, and thus a large proportion of the porters reportedly suffered from malaria, tuberculosis and other respiratory diseases, dysentery, parasitic infestations and infections of their open wounds. The Special Rapporteur was told that there was no medical care for those who were ill and as a result many died on the side of the road. The Special Rapporteur was also told that the porters were continually cursed and were insulted with racial or ethnic slurs.

 

 

3. Conditions under detention

 

105. Students, persons involved in politics, writers, professionals and relatives of suspect persons told the Special Rapporteur that they had been submitted to torture by the Myanmar authorities. The Special Rapporteur was told that most of the torture occurred during the initial interrogation period. The military intelligence units allegedly carried out most of the torture and the units named as having meted out the harshest treatment were the MI 7, and then the MI 6, 11 and 12. The harshest prisons were reportedly Insein, Thayawaddy and Thayet. The latter two, plus Mandalay Prison, which are located far from Yangon, were reportedly where prisoners who were not fit to be seen as a result of torture, would be sent, in order to avoid family visits.

 

106. Many different torture techniques were reportedly used, including severe beatings with metal rods and chains covered with rubber; the "iron road" which consisted of a metal rod being rubbed up and down the shins; being burned with cigarettes; made to maintain certain positions such as the "motorcycle" for hours; near suffocation or drownings; water torture; sleep deprivation; being made to dig "ones own grave"; and being forced to watch other detainees being tortured. One man told the Special Rapporteur that whilst under detention in an army camp, he was forced to watch women being raped by army personnel.

 

107. The Special Rapporteur was told by one student from Yangon that he was arrested in 1990 for his part in the demonstrations. He was allegedly interrogated by the MI 6 for a month during which time he withstood beatings, the "iron road", cigarette burnings on the face and hands, the rubber covered chain and near drowning. Afterwards he was taken to Insein Prison where he was kept in a special block (thi thant) away from the common criminals. He told the Special Rapporteur that the detainees in this block were beaten daily. Other students from this same block told the Special Rapporteur about "beating parties" to which one of the prison authorities would invite his friends.

 

108. Another person told the Special Rapporteur that he was sent to a special compound in Insein Prison called the "soldiers' dog kennel". In order to get through the passageway with a low roof, one was forced to crawl on hands and knees over bits of broken brick. The back part of the compound had large dogs posted all around it who poked their heads through gaps in the mesh fence. This person was taken to the hospital (the main ward A) after the hunger strikes which took place in 1990. There he was allegedly beaten with the rubber-covered chain.

 

109. Another person from Shan state told the Special Rapporteur that he was put in a cell into which water was constantly dripped regardless of where he would position himself, which resulted in concomitant sleep-deprivation.

 

110. Some women informed the Special Rapporteur that they were generally treated less harshly than the men with the exception of the MI 7 which allegedly dealt with them as they did with the men. The Special Rapporteur was told that generally the interrogations were carried out by men with a woman present. They reported beatings, sleep deprivation, threats to their families and hearing other women being beaten. One young woman who was half Karen and half Rakhine was allegedly severely beaten by the MI 7 before she was brought to Insein Prison.

 

111. Women from the Rakhine state were allegedly brought to army barracks and kept there for raping. The Special Rapporteur received information that some women being forced to relocate were raped in front of their families and one man told the Special Rapporteur he was forced to watch a woman being raped.

 

112. One person told the Special Rapporteur that in one military prison near Kalaw, a Muslim boy of 17 was ordered to clean out the pigsty, but being Muslim, he refused. He was then brought in front of the other detainees and beaten. The prisoners were forced to watch as the boy's head was repeatedly dunked into a bucket of filth containing live insects. The boy was then allegedly taken away and never seen again.

 

113. The most difficult aspect of the prison conditions was reportedly the extreme deprivation of water for all purposes. The Special Rapporteur was told many times that detainees were forced to sleep on cold cement and that practically all of them suffered resultant paralysis of their limbs as well as respiratory infections. The food was allegedly insufficient and of poor quality, and sometimes spoiled. The cells were small and there was no provision for adequate hygiene. As a result, almost all detainees also reportedly suffered from dysentery.

 

114. The Special Rapporteur was told that the doctor came around once a week, but usually did not stop at the cells and never entered them to check persons complaining of a disorder. Patients in hospitals were allegedly rarely given any medication and what they were given was rarely adequate.

 

 

C. Disappearances

 

115. The Special Rapporteur was told that many of the cases of persons in prison had actually begun as disappearances. Many persons reported that their families did not know where they had been taken, and as family visits were only allowed after sentencing, many were held incommunicado detention for months. Some families had learned from other released prisoners or through sympathetic prison guards where their relative was being held, but they could not go to the prison to see them. None of the cases received by the Special Rapporteur of transferred prisoners were reported to their families, particularly as transfers allegedly often took place after torture. Some persons who were detained after the 1988 demonstrations and who were not well known reportedly remain disappeared.

 

116. It came to the Special Rapporteur's attention that after the 1988 and 1990 demonstrations, many persons disappeared. Numerous persons told the Special Rapporteur that they assumed that their relatives had been killed, but that the authorities denied any allegations and have never made any statements or taken any action to clarify the fate of these persons or to return the bodies for identification and proper burial. It was alleged several times that many bodies of persons killed by the military during the demonstrations were taken for mass burial in a military intelligence compound near the airport (Yae Kyi Aing) and to the new township, Hlaing Thaya. The Special Rapporteur was requested to encourage investigations into these alleged mass graves to clarify the fates of the disappeared persons.

 

 

D. Arbitrary and prolonged detention

 

117. The Nobel-prize winner, Daw Aung San Suu Kyi is the only person being held under prolonged house detention without trial, under the 1975 State Protection Act. She has been detained since May 1989. It has been reported that her health has suffered and that she recently undertook a hunger strike. Recent reports stated that she would probably be tried after the National Convention and after the new Constitution was drafted under the laws of the new Constitution. The Special Rapporteur was not allowed to see her. High level-authorities told the Special Rapporteur that this was because the law and order needs of the other 43 million inhabitants of Myanmar could not be prejudiced by one person considered important by outside countries or organizations.

 

 

118. Other persons in fact have not been arbitrarily detained in the sense that they have been charged with contravention of one of the martial or other emergency laws. In a few cases, persons involved in politics were charged with the commission of a common crime. The Special Rapporteur was told, however, that persons were kept for long periods before being presented before a military tribunal and sentenced.

 

119. The Special Rapporteur was told that detainees taken before military tribunals were told to plead guilty in order to reduce their sentences. Most told the Special Rapporteur they had refused. The military tribunals were reportedly set up with one "judge" who did not ask for witnesses, evidence or other testimony. The detainees were allegedly not allowed any counsel or other defence and were never told when they would be brought before a tribunal. Most often, after reading the charges against the person, the judge reportedly read out the sentence. Several persons were reportedly not sentenced until days before their release. The majority of persons who provided testimony to the Special Rapporteur were released under SLORC Order 92/11 in April of 1992. A total of over 1,700 persons are known to have been released under this order. Since December of 1992, reports indicate that arrests and detentions have continued. Among the approximately 30 persons known to have been detained are the following 4 persons: Thein Htun, Moe Kyaw Oo, Naing Ko Ko, Yi Yi Myint (female).

 

 

E. Freedom of expression

 

120. During his visit the Special Rapporteur was pleased to note that several members of the foreign press, including members of a foreign television camera crew were allowed entry into Myanmar. These persons were allowed free access to many public areas and public events such as a foot marathon in Yangon, but were not allowed access to detainees inside prisons, or to border regions, including Rakhine state.

 

121. Nevertheless, the Special Rapporteur was informed that within Myanmar the written press, radio and television continued to be subject to governmental censorship, and that the distribution of written material was also subject to governmental limitations and control.

 

122. The Government also told the Special Rapporteur that the foreign press would not be allowed at the National Convention or to be present at the drafting of the Constitution.

 

123. In July 1989, reportedly hundreds of NLD members distributed leaflets. Many were allegedly detained, but the Special Rapporteur was told that it was not known why, of those detained, six young boys (all eight-year olds) were singled out for sentencing.

 

124. Persons who were detained were allegedly not able to publish at all after they were released. One actor was allegedly unable to appear in movies after his release.

 

125. One writer told the Special Rapporteur that all writers were obliged to fill in questionnaires regarding their political beliefs. Those who refused or answered "wrongly" were subsequently restricted from publishing and many were detained.

 

126. The Special Rapporteur was informed by persons released from prison in 1992 that during their detention they were not allowed any written material, including the State-run newspaper, or material with which to write or non-political literature; they were reportedly also denied access to radios.

 

127. Contact with foreigners is legally prohibited including receiving or passing information or written material.

 

 

F. Situation of Myanmar Muslims of Rakhine state

 

128. The Special Rapporteur was informed by Governments, specialized agencies and non-governmental organizations working in academic settings that Myanmar Muslims of Rakhine state (or Arakan state) comprise approximately 40 per cent of the 3 million inhabitants. He was told that Muslim persons began their migration into Myanmar in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. A second wave of migration took place in the seventeenth century and a third in the early nineteenth century. This last movement took place while Myanmar, (then Burma) was a colony under British rule. Bangladesh at that time, was part of India and Burma was ruled by greater Indian governance rather than by the authorities in Britain. Movement of persons across what would later become national borders between Bangladesh and India or India and Myanmar was then unimpeded and natural. By the time Burma became an independent Union in 1948, there was a consolidated Burmese Muslim population of Indian/Bangladeshi ethnic origin.

 

129. Non-governmental sources told the Special Rapporteur that the movement of this group has been restricted since independence. The restrictions on movement prevented them in part from making the initial application for citizenship in 1948, as well as for any category of citizenship since. Because of the restrictions on movement, even identification or residency cards were often unavailable to these Muslim Rakhine.

 

130. All of the Myanmar Muslims from Rakhine state interviewed by the Special Rapporteur were born in Myanmar. Most said that their parents had been born in Myanmar, but they were not sure about their grandparents' birthplaces. Some of the persons interviewed spoke Burmese. Most spoke a certain Bengali dialect similar to the Chittagonian dialect which is spoken in the Bangladesh region bordering Rakhine state. The dialects are not identical however, and all of the persons interviewed spoke the dialect specific to Myanmar and not Bangladesh. The Special Rapporteur was informed that despite the fact that the language is indicative of historical residency in Myanmar by the Muslim Rakhine, their language is no longer officially recognized by the authorities as one of the "languages of Myanmar". The new nationality law requires that citizens be able to speak one of the officially recognized languages. Under this law, the Rakhine are thus excluded for qualification as citizens.

 

131. Nevertheless, contradictory information regarding citizenship status was compiled in that most of the persons interviewed said that they had been allowed to vote in the 1990 general elections, a right understood to be reserved for citizens.

 

132. The Special Rapporteur was told that when Burma became an independent Union, attempts were made to expel some of the Rakhine Muslim population, and the first flow of refugees took place. A large exodus took place in 1978 when a census was carried out and again in 1991 which marked the present mass exodus to Bangladesh.

 

133. Since that time, it is alleged, the resettlement policies to places other than sites of origin, have disrupted family integrity and curtailed access of this group to land adequate for making a living. The most recent Muslim Rakhine refugee flow, primarily to Bangladesh, began in 1988. At the time of the Special Rapporteur's visit to Bangladesh, there were approximately 250,000 Myanmar refugees in Bangladesh.

 

134. The Special Rapporteur had occasion to carry out numerous interviews with these refugees in three different refugee camps; nevertheless, due to time limitations, a complete analysis of the demographics was not possible. The Special Rapporteur, however, was able to ascertain that most of the refugee population comes from four Myanmar sub-districts, Buthidaung, Maungdaw, Rathedaung and Akyab all within Rakhine (Arakan) state. Over 95 per cent of the refugees are Muslim, however some Hindu Rakhine are also among this refugee population.

 

135. According to the information received and carefully reviewed by the Special Rapporteur, in addition to the non-respect for the family unit and lack of land resources due to arbitrary resettlement, the Muslim Rakhine are one of many ethnic minorities in Myanmar who have not been adequately granted civil, political, social, economic and cultural rights commensurate with those people considered "Burmese". Although the Special Rapporteur received information that some places of worship had been destroyed or debased, the composite of evidence carefully reviewed by the Special Rapporteur indicate that the systematic repression of the Rakhine Muslims and other minorities is based upon ethnic and racial intolerance rather than religious intolerance. They, like other ethnic minorities, along the Thai-Myanmar border, have been at high risk of being internally displaced by the army and taken for use as forced porters or forced labourers. These practices carried out by the Myanmar authorities, and most frequently the army, have given rise to the alleged grave violations of the physical integrity rights.

 

136. The Special Rapporteur received large amounts of direct testimony as well as other well-documented evidence indicating that the forced relocation and forced portering has led to a systematic pattern of torture (including rape) cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, disappearance of arbitrary execution of Muslim and other Rakhine ethnic minorities by the Myanmar authorities.

 

137. Almost all of the persons interviewed by the Special Rapporteur indicated their fear of returning to Myanmar without international monitoring not only of their actual return, but of the situation once they have returned. They consistently told the Special Rapporteur that they believed the practice of abduction for forced portering continues, and that as a result, they again may be tortured and perhaps would be killed. The fear of repeated rape during forced relocation or as a result of military reprisals for not finding men for portering, was also cited by most of the women interviewed as a reason for resisting repatriation to Myanmar.

 

138. The Government stated in its Press Release Number 87 of 14 December 1992, that Myanmar has a "tradition of labour". The press release refers particularly to accusations regarding the plight of the "Bangladeshi people in Myanmar's Rakhine state". Previous information received from the Government by the Special Rapporteur referred to this group of persons as Myanmar Muslims of Northern Arakan state (see Permanent Mission of the Union of Myanmar Press Release No. 83, page 2 regarding religious freedom and tolerance). Press Release No. 87 states that the achievements for all-around rehabilitation in the very short period of reconstruction, are mainly due to the volunteer contribution of labour by all nationalities of Myanmar. It states that "slave labour" has never been experienced in Myanmar and that the voluntary contribution of labour has always been a "noble deed". It continues that. "(O)ur religion (Buddhism) taught us that these deeds are the noblest of all and merit attained from them will surely lead to a longer life leading to the attainment of Nibbana, which is the liberation of both mind and body from all forms of attachment ... If some people think that contributing labour is the same as 'slave labour' that has been forced upon the people, then we must say that they have a lot to learn about our traditions, our culture and way of life here."

 

 

IV. LEGAL FRAMEWORK

 

139. This chapter sets out the sources of law applicable to the situation of human rights in Myanmar. In this regard, the Special Rapporteur took note of conventional obligations incumbent upon Myanmar and obligations derived from international customary law as well as the applicable domestic law particularly the Myanmar Penal Code and Code of Criminal Procedure.

 

 

A. International law

 

Charter of the United Nations

 

140. The obligation of States to respect the fundamental rights of all persons is embodied in the Charter of the United Nations.

 

141. Article 55 of the Charter states that the United Nations shall promote universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion. Article 56 of the Charter states that all Members pledge themselves to take joint and separate action in cooperation with the Organization for the achievement of the purposes. Article 2, paragraph 2 states that all Members ... shall fulfil in good faith the obligations assumed by them in accordance with the Charter.

 

142. Thus, as a Member State, Myanmar is granted the rights of membership under the Charter and has an obligation to cooperate with the United Nations and other Member States in taking progressive measures and joint and separate action in cooperation with the Organization to promote the observance of the human rights as elaborated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights within the territory of the State of Myanmar.

 

143. Further specificity to the obligations under the Charter has been provided by, inter alia, the United Nations Declaration on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination (proclaimed by General Assembly resolution 1904 (XVIII) of 20 November 1963); the Declaration on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (proclaimed by Assembly resolution 2263 (XXII) of 7 November 1967), the Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief (proclaimed by Assembly resolution 36/55 of 25 November 1981); the Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Being Subjected to Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (adopted by Assembly resolution 3452 (XXX) of 9 December 1975); the Declaration of the Rights of the Child (proclaimed by Assembly resolution 1386 (XIV) of November 1959); and the Declaration on the Protection of Women and Children in Emergency and Armed Conflict (proclaimed by Assembly resolution 3318 (XXIX) of 14 December 1974).

 

 

Conventional obligations

 

144. In addition to its obligations under the Charter of the United Nations, other obligations by Myanmar include those arising under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide of 1948, the Slavery Convention of 1926 (as amended by its Protocol of 7 December 1953), and the Convention on the Rights of the Child of 1989.

 

145. In regard to the Convention on the Rights of the Child, Myanmar deposited, at the time of ratification, a number of understandings and reservations pertaining to fundamental principles, inter alia:

 

(a)  Article 37 on torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment

 

 

"The Union of Myanmar accepts in principle the provisions of article 37 as they are in consonance with its laws, rules, regulations, procedures and practice as well as with its traditional, cultural and religious values. However, having regard to the exigencies of the situation obtaining in the country at present, the Union of Myanmar states as follows:

 

"Nothing contained in article 37 shall prevent, or be construed as preventing, the Government of the Union of Myanmar from assuming or exercising, in conformity with the laws for the time being in force in the country and the procedures established thereunder, such powers as are required by the exigencies of the situation for the preservation and strengthening of the rule of law, the maintenance of public order (ordre public), and, in particular, the protection of the supreme national interest, namely, the non-disintegration of the Union, the non-disintegration of national solidarity and the perpetuation of national sovereignty, which constitute the paramount national causes of the Union of Myanmar.

 

"Such powers shall include the powers of arrest, detention, imprisonment, exclusion, interrogation, inquiry and investigation."

 

(b)  Article 15 on freedom of association and freedom of peaceful assembly

 

 

"The Union of Myanmar interprets the expression 'the law' in article 15, paragraph 2, to mean the laws, as well as the decrees and executive orders having the force of law, which are for the time being in force in the Union of Myanmar.

 

"The Union of Myanmar understands that such restrictions on freedom of association and freedom of peaceful assembly imposed in conformity with the said laws, decrees and executive orders as are required by the exigencies of the situation obtaining in the Union of Myanmar are permissible under article 15, paragraph 2.

 

"The Union of Myanmar interprets the expression 'national sovereignty' in the same paragraph as encompassing the supreme national interest, namely, the non-disintegration of the Union, the non-disintegration of national solidarity and the perpetuation of national sovereignty, which constitute the paramount national causes of the Union of Myanmar."

 

 

Universal Declaration of Human Rights

 

146. By resolution 217 A (III) of 10 December 1948, the General Assembly adopted and proclaimed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights "as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations... by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance ...". The Declaration sets out that "Member States have pledged themselves to achieve, in cooperation with the United Nations, the promotion of universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms". Article 2 of the Declaration further establishes that everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in the Declaration, without distinction of any kind ...

 

147. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is an expression of international concern for human rights and for international cooperation of all States with the United Nations bodies charged with monitoring the "effective recognition and observance" of human rights. In addition, however, the Universal Declaration has now gained customary acceptance in regard to the fundamental principles for the recognition and protection of human rights embodied in the Declaration.

 

148. Article 3 of the Universal Declaration provides that everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person. Article 5 stipulates that no one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Article 15, paragraph 1, sets out that everyone has the right to a nationality and paragraph 2 states that no one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality ...

 

149. Article 29, paragraph 2, of the Declaration states that in the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.

 

150. As to the rights and freedoms expressed in articles 3 and 5 of the Declaration, nevertheless, there can be no derogation. They pertain to the nucleus of rights universally considered jus cogens which may not be limited, curtailed or infringed upon for any reason of national emergency, national security, sovereignty, national unity, public order, health or morality. Article 15 of the Declaration, regarding the right to nationality and the prohibition against arbitrarily creating stateless persons, is gaining customary acceptance as a non-derogable principle.

 

151. Article 6 of the Declaration states that everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law. Article 18 sets out that everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion ... Under article 9, no one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.

 

152. Article 19 states that everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to see, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers. Article 20 provides that everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association and that no one may be compelled to belong to an association.

 

153. With regard to the administration of justice, article 7 states that all are equal before the law and are entitled without discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of the Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

 

154. Article 8 states that everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.

 

155. Under article 10, everyone is entitled in full equity to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.

 

156. Article 11, paragraph 1 sets out the presumption of innocence and paragraph 2 the proscription on ex-post-facto imposition of the law or of its penalties.

 

157. These rights and protections are incorporated in the major international and regional human rights instruments. Although Myanmar has not become a party to these international human rights instruments, these principles are also customary in nature although they may be subject to the limitations as allowed by certain states of emergency (see para. 150 above). It is however, understood, as a general principle of law, that derogations by States from their obligations to ensure fundamental rights and protections to persons within their territory are limited to the time of the public emergency which threatens the life of the nation and subject to the limitations on the state of emergency as prescribed by national constitutions. The derogation must be in proportion to the exigencies of the situation and must not be inconsistent with other obligations undertaken in international law. The derogation may not be applied in a discriminatory manner solely on the basis of race, colour, sex, religion or social origin.

 

Article 3 common to the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and Customary Law

 

158. On 24 August 1992, the Union of Myanmar acceded to the four Geneva Conventions of 1949 for the protection of war victims. The treaty obligations undertaken by ratification are not retroactive in nature and may not be applied to actions that allegedly occurred prior to ratification. Treaty obligations binding on Myanmar since ratification, as regards conflicts of an internal nature, derive from common article 3 of the Geneva Conventions.

 

159. In addition to its treaty obligations, Myanmar was, before ratification of the Geneva Conventions, and continues to be, obliged to respect the relevant rules of international customary law, particularly those concerning the "elementary considerations of humanity" in times of armed conflict as well as in times of peace as expressed by the principles in common article 3.

 

160. As regards obligations in internal armed conflict, the International Conference on Human Rights held in Tehran in 1968 requested the United Nations Secretary-General, "after consultation with the International Committee of the Red Cross, to draw the attention of States Members of the United Nations to the existing rules of international law on the subject and to urge them to observe that in all armed conflicts, the inhabitants and belligerents are protected in accordance with 'the principles of the law of nations derived from the usages established among civilized peoples, from the laws of humanity and the dictates of the public conscience'". This clause, known as the Martens Clause, was included in the preamble to The Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907 concerning the Laws and Customs of War on Land and was then incorporated into the four Geneva Conventions of 1949 (art. 63 of the first, art. 62 of the second, art. 142 of the third and art. 158 of the fourth Geneva Convention).

 

161. Three customary principles of human rights protection are incorporated in the Martens Clause: (a) that the right of parties to choose the means and methods of warfare, i.e., the right of parties to a conflict to inflict injury on the enemy, is not unlimited; (b) that a distinction must be made between persons participating in military operations and those belonging to the civilian population so that the latter are spared to the extent possible; and (c) that it is prohibited to launch attacks against the civilian population as such.

 

162. The Martens Clause has acquired a customary character and thus applies independently of participation in the treaties containing it. It is of a non-derogable nature and applies whether or not a state of war has been declared or the state of war is recognized by a party to the conflict. In 1949, the International Court of Justice, in the Corfu Channel case, recognized the customary nature of these humanitarian requirements. It ruled that "elementary considerations of humanity ..." belong to the general and well-recognized principles which have to be observed in peacetime as well as in times of armed conflict (The Corfu Channel Case, Merits, I.C.J. Reports 1949, p. 22).

 

163. The International Court of Justice expanded upon this doctrine in the Barcelona Traction case of 1970, when it stated that "there are obligations of a State towards the international community as a whole" (case concerning the Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company Limited, second phase, Judgment of 5 February 1970, I.C.J. Reports 1970, para. 33). It went on to state that these obligations may arise "... also from the principles and rules concerning the basic human rights of the human person"  some of which "have entered into the body of general law".

 

164. As concerns the application of these principles in situations of peace, the International Court of Justice elaborated upon the Corfu doctrine in 1986 in the Nicaragua v. U.S.A. case when it held that "certain general and well-recognized principles, namely: elementary considerations of humanity, (are) even more exacting in peace than in war" (Nicaragua v. U.S.A., Merits, I.C.J. Reports 1986, p. 114, paras. 215 and 218, citing Corfu Channel, Merits, I.C.J. Reports 1949, p. 22).

 

165. The fundamental guarantees contained in common article 3 are thus applicable in all situations pertaining in the Union of Myanmar:

 

"(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.

 

"To this end, the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:

 

"(a) Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;

 

"(b) Taking of hostages;

 

"(c) Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment;

 

"(d) The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples".

 

 

International Labour Organisation Convention concerning Forced or Compulsory Labour

 

166. Myanmar is a party to the ILO Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29), of which article 10 (1) stipulates that "forced or compulsory labour exacted as a tax and forced or compulsory labour to which recourse is had for the execution of public works by chiefs who exercise administrative functions shall be progressively abolished".

 

167. Article 10 (2) stipulates that where forced or compulsory labour is exacted under the conditions stated in 10 (1), the authority concerned shall be satisfied:

 

(c) that the work or service will not lay too heavy a burden upon the present population, having regard to the labour available and its capacity to undertake the work;

 

(d) that the work or service will not entail the removal of the workers from their place of habitual residence;

 

(e) that the execution of the work or the rendering of the service will be directed in accordance with the exigencies of religion, social life and agriculture.

 

168. Article 12 sets out that for forced or compulsory labour of all kinds, the maximum period for which any person may be taken in any one period of 12 months shall not exceed 60 days, including the time spent in going to and from the place of work.

 

169. Article 16 (2) sets out that in no case shall the transfer of workers be permitted unless all measures relating to hygiene and accommodation which are necessary to adapt such workers to the conditions and to safeguard their health can be strictly applied.

 

170. Article 16 (3) When such transfer cannot be avoided, measures of gradual habituation to the new conditions of diet and of climate shall be adopted on competent medical advice.

 

171. Article 17 requires that before permitting recourse to forced or compulsory labour for works of construction or maintenance which entail the workers remaining at the workplaces for considerable periods, the competent authority shall satisfy itself that:

 

"(1) All necessary measures are taken to safeguard the health of the workers and to guarantee the necessary medical care and ..."

 

"(4) in case of illness or accident causing incapacity to work of a certain duration, the worker is repatriated at the expense of the administration;"

 

172. Article 18 provides that:

 

"1. Forced or compulsory labour for the transport of persons or goods such as the labour of porters or boatmen, shall be abolished within the shortest possible period. Meanwhile the competent authority shall promulgate regulations determining, inter alia, ...

 

"(b) that the workers so employed shall be medically certified to be physically fit, where medical examination is possible, and that where such medical examination is not practicable the person employing such workers shall be held responsible for ensuring that they are physically fit ...

 

"(c) the maximum load which these workers may carry ...

 

"the maximum distance from their homes to which they may be taken ...

 

"3. The competent authority shall further provide that the normal daily journey of such workers shall not exceed a distance corresponding to an average working day of eight hours, it being understood that account shall be taken not only of the weight to be carried and the distance to be covered but also for the nature of the road, the season and all other relevant factors ..."

 

173. Exceptions to the definition of forced or compulsory labour for the purposes of the Convention are provided by article 2:

 

"(a) any work or service exacted in virtue of compulsory military service laws for work of a purely military character;

 

"(b) any work or service which forms part of the normal civic obligations of the citizens of a fully self-governing country;

 

"(d) any work or service exacted in cases of emergency, that is to say, in the event of war or of a calamity or threatened calamity, such as fire, flood, famine, earthquake, violent epidemic or epizootic diseases, invasion by animal, insect or vegetable pests, and in general any circumstance that would endanger the existence or the well-being of the whole or part of the population;"

 

174. In cases of labour exacted by the State, falling within this category, the obligations incumbent upon the State of Myanmar by virtue of the Charter of the United Nations, customary legal principles embodied in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and common article 3 of the Geneva Conventions of 1949 regarding the physical integrity of all persons, remain in effect. They must be adhered to in the treatment of all persons providing labour exacted by the authorities of Myanmar regardless of the classification of such labour.

 

175. Governmental authorities informed the Special Rapporteur that labour on behalf of the State and particularly portering, was not forced, that it was a right of the Government to exact this labour and was in fact an obligation of all persons in Myanmar to provide labour. The legal authority cited was the 1908 Village Act enacted by the British during the colonial period and said to have been incorporated into the 1947 and 1974 Constitutions, in the sense that all laws or regulations existing prior to the drafting of the Constitutions and not specifically rescinded, are considered still in force.

 

176. However, the Special Rapporteur was informed by numerous high-level authorities and members of the judiciary as well as the Attorney General, that both the 1947 and 1974 Constitutions had been revoked in toto and that for this very reason, there was no legal authority upon which to effectuate the transfer of governmental power.

 

 

ILO Convention concerning Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise of 1948 (No. 87)

 

177. In 1955 Myanmar ratified the ILO Convention concerning Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise of 1948 (No. 87) to the effect that:

 

Article 2: Workers and employers, without distinction whatsoever, shall have the right to establish and, subject only to the rules of the organization concerned, to join organizations of their own choosing without previous authorization.

 

Article 5: Workers and employers' organizations shall have the right to establish and join federations and confederations and any such organization, federation or confederation shall have the right to affiliate with international organizations of workers and employers.

 

Article 8 (2): The law of the land shall not be such as to impair, nor shall it be so applied as to impair, the guarantees provided for in this Convention.

 

178. Prior to 1988, by Act No. 6 of 1964 and Regulation No. 5 of 1976, workers in Myanmar were restricted to a unitary workers' organization in contravention of articles 2, 5 and 6 of the ILO Convention (see Government of Myanmar Communication to the ILO Committee of Experts, Report No. 24 pp. 48-49). The Government representative reported to the Committee that since 1988 when the SLORC took power, these regulations have not been formally amended or repealed, but that the unitary trade union structure had been automatically removed and the Act and Regulation had become automatically defunct.

 

179. This, however, has not resulted in freedom of assembly and freedom to organize trade unions as stipulated by the Convention. No new legislation has been promulgated since 1988 to allow for free workers' assembly and/or organization. SLORC Order 2/88 prohibiting the assembly of five or more persons remains in effect and substantially limits any possibility for freedom of assembly or the right to organize and carry on trade or workers' unions. According to the Government, changes would not occur in this legislation until after the drafting of the new Constitution which, it was said, would contain the appropriate safeguards.

 

 

B. Myanmar law relevant to the question of human rights

 

180. One of the fundamental legal principles is that any law should be: accessible to those to whom it would be applied and to those encharged with upholding the law and those protecting the rights of persons accused of breaking the law; clear and unequivocal; and equitably applied, i.e., applied without discrimination.

 

181. Non-governmental sources indicated to the Special Rapporteur that even among professionals including those engaged in the law and among persons who are to participate in the National Convention, there is confusion as to what laws apply. One such law in question is the "incorporation" of the 1908 Village Act on portering into the 1947 Constitution, which states that all laws passed prior to the drafting of the Constitution remain extant if not specifically rescinded. The Constitution was cited to the Special Rapporteur by Government sources as the authority for the continuation of the portering law, despite the fact that the Constitution has been abolished. Non-governmental sources indicated confusion as to whether SLORC Order 1/90 regarding the "leading role" participation of elected officials in the drafting of the Constitution applied. At the time the Order was drafted, all potential elected participants were reportedly ordered to acquiesce in writing to this Order upon threat of detention. The Special Rapporteur was informed that ... persons were arrested for refusing to sign. Government sources told the Special Rapporteur that Order 1/90 remains in effect, yet the interpretation and application of the Order were stated by Government officials in contradictory and confusing terms.

 

 

Myanmar Penal Code and Code of Criminal Procedure

 

182. While judicial guarantees set out in the Constitution, according to the Government, do not apply, the Special Rapporteur was informed by Government authorities that those elaborated in the Code of Criminal Procedure applied in all cases heard in civilian courts even when the detention was carried out under a SLORC Order or emergency regulation.

 

183. Non-governmental sources indicated however, that in the cases of concern to the Special Rapporteur where the person had been detained for reasons having to do with other than common criminality the judicial safeguards, elaborated below, of the Code of Criminal Procedure are not applied.

 

184. The Myanmar Penal Code and Code of Criminal Procedure guarantee all persons detained for the commission of a crime for which punishment may be imprisonment for more than one year, transportation or the death sentence, to be charged for the crime committed, to be informed of the charges, to be granted a just and fair trial by a competent court and an appeal to a court in which a fair and impartial judgement may be had. Only cases for "minor" crimes for which punishment would not exceed one year, may, in certain circumstances, be tried in a summary manner.

 

185. However, the Special Rapporteur received copies of the relevant SLORC Orders and other emergency laws or provisions still in effect which were the basis for detention in most of the cases of violations reported to the Special Rapporteur.

 

186. SLORC Order 1/91 prohibits civil servants from participating in politics and their dependants or persons under their guardianship from participating directly or indirectly in activities aimed at opposing the government; 2/88, prohibits the assembly of five or more persons; and 3/90, relating to the right to assemble and campaign, forbids criticism of authorities or the defence forces, insults to SLORC and solidarity of the national races, which may be punishable by up to three years in prison and a fine. Order No. 6/90 of October 1990, bans all unlawful Sangha (Buddhist Monk) organizations except the nine sects of Sanghas and has made action possible against political parties for the "misuse" of religion for political purposes. In addition, the 1962 Printers' and Publishers' Law, as amended by the SLORC in July 1989, remains in effect. Under this law, "legal organizations that have registered and that wish to print and publish documents, books and printed material, will have to register with the Ministry of Home and Religious Affairs and apply for exemption in accordance with the 1962 Printers' and Publishers' Law". All material is prohibited that opposes the SLORC, the regional LORC at different levels, or the Government, insults, slanders or attempts to divide the defence forces, instigates actions that affect law and order and peace and tranquillity or contradicts the orders that have been issued whenever necessary. The 1975 State Protection Act, as amended in August 1991 by the SLORC, remains in effect. It allows the State to detain without trial for up to five years any person "who will do, is doing or has done, an act that endangers the peace of most citizens or the security of the State, or the sovereignty of the State". The 1950 Emergency Provisions Act remains and allows for the imprisonment for up to seven years of any person who either "infringes upon the integrity, health, conduct and respect of State military organizations and government employees", "spreads false news about the Government" or "disrupts the morality or the behaviour of a group of people".

 

187. In the majority of the cases reported to the Special Rapporteur, the person was tried by a military tribunal in which the safeguards stipulated by the Penal Code and Code of Criminal Procedure did not apply. By SLORC Order No. 12/92, Martial Law Orders 1/89 of 17 July 1989 and 2/89 of 18 July 1989, investing certain military commanders within their respective military regions with executive and judicial powers, were rescinded. The Government informed the Special Rapporteur that none of the persons tried and sentenced before the military tribunals were abolished would be retried by civilian courts. The Government stated that the principle of res judicata applied despite the fact that the trials were summary military trials, but that any person detained and tried subsequent to the rescission of the military tribunals would be tried by a civilian court with all the judicial guarantees of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

 

 

Burma Citizenship Law

 

188. Before 1982, the laws pertaining to citizenship in Myanmar were prescribed by Chapter II, articles 10 of the 1947 Constitution (Union Citizenship Act of 1948). Accordingly, Parliament reserved the right to make such laws as it thought fit in respect of citizenship and alienage and any such law could provide for the admission of new classes of citizens or for the termination of the citizenship of any existing classes. The basic law held that "(T)here shall be but one citizenship throughout the Union ..." Citizenship was deemed to exist for:

 

(a) Every person, both of whose parents belong or belonged to any of the indigenous races of Burma;

 

(b) every person born in any of the territories included within the Union, at least one of whose grandparents belong or belonged to any of the indigenous races of Burma;

 

(c) every person born in the territories included within the Union, of parents both of whom are, or if they had been alive at the commencement of the Constitution would have been, citizens of the Union;

 

(d) every person who was born in any of the territories which at the time of his birth was included within His Britannic Majesty's dominions and who has resided in any of the territories included within the Union for a period of not less than eight years in the 10 years immediately preceding the date of the commencement of the Constitution or immediately preceding 1 January 1942 and who intends to reside permanently therein and who signifies his election of citizenship of the Union in the manner and with the time prescribed by law, shall be a citizen of the Union.

 

189. The 1982 Burma Citizenship Law (Pyithu Hluttaw Law No. 1982-7) supersedes the 1948 Constitution Nationality Laws. The 1982 law establishes that there are three classes of citizens: citizens, associate citizens, naturalized citizens.

 

190. One high-level Government official told the Special Rapporteur that the three groups were: citizens, associate citizens and foreigners. Another high-level official told the Special Rapporteur that under the 1948 law, a person born of one Burmese parent and one "foreigner" was still a citizen but that under the 1982 law, this person would become an "associate citizen". Those who had applied and qualified for citizenship before 1982, would now become naturalized citizens.

 

191. Under the 1984 law, citizens by birth are those who are nationals such as Kachin, Kayah, Karen, Chin, Burman, Mon, Rakhine or Shan and ethnic groups as have settled in any of the territories included within the State as their permanent home from a period anterior to 1185 B.E., 1823 A.D. The Council of State may decide whether or not an ethnic group is national. Every national and every other person born of parents, both of whom are nationals are citizens by birth.

 

192. The following persons are also citizens:

 

Persons born of parents both of whom are citizens;

 

Persons born of parents one of whom is a citizen and the other an associate citizen;

 

Persons born of parents one of whom is a citizen and the other

a naturalized citizen;

 

Persons born of parents of the above categories, one of these parents having a parent who was either an associate or naturalized citizen.

 

193. According to the Citizenship Law, applicants for citizenship under the Union Citizenship Act of 1948 conforming to the stipulations and qualifications may be determined as associate citizens by the Central Body. No other standard criteria for this determination is set out.

 

194. Persons may become naturalized citizens if they are persons who have entered and resided in the State anterior to 4 January 1948, and their offspring born within the State may, if they have not yet applied under the Union Citizenship Act, apply for naturalized citizenship to the Central Body furnishing conclusive evidence. The following categories of persons may also apply for naturalization:

 

(a) Persons born of parents one of whom is a citizen and the other a foreigner;

 

(b) Persons born of parents one of whom is an associate citizen and the other a naturalized citizen;

 

(c) Persons born of parents one of whom is an associate citizen and the other a foreigner;

 

(d) Persons born of parents both of whom are naturalized citizens;

 

(e) Persons born of parents one of whom is a naturalized citizen and the other a foreigner.

 

195. The determination is made by the Central Body. Among the qualifications necessary to become a naturalized citizen is the ability "to speak one of the national languages well". The "national races" and thus the "national languages" are determined by the Central Body. There are registration requirements for the application process to each category of citizenship which require travel out of the villages and perhaps to another State.

 

196. According to articles 30 (c) and 53 (c), associate and naturalized citizens shall be entitled to enjoy the rights under the laws of the State, with the exception of the rights stipulated from time to time by the Council of State.

 

197. One Government source informed the Special Rapporteur that associate citizens had all the rights of a citizen by birth except possibly the right to hold land. Foreigners have less business rights and are not allowed to own land. It was not made clear to the Special Rapporteur if this category referred to "naturalized citizens". Other Government sources also told the Special Rapporteur that associate citizens could not own land and that some other differences may apply.

 

198. No Government official informed the Special Rapporteur of article 8 (b) of the 1984 Burma Act, under which, the Council of State may, in the interest of the State revoke the citizenship, associate citizenship or naturalized citizenship of any person except a citizen by birth.

 

 

V. THE NATIONAL CONVENTION FOR DRAFTING A NEW CONSTITUTION AND THE TRANSFER OF POWER TO A CIVILIAN

 

199. Under article 21 (1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.

 

200. Article 21 (3) states that the will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.

 

201. In 1988 the SLORC announced that elections would be held. Two hundred and thirty-three political parties were formed by February 1989. Fifty-three contested the election. The rest either were declared illegal, had boycotted the elections (and were then declared illegal for having boycotted) or could not organize sufficiently to put up candidates, in part, because of the legal restrictions on lawful assembly and freedom to publish and distribute campaign material.

 

202. On 27 May 1990, general multi-party elections were held. Governmental as well as non-governmental sources told the Special Rapporteur that these elections were held in a free and fair manner. Ninety-three parties contested the elections, of which 27 won seats. Results published by the Government showed that the National League for Democracy (NLD), then headed by the presently detained leaders U Tin Oo (Chairman) and Daw Aung San Suu Kyi (General Secretary), won 392 of the 485 seats contested (80 per cent of the vote). Of those, 11 died (1 while in custody) and over 70 were jailed and/or disqualified. There are 281 remaining representatives with 84 of these potential representatives still under investigation as to their campaign expense accounts or other potential campaign irregularities. At present, the NLD is allowed to send 97 MPs and 5 members of the party to the National Convention.

 

203. The Shan National League for Democracy (SNLD) had 23 elected representatives. Of these, three died (of natural causes) and two were disqualified by the Election Committee. Eight are still being investigated by the Election Commission.

 

204. The Rakhine Democracy League won 11 seats; the SLORC-backed National Union Party (NUP) won 10 seats; the Mon National Democratic Front won 5 seats; the National Democratic Party for Human Rights won 4 seats. Four other parties won 3 seats each; 5 political parties won 2 seats each; 12 political parties won 1 seat each and 6 independents won seats, totally 485 seats altogether.

 

205. Government Authorities informed the Special Rapporteur that the intent of the elections had been misunderstood. Following the mass demonstrations for democracy in 1988, the then Chairman of the SLORC, General Saw Maung, announced the military coup and stated that "the military must first try to solve difficulties and hardships faced by the people and then carry out a general election." It was stated that the purpose of the elections had not been to turn over the Government to the elected party, but to select the persons who would draft the new constitution, after which, there would be a change in government. This turning over of the government would occur only after the new constitution provided a legal basis for doing so.

 

206. On 27 July 1990 Declaration No. 1/90 stated that a broad-based national conference would be convened so that all factors that should be taken into consideration in drawing up the constitution could be discussed and made available to the drafters of the constitution. The Convention was announced for January 1993.

 

207. On 24 April 1992, by Declaration No. 11/92, the SLORC announced that there would be meetings with the leading members of the elected parliament from existing legal political parties and the independent elected members of Parliament within two months, for the purpose of convening the National Convention in accordance with Declaration No. 1/90.

 

208. On 10 July 1992, a coordination meeting for the convening of the National Convention was held. It was chaired by a 15-member SLORC Steering Committee headed by Major General Myo Nyunt, Commander of the Yangon Military Command. Twenty-seven elected members of Parliament from the seven remaining legally-standing parties attended. The rules of procedure were determined by the Steering Committee. After three days, Major General Myo Nyunt announced that a general consensus had been reached that delegates from eight different categories would be invited to participate in the National Convention:

 

Five delegates from each of the legally-standing political parties;

 

Delegates who are the elected representatives;

 

About 200 persons representatives of the different "nationalities" in proportions determined by percentage of population;

 

Peasants - about 100;

 

Workers - about 100;

 

Intelligentsia - about 100;

 

Public servants - about 100;

 

Special invitees of the Commission - about 50.

 

These approximately 650 representatives, totalling about 70 per cent of the overall participants, were to be selected by the SLORC, primarily at the township level by the local SLORC representatives.

 

209. In total, 702 delegates had been named to the National Convention. The representatives of the seven parties which won seats in the elections and which are the only ones of the original twenty-seven which still exist are the NLD, SNLD, NUP, Union Pao National Organization, Lahu National Democratic Party, Mro or Khami National Solidarity Organization and the Shan State Kokang Democratic Party.

 

210. The Government informed the Special Rapporteur that there would be free discussion at the National Convention within the parameters of the six points determined by the SLORC for discussion:

 

Non-disintegration of the Union;

 

Non-disintegration of national solidarity;

 

Consolidation and perpetuation of sovereignty;

 

Emergence of a genuine multi-party democratic system;

 

Development of eternal principles of justice, liberty and equality in the State;

 

Participation of the military (Tatmadaw) in the leading role of politics in the State of the future.

 

211. As explained to the Special Rapporteur, the SLORC is responsible for determining and administering the rules of procedure by which the discussions will take place. These rules of procedure have reportedly not yet been specified to the delegates. The SLORC is also responsible for the taking of minutes during the Convention and for preparing the final report to be submitted to the SLORC after the Convention. The SLORC will then convene the Constitutional Drafting Committee.

 

212. By Declaration 1/90, the SLORC stated that the representatives elected in the multi-party democracy general elections in May 1990, would be responsible for drawing up the new Constitution. According to statements by Government authorities to the Special Rapporteur, Declaration 1/90 remains extant.

 

213. In regard to Declaration 1/90, during meetings with various Government officials, the Special Rapporteur was variously informed that the elected representatives would be allowed to take a "leading role", that elected representatives would be allowed to participate in the drafting process in which all opinions expressed in the Convention would be reflected; that they would be allowed a "leading role" but that Constitutional experts as determined and selected by the SLORC would also participate; that participation in the Drafting Committee would be determined on the basis of maintaining the integrity of the State and would be a step in the transition to democracy, but that this determination was a question of internal affairs not to be interfered with by the international community.

 

214. Non-governmental groups and individuals informed the Special Rapporteur that all elected representatives had been required to sign their agreement to Order No. 1/90. The Special Rapporteur was informed that, several elected representatives and party workers were arrested for refusing to sign.

 

215. Government officials told the Special Rapporteur that it has not been determined if after the constitution is drafted there will be a referendum to endorse it. No answer was received as to whether a general election will be held to elect the People's Assembly under the new constitution, nor was an answer obtained as to whether the Military Orders and laws instituted by the SLORC would be abolished under the new Constitution. Government sources indicated that these decisions would be taken by the Constitutional Drafting Committee members.

 

216. The Special Rapporteur was further informed that point number 6 of objectives on the agenda of the National Convention, i.e., the "leading role" of the military (Tatmadaw) in the future government was not an objective agreed to by the elected representatives. The Special Rapporteur was told that it is not clear what role or influence the Tatmadaw is to carry out in the Drafting Committee and how its role in the future, democratic government as defined in the constitution to be drafted was another point of great concern to the elected representatives.

 

217. The National Convention was announced for January 1993. On 9 January 1993, the National Convention was convened with speeches by the Chairman of the Steering Committee and SLORC member, General Myo Thant. There was no other discussion. Several different national constitutions translated into Burmese were said to have been received for consideration by the delegates. Reports received by the Special Rapporteur indicate that a number of elected representatives decided to attempt discussion as to point number 6 of the objectives, i.e., the "leading role" of the Tatmadaw in the new government. It is reported that the following day, the SLORC announced that the National Convention was to be postponed until February. The delegates were told to return home and not to remain in Yangon. Information received by the Special Rapporteur does not clarify whether these same elected representatives will be allowed to participate when the Convention is reconvened.

 

 

VI. CONCLUSIONS

 

218. The visit of the Special Rapporteur to the Union of Myanmar at the invitation of the Government marked the first time international examination of the situation of human rights in Myanmar has been taken up under a public procedure by the Commission on Human Rights by its resolution 1992/58.

 

219. The Government facilitated the visit, including travel within the Union of Myanmar to Rhakine state and to all three new townships near Yangon, to the projected site of the new university in Dagon New Township, to Insein Prison, to a youth sports facility, some new highway construction projects and extended many courtesies to the Special Rapporteur.

 

220. "Full and unreserved cooperation" as required under Commission on Human Rights resolution 1992/58, however, was not extended to the Special Rapporteur. Many persons, including non-governmental organizations, private groups and individuals wishing to make contact with the Special Rapporteur in order to provide information relevant to the performance of his mandate, as well as persons whom the Special Rapporteur had requested to see, were prevented from doing so through intimidation and threats on the part of the military intelligence. The Special Rapporteur was not allowed to see any of the political leaders, particularly the Nobel Peace Prize laureate, Saw Aung San Suu Kyi, and elected representatives deprived of their liberty.

 

221. Myanmar is a Member State of the United Nations and is thus bound by all the obligations of the Charter of the United Nations without selectivity. Myanmar became a party to the Geneva Conventions of 1949 in August 1992 but has not yet become party to the two Additional Protocols thereto of 1977. Myanmar is not a party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights or the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

 

222. Myanmar is a party to the ILO Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29) and in 1955 it ratified the ILO Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87). In regard to Myanmar's compliance with this Convention, at the 79th session of the International Labour Conference held in 1992, the Myanmar Government representative stated that "(T)he new constitution will incorporate the rights of all workers to form their own independent trade unions in conformity with the democratic system." However, it was recalled in that session that the case of Myanmar had been considered the previous year (1991) and that since then, no progress had been made despite the assurances given by the Government representative and that furthermore, "In the meantime, the available information on this subject referred to the extreme degree of atrocities and the unprecedented escalation of violations of human rights committed by the military regime".

 

223. The Government representative recalled that his country was experiencing a period of transition towards democracy, and asked that his Government be given more time to obtain results. It was then clarified that the availability of the choice of trade union pluralism was an obligation derived from the Convention, that had nothing to do with the political situation, and it was suggested that the Government be asked to take prompt action to correct the situation at the legislative level (see Provisional Records of the International Labour Organisation Conference, 79th session, 1992, pp. 60-61).

 

224. Myanmar is a party to the Convention on the Rights of the Child of 1989. At the time of ratification, Myanmar deposited a number of understandings and reservations pertaining to article 37 on the prohibition of torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment and article 15 on freedom of association and peaceful assembly. Article 37 pertains to the non-derogable principle of international customary law which prohibits torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment in all circumstances regardless of the political system, times of political, social or economic transition or threats to the non-disintegration and national sovereignty of a State. Furthermore, when taking into consideration that these reservations and understandings are in the context of the treatment of children, they must be seen as absolutely contrary to the object and purpose of the Convention.

 

225. In regard to the understandings and reservations deposited on freedom of association and peaceful assembly, it should be taken into account that the "laws" considered applicable in the restriction of these rights are martial laws and other emergency orders imposed by the military Government in order to protect the "supreme national interest, namely the non-disintegration of the Union, the non-disintegration of national solidarity and the perpetuity of national sovereignty". These concepts have been repeatedly invoked by the Government to restrict free participation in the political process and in the transition to a democratic, civilian government. In the context of this Convention, these restrictions are also to be imposed on children. For these reasons, the understandings and reservations in regard to article 15 should also be considered as contrary to the object and purpose of the Convention.

 

226. Many domestic laws contravene the basic underlying principles of jurisprudence. As a general principle, the laws of a country should be clear, unequivocal and consistent, accessible to the public and equitably applied. Various SLORC Orders including Order No. 1/90 pertaining to the participation of the elected representatives in the Constitutional Drafting Committee, and most particularly, the 1982 Citizenship Law, have been unaccessible to those to whom they would be applied, they have been vague, randomly interpreted and arbitrarily applied. Government authorities themselves, in explaining the law to the Special Rapporteur proffered contradictory interpretations. Lawyers and elected representatives told the Special Rapporteur that they did not have any idea which laws and orders were applied, how they were applied or to whom they applied. The new Citizenship Law provides a striking example of discriminatory application. The Law, which was not actually applied until 1988 (the year the new flow of Rakhine refugees began to Bangladesh) jeopardizes in particular the status of Myanmar Muslims of Rakhine state. Historically, the Rakhine Muslims have been unable to obtain nationality or residency status identification cards and thus cannot now prove any kind of residency or previous nationality status. Secondly, under this new law, persons must prove that they have Burmese nationality back to all eight great-grandparents. The Special Rapporteur was informed that these provisions of the law were directed primarily at the Rakhine Muslim population to forbid them from ever gaining nationality or associate nationality (a category of second-class citizenship). The Special Rapporteur has concluded that the effect of this law is to create conditions which promote statelessness. Categories of persons at high risk of becoming victims of human rights violations may create flows of refugees which overburden other countries and create threats to peace and tranquillity within the region.

 

227. In regard to restrictions on personal freedoms inter alia, freedom of expression, including the freedom to receive and impart information and the right of peaceful assembly, according to testimony received by the Special Rapporteur, violations occurred primarily as a result of attempts of citizens to participate freely in the political process and the transition to the democratically elected civilian government. Peaceful assembly of five or more persons, publication and distribution of political or social ideas, literature or ideas critical of the Government or the military, have been systematically repressed.

 

228. The Special Rapporteur received numerous reports of violations of physical integrity rights. Detentions without minimum guarantees for persons under custody, torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, disappearances and arbitrary execution have been carried out by the Myanmar authorities. The amount of written and oral testimony received by the Special Rapporteur was copious. Apart from a small amount of written information which was discounted because the Special Rapporteur was unable to independently verify the allegations, the testimony compiled was consistent. It formed the basis for the Special Rapporteur's assessment that these physical integrity violations in Myanmar have arisen primarily in three major contexts: attempts by citizens to participate freely in the political process and the transition to the democratically-elected civilian government, forced portering and forced labour and the imposition of oppressive measures directed at ethnic minority groups.

 

229. According to information received, some of these violations have been occurring for many years; nevertheless, the evidence compiled by the Special Rapporteur indicates that the violations have not only continued but have increased over the period of the four years beginning on 18 September 1988 when the SLORC took over as the military Government.

 

230. In regard to summary executions, although the death penalty is permitted under Myanmar law, no death sentence has been carried out since 1988. On 6 September 1992, military tribunals were revoked and on 1 January 1993, all death sentences passed by civil or military courts or tribunals between 18 September 1988 and 31 December 1992 were commuted to transportation for life (life imprisonment).

 

231. According to information received by the Special Rapporteur, Myanmar authorities were responsible for carrying out arbitrary executions, death under custody and death due to torture within the context of armed conflict. This category of violations would include particularly torture (including rape) and arbitrary executions of persons during forced relocation of entire villages by the army. Other such violations included acts of reprisal by the military and torture or execution of persons suspected of being insurgents or giving aid to insurgents. Torture and death of porters by the military have also been prevalent. The ethnic minority groups, including the Shan, Karen, Karenni, Mon and the Rakhine Muslims were victims of these violations. Deaths of political leaders or students due to torture or cruel and inhuman conditions while under custody, however, occurred in circumstances unrelated to any armed conflict.

 

232. Hundreds of disappearances occurred when persons were taken from villages for forced portering, particularly from the Shan, Mon and Rakhine states. Dozens of Rakhine Muslim women told the Special Rapporteur that their husbands had been taken away by the military for forced portering and had never returned. In addition, many detentions of elected representatives, political leaders, students or other persons detained after the 1988 and 1990 demonstrations, began as disappearances. The torture reported of these persons occurred primarily during the period before the acknowledgement of the detentions by the Government. Acknowledgement was in most cases made after formal sentencing, which in some cases did not take place until days before the person was released. After the 1988 and 1990 demonstrations, thousands of persons were killed and many who never returned home were presumed by their families to have been killed by the military. The authorities have denied all such allegations and have not taken any steps to clarify the fate of these persons. It has been alleged that the bodies of hundreds of these persons were buried in mass graves in a military site near the airport and in Hlaing Thaya New Township where access is only possible by ferry.

 

233. Regarding the treatment of porters, torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, disappearance or arbitrary execution occurred while porters were forcibly under the power of the Myanmar army. Some of the violations, such as placing porters weighted down with loads of 45 kilogrammes or more on the front lines, occurred in conditions of armed conflict. But other allegations of violations of these physical integrity rights of porters occurred while under the power of the authorities of Myanmar outside of armed conflict situations. These reports were carefully verified by the Special Rapporteur in accordance with standard United Nations procedures.

 

234. Dozens of escaped porters told the Special Rapporteur that they had been tortured and had witnessed other porters being tortured or killed during forced labour and portering either for development projects or for the military. They told the Special Rapporteur that persons from villages were abducted for portering. Village headmen were forced to round up persons for the military. Persons were transported in cruel, inhuman or degrading conditions, beaten if weakened by exhaustion, disease and exposure and then often left to die.

 

235. In the case of the Myanmar Muslims of Rakhine state, testimony and information evaluated strongly indicate, that they have been singled out as objects of these physical integrity violations. As a result, approximately 250,000 Rakhine Muslims have been forced to flee across the border into Bangladesh as refugees. The Special Rapporteur was told by the Government that not one Myanmar Muslim from Rakhine state had fled Myanmar because of ill-treatment. One official suggested that they had been lured across the border by subversive elements and by the promise of international aid. Another Government authority stated that none of the persons in the Bangladeshi refugee camps had come from Myanmar and that they had voluntarily gone there from Dhaka, Bangladesh.

 

236. Between 7 and 14 December 1992, when the Special Rapporteur visited Myanmar, approximately 1,700 of these persons had returned (without international supervision) to Myanmar. As of this writing, over 17,000 have now been returned. International humanitarian organizations and members of the international community have expressed serious concern that the repatriations have not been carried out under conditions that are believed to have been voluntary, dignified or providing safety. Monitoring of the conditions of safety of these returnees is not being permitted by the Myanmar Government. This has given rise to fears of a resurgence of cyclical repression of these Myanmar Muslims as occurred at the time of independence in 1948, in 1978 when a census was carried out leading to the flight of 200,000 Rakhine to Bangladesh, and again in 1991 which gave rise to the present mass exodus to Bangladesh.

 

237. In regard to detention of political leaders and other persons attempting to participate freely in the political process, it was impossible for the Special Rapporteur to determine how many persons in this category remain in detention, but it is believed that there remain scores of persons still in detention without any of the judicial safeguards considered as a minimum standard by the international community. Among these is the Nobel Peace Prize recipient, Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, who was detained without trial in 1989 under the 1975 State Protection Act. The Act was then amended in August of 1991 when her term of detention had almost expired, in order to allow for prolongation of her detention.

 

238. The law was applied in an ex-post facto manner in contradiction to international legal standards. Recent reports stated that she would be released after the National Convention and after the Constitution was drafted and the new government had taken charge. Although over 1,700 persons were released under SLORC Order No. 11/92 in April 1992, the Special Rapporteur has received confirmed reports that new detentions of political leaders have taken place in 1993.

 

239. The National Convention preparatory to the drafting of the constitution was convened on 9 January 1993. After one and a half days the Convention was postponed reportedly because some elected representatives were preparing to bring up the question of the "leading role of the Tatmadaw (army) in the new government". Several persons were reportedly arrested for having distributed written material.

 

240. The National Convention was reconvened on 1 February. Discussion on the constitution is taking place under a panel of 45 chairmen elected by the 8 groups represented as delegates. Of these chairmen, only one is a member of the National League for Democracy which won 80 per cent of the vote in the national elections. It has been announced that the universities will reopen on 19 February 1993.

 

241. On the basis of the visit to Myanmar and the well-documented information received, the Special Rapporteur has assessed that serious repression and an atmosphere of pervasive fear exist in Myanmar. He found that there is a lack of accountability on the part of the Government and an absence of legal and administrative protection and/or recourse available for victims and families of victims of human rights abuses. In the light of these findings, the Special Rapporteur recommends that the Commission on Human Rights continues its close monitoring of the situation of human rights in Myanmar and extend the mandate of the Special Rapporteur to report to the Commission at its fiftieth session.

 

 

 

VII. RECOMMENDATIONS

 

242. In the light of the above conclusions, the Special Rapporteur submits the following recommendations for the consideration of the Government of Myanmar:

 

(a) Although the Special Rapporteur believes the Government should give effect to the political will of the people by transferring power to the freely and fairly elected civilian government; nevertheless, he is of the opinion that implementation of the following non-political, human rights recommendations should not be delayed by, nor subordinated to, considerations of political transition.

 

(b) The Government of Myanmar should fulfil in good faith the obligations it has assumed under Articles 55 and 56 of the Charter of the United Nations "to take joint and separate action in cooperation with the Organization for the achievement of ... universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language and religion." Other rights under the Charter should not be invoked as limitations on these obligations assumed erga omnes.

 

(c) The Government of Myanmar should consider accession to: the International Covenants on Human Rights; the Convention against Torture, Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment and to the two protocols additional to the Geneva Convention of 1949. In addition, it should immediately withdraw its reservations and understandings to articles 15 on freedom of association and 37 regarding the prohibition of torture of minors, of the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

 

(d) The system of law, both constitutionally and legislatively, in Myanmar should be regularized to be accessible to those to whom it would be applied, to be clear and unequivocal and to be equitably applied. The ongoing state of emergency should be lifted and martial law in the form of SLORC Orders and other emergency legislation should cease to be the basis of law.

 

(e) Myanmar law should be brought into line with accepted international standards regarding protection of the physical integrity rights. Among these international standards are the right to life, protection against disappearance, prohibition of torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, providing humane conditions for all persons under detention and granting the minimum standard of judicial guarantees, as accepted by the international community, in order to further ensure the physical integrity of all persons under all forms of detention. Freedom of expression should be allowed including a free press and media. The Special Rapporteur recommends that constitutional and international legal experts from different regions be invited by the Government of Myanmar to share their expertise with Myanmar in the drafting of the new constitution and other legislation.

 

(f) The Government should take measures to comply with its obligations under ILO Convention No. 29 by eradicating the practice of forced portering and other forced labour which has provoked systematic torture, cruel inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment, disappearances and mass arbitrary executions. It should also take immediate steps to amend and implement legislation in accordance with ILO Convention No. 87. In compliance with this Convention, it should allow for the existence and practice of free trade unions and free association for the purpose of participation, in the civil and political as well as economic, social and cultural life of the country.

 

(g) The 1982 Citizenship Law should be revised or amended to abolish its over-burdensome requirements for citizenship. The law should not apply its categories of second-class citizens in a manner which has discriminatory effects on racial or ethnic minorities particularly the Rakhine Muslims. It should be brought in line with the principles embodied in the Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness of 30 August 1961. The Union of Myanmar should consider ratification of both this Convention and the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees of 28 July 1951 and its Additional Protocol of 31 January 1967.

 

(h) In order to promote repatriation of the Myanmar Muslims and other minorities, the Government should create the necessary conditions of respect for their human rights. The Government should assure, in law and practice, their safe return and resettlement in villages of origin. To this end, it should also promote their complete civil, political, social, economic and cultural participation in Myanmar without restriction or discrimination due to status.

 

(i) The Special Rapporteur recommends, in the light of the seriousness of the refugee and repatriation problem, and the grave threat this situation poses to the physical integrity of Myanmar ethnic and racial minorities as well as to the peace and security in the region, that an international human rights monitoring team, in conjunction with the mandate of the Special Rapporteur, be allowed access to the border areas. In addition, this team should be allowed access to the sites of repatriation within Myanmar. This team would operate with an integrated human rights/humanitarian approach with consideration for the refugee and repatriation issues. It is suggested that it be composed of independent experts and selected representatives of the specialized agencies with expertise in the relevant areas.

 

************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************

 

Economic and Social Council

 

 

Distr.

GENERAL

 

E/CN.4/1994/57

16 February 1994

 

Original:  ENGLISH

 

 

COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS

Fiftieth session

Agenda item 12

 

 

QUESTION OF THE VIOLATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS IN

ANY PART OF THE WORLD, WITH PARTICULAR REFERENCE TO COLONIAL AND OTHER

DEPENDENT COUNTRIES AND TERRITORIES

 

 

Report on the situation of human rights in Myanmar, prepared

by Mr. Yozo Yokota, Special Rapporteur, in accordance with

Commission resolution 1993/73

 

 

CONTENTS

 

Paragraphs 

 

I.   INTRODUCTION 1-12 

A.   Mandate 1-3  

B. Historical background 4-12

 

II.  ACTIVITIES OF THE SPECIAL RAPPORTEUR 13-41

A.   Introduction 13

B.   The visit to Myanmar 14-40

C.   The visit to camps in Thailand 41

 

III. ALLEGATIONS   42-63

A.   Arbitrary arrest and detention 42-47

B.   Torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment 48-50

C.   Disappearances 51-52   

D.   Extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions 53-55

E.   Treatment of the Muslim population in Rakhine State 56-57

F.   Labour rights 58

G.   Rights of the child 59

H.   The National Convention 60-62

I.   The movement towards reconciliation with insurgents 63

 

IV.  CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 64-74

A.   Conclusions 64-73

B.   Recommendations 74

 

 

I.  INTRODUCTION

 

A.  Mandate

 

1.   The mandate of the Special Rapporteur of the Commission on Human Rights on the situation of human rights in Myanmar has been described in each of the Special Rapporteur's previous reports to the General Assembly (A/47/651, paras. 1-5 and A/48/578, paras. 1-6) and to the Commission on Human Rights (E/CN.4/1993/37, paras. 1-6).  It may be noted here that the mandate, as initially articulated in Commission resolution 1992/58 of 3 March 1992 (approved by Economic and Social Council decision 1992/235 of 20 July 1992) and subsequently extended by Commission resolution 1993/73 of 10 March 1993 (approved by Economic and Social Council decision 1993/278 of 28 July 1993), required the Special Rapporteur "to establish or to continue direct contacts with the Government and the people of Myanmar, including political leaders deprived of their liberty, their families and their lawyers" and "to report to the General Assembly at its forty-eighth session and to the Commission at its fiftieth session" (resolution 1993/73, para. 16).  The object of the direct contacts and reporting by the Special Rapporteur is "with a view to examining the situation of human rights in Myanmar and following any progress made towards the transfer of power to a civilian government and the drafting of a new constitution, the lifting of restrictions on personal freedoms and the restoration of human rights in Myanmar" (Commission resolution 1992/58, para. 3).  In order to facilitate the fulfilment of the mandate of the Special Rapporteur, the Government of Myanmar was urged to extend "its full and unreserved cooperation to the Commission and the Special Rapporteur and, to this end, to ensure that the Special Rapporteur has effectively free access to any person in Myanmar whom he deems appropriate in the performance of his mandate" (Commission resolution 1993/73, para. 17).

 

2.   The substantive issues addressed by the Commission on Human Rights in resolution 1993/73 include the following concerns:  that the electoral process initiated in Myanmar by the general elections of 27 May 1990 has yet to reach its conclusion and that, therefore, the will of the people is not the basis of the authority of government in Myanmar as required by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; "that many political leaders, in particular elected representatives, remain deprived of their liberty and that Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, Nobel Peace Prize laureate, is still under house arrest"; that serious violations of a variety of fundamental civil rights continue; that refugee flows are creating problems in neighbouring countries; and that there is an "absence of guarantees for the physical integrity and well-being of returnees".

 

3.   The preliminary report of the Special Rapporteur was submitted to the Secretary-General of the United Nations for dissemination to all States Members of the United Nations at the forty-eighth session of the General Assembly in November 1993 (A/48/578, annex).  This comprehensive report is submitted to the Commission on Human Rights at its fiftieth session for consideration by the Commission.

 

 

B.  Historical background

 

4.   In 1948, the Union of Myanmar (then called Burma) gained independence from British colonial rule.  From 1948 until 1962, the country was governed by a parliamentary democracy based on the Constitution of 2 September 1947.  It provided for a federal system of government with separate executive, legislative and judicial branches.  The States under the Union were considered autonomous.  According to article 201 of the Constitution of 1947, ethnic minorities had, in theory, the right to secede from the Union, but, under article 202, this right was not to be exercised until 10 years from the date of entry into force of the Constitution.  In March 1948, an armed insurgency against the then Government of Burma was begun by the Communist Party of Burma.  From 1948 through 1961, various minority ethnic groups joined the armed insurgency.

 

5.   In March 1962, General Ne Win took power in a coup d'état.  He installed a one-party (Burma Socialist Programme Party) rule under military control.  He embarked upon a programme known as the "Burmese Way to Socialism".  In 1974, a new Constitution was drafted under which one-party rule continued.

 

6.   Towards 1988, nationwide demonstrations began in reaction to the suppression of all civil and political rights since the overthrow of the constitutional government in 1962 and to the economic failure as a consequence of the policy of the Burmese Way to Socialism.

 

7.   From March to June 1988, students, workers and monks demonstrated for more freedom and democracy, but the army used harsh measures to crush the demonstrations.  Hundreds of civilians were arrested and many suffered severe injuries or died from ill-treatment in detention.  Many persons were summarily or arbitrarily executed.  On 21 June 1988, the Government imposed a ban on all public gatherings.

 

8.   On 23 July 1988, General Ne Win resigned as party leader and promised economic reform and the holding of a referendum to end one-party rule and institute a multi-party system.  However, demonstrations continued and the army and riot police attacked the demonstrators.  It was reported that approximately 3,000 persons were killed in August 1988 alone.  On 18 September 1988, the military took power and the State Law and Order Restoration Council (SLORC) was set up under the chairmanship of the Chief of Staff, Senior General Saw Maung.  The National Assembly (Pyithu Hluttaw), the Council of State and other governmental bodies were dissolved.  Free elections were promised by the SLORC but Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, daughter of General U Aung San (the national hero of independence who was assassinated in 1947) and General Secretary of the National League for Democracy (NLD), was banned from campaigning on the grounds that she kept unlawful association with insurgent organizations.  On 20 July 1989, Daw Aung San Suu Kyi was detained by government forces.  She has been under house arrest without trial since then and, in 1991, she was awarded the Nobel Prize for Peace.  Many others, including most of the important opposition political leaders, were also detained.

 

9.   On 27 May 1990, general elections were held in which the main opposition party (NLD) won 81 per cent of the seats (392 seats out of 485 in total) and 60 per cent of the votes.  However, the official announcement of the results of the elections was postponed by the SLORC in order to allow the Election Commission set up by the SLORC to scrutinize the expense accounts of all elected representatives.

 

10.  Beginning in early 1992, a mass exodus of Myanmar Muslims from Rakhine State into Bangladesh was reported.  At least 250,000 such persons have sought refuge for fear of persecution.  On 28 April 1992, the Governments of Myanmar and Bangladesh signed an agreement for the voluntary and safe return of the refugees.  By October 1993, approximately 40,000 refugees had returned to Myanmar under this arrangement.

 

11.  In April 1992, General Than Shwe became Chairman of the SLORC after General Saw Maung had resigned from the post for reasons of health.  Since this change of leadership, a number of new policies have been announced and implemented including:  the release of many political leaders in detention (including the Former Prime Minister U Nu, but not Daw Aung San Suu Kyi); the holding of a National Convention for drafting the principles and guidelines for a new constitution; the granting of permission to the family of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi to visit her; the opening of universities and other institutions of higher education; the lifting of the curfew order and martial law; and the cessation of military tribunals of civilian cases.

 

12.  On 9 January 1993, the National Convention was convened.  The participants were composed of 702 delegates from eight categories as follows:  (a) representatives from political parties including NLD (49); (b) representatives elected in the 1990 elections (107); (c) representatives of national racial groups (215); (d) representatives of peasants (93); (e) representatives of workers (48); (f) representatives of intelligentsia and technocrats (41); (g) representatives of state service personnel (92); and (h) other invited persons (57).  The meeting of the National Convention has been adjourned several times for reasons not quite clear to outside observers.

 

 

II.  ACTIVITIES OF THE SPECIAL RAPPORTEUR

 

A.  Introduction

 

13.  In carrying out his mandate, the Special Rapporteur has continued to seek information from all relevant sources.  During the past year, information in the form of letters and reports has been received on a regular basis from a wide variety of individuals and non-governmental organizations as well as from the Government of Myanmar.  In November 1993, the Special Rapporteur visited Myanmar, conducted interviews with high-level government officials as well representatives of various United Nations specialized agencies and bodies including the office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), representatives of various non-governmental organizations, and the people of Myanmar both inside and outside of the country as he paid visits to places relevant to his mandate.

 

 

B.  The visit to Myanmar

 

1.  Introduction

 

14.  In September 1993, the Special Rapporteur addressed a letter to the Government of Myanmar requesting a visit to the country from 9 to 16 November 1993.  In the letter, the Special Rapporteur also requested the honour of audiences with high governmental officials, meetings in circumstances providing full confidentiality with leaders of political parties, including those in detention or under restriction, and in particular with Daw Aung San Suu Kyi.  The Special Rapporteur further requested full and free access to all individuals, representatives of non-governmental and inter-governmental organizations, whom he may have deemed necessary to the carrying out of his mandate or who would have expressed the will to meet with him.  Visits to prisons and other centres of detention, with confidential contact with those detained, were also requested.  The Special Rapporteur also requested full access to other areas of the country, in particular Rakhine State, for the purpose of carrying out unrestricted and confidential visits with the recent repatriates and returnees.  By letters dated 15 September and 8 October 1993, the Government replied that the Special Rapporteur would be welcome in Myanmar.

 

15.  The Special Rapporteur undertook a visit to Myanmar from 9 to 16 November 1993.  Prior to the visit, the Special Rapporteur had been in frequent contact with the Permanent Representative of Myanmar to the United Nations Office at Geneva and with the Minister for Foreign Affairs who cooperated fully and facilitated the visit.  The Special Rapporteur wishes to report that during his visit to Myanmar all of the Special Rapporteur's specific requests for meetings with high government officials were met.  Similarly, the visit to Rakhine State was facilitated with appropriate briefings, meetings and visits within the areas of concern.  In general, the Special Rapporteur enjoyed relative freedom in his movements and freedom in his access to private persons and others of interest, with some notable exceptions which shall be addressed below.  It is further noted that the Special Rapporteur was promptly furnished with all the documentary information he requested before, during and after his visit.  Consequently, the Special Rapporteur would like to record his deep appreciation to the Government of Myanmar for its cooperation in facilitating his visit to the country and otherwise cooperating in responding to his requests for information and explanation.

 

16.  With respect to his meetings with governmental representatives, the Special Rapporteur met in Yangon with the following persons:  General Khin Nyunt, Secretary One of the State Law and Order Restoration Council (SLORC); U Ohn Gyaw, Minister for Foreign Affairs; Brigadier General Myo Thant, Minister of Information; U Tha Tun, the Attorney-General; and U Aung Toe, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.  The Special Rapporteur also met in Rakhine State the Commander of the Western Command of the Rakhine SLORC.

 

17.  In the course of his visit to Myanmar, the Special Rapporteur paid visits to, in chronological order, the following governmental institutions and facilities:  Dagon University in the Dagon New Township; Yangon General Hospital; First Military Hospital in Yangon; administrative offices of the Ministry of Home Affairs, Immigration and Manpower Department in Rakhine State and facilities of three reception camps along the Myanmar-Bangladesh frontier; Insein prison; and Yangon University campus.  The Special Rapporteur also visited, in chronological order, and met with representatives of, the following non-governmental organizations:  the Myanmar Red Cross Society; the Myanmar Maternal and Child Welfare Association; the Jivitadana Sangha Hospital for Monks and Nuns; the Tiger Parahita School for the Development of National Races (i.e. orphaned boys from throughout the country); and the Myanmar Medical Association.  On 14 November 1993, the Special Rapporteur also met with representatives of the following political parties which are participating in the National Convention drafting the new constitution of the Union of Myanmar:  the National League for Democracy (NLD); the Union Kayene League; and the National Unity Party (NUP).

 

18.  While the information and views obtained in the course of his visits and meetings will be reflected below under relevant subject headings, the Special Rapporteur draws attention here to the salient aspects of his meetings with the five governmental representatives mentioned above.

 

 

2.  The meeting with Secretary One

 

19.  On the morning of 10 November 1993, the Special Rapporteur enjoyed a frank, open and lengthy exchange of views with General Khin Nyunt which touched upon most issues of concern for respect of human rights in Myanmar.  On the matter of the general political organization of the State, General Khin Nyunt denied that Myanmar is run simply by a "military government".  He explained that the SLORC, which he characterized as "essentially a military government but not so rigid", is managing a process of national reconciliation where a variety of insurgent groups are now being brought back into the legal framework of discussions and during which a National Convention is engaged in the process that would lead to the drafting of a new, strong constitution for the country.  To counter anarchy and maintain security for the people, General Khin Nyunt stated that some harsh acts had been necessary in the first year of the SLORC, but that such acts had been few since then.  In managing the process of national reconciliation and restoring law and order, General Khin Nyunt described a variety of social and economic development initiatives which had been taken by the Government in order to improve the lives of the people and help "build nationalism", i.e. the general sentiment of loving the country and building and protecting the nation.  In this process, General Khin Nyunt personally paid visits to hundreds of townships and thousands of village tracks in order to hear the voices of the grass-roots of the population.  Once the new constitution has been drafted and adopted, General Khin Nyunt assured the Special Rapporteur that a civilian government shall take power.   With regard to the time-frame for the transfer of power to a civilian government, General Khin Nyunt stated that it was not yet the time to specify when a new constitution would be drafted and a new civilian government would be formed under such a constitution.  However, he strongly stressed that (a) there will be a strong Constitution and (b) there will be a civilian government.  He explained that, before achieving those goals, two basic conditions will have to be met:  (a) political and social stability must be maintained, and (b) the "Union" as a multi-ethnic State must be secured so as to avoid a disastrous dissolution of the State.  Thus, General Khin Nyunt continued, all insurgent groups had to be brought back into "the legal fold" before the objectives could be achieved.  Concerning the Special Rapporteur's specific request to visit Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, General Khin Nyunt stated that it was "still too early", but that it might be "perhaps possible in the future" as he suggested the possibility of inviting the Special Rapporteur back to Yangon for this purpose "on short notice".  When asked if the Government intends to release her on 20 July 1994, General Khin Nyunt answered that it was still too early to say.

 

 

3.  The meeting with the Minister for Foreign Affairs

 

20.  On the afternoon of 10 November 1993, the Special Rapporteur met with U Ohn Gyaw, Minister for Foreign Affairs, whereby the Special Rapporteur sought clarification on the status of the process of repatriation of the persons who had fled from Rakhine State to Bangladesh a year before and also the national process of democratization relating to the 1990 elections and the ongoing National Convention.  The Minister explained that an agreement had been reached with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) in an effort to ensure the "voluntary and safe return" of the persons who had left; it was the responsibility of the country of refuge to assure the voluntary nature of repatriation, while it was the responsibility of Myanmar to assure the safety of the refugees upon return.  Both Myanmar and Bangladesh were pleased with this accord and the participation of UNHCR, but there remains the question of reconciling a significant discrepancy in the numbers of affected persons:  the Government of Myanmar had cleared some 95,000 persons for return (later clarified as 123,934 upon the Special Rapporteur's meeting with relevant authorities in Rakhine State), while the Government of Bangladesh claimed that there were still 230,000 residents of Myanmar to return from Bangladesh.  On the matter of the process of democratization, Minister U Ohn Gyaw explained that the "winners" of the 27 May 1990 elections had been announced in the newspapers, but that, in the absence of a constitution, there were no positions for those elected persons to take up.  Consequently, there had been no "final announcement" or formal election notice (in the sense of publication in the Official Gazette).  The Minister stressed that the National Convention, composed of personalities representing eight strata of society including many "winners" of the 1990 elections, was preparing constitutional principles and guidelines which would eventually be placed before a constituent assembly composed of the elected persons from the 1990 elections.

 

 

4.  The meetings with the Attorney-General and the Chief Justice

 

21.  On the morning of 11 November 1993, the Special Rapporteur met with Attorney-General U Tha Tun after having earlier met with Chief Justice Aung Toe.  His discussion with the Chief Justice had addressed the recent trials of political leaders, the National Convention (which the Chief Justice is chairing), and some issues of legislative reform (for which the Chief Justice is not responsible but of which he has some knowledge as a member of the Law Revision Commission formed by the Government).  As such, the discussion with Attorney-General U Tha Tun revolved around new legislation, such as the Child Protection Law, which fully incorporates the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, and reform of existing Myanmar legislation for which the Attorney-General has some responsibility both in his Governmental Office and as Chairman of the Law Revision Commission.  It is to be noted here that, in response to the Special Rapporteur's inquiries and requests, the following complete lists were subsequently supplied to the Special Rapporteur:  (a) the 99 Laws enacted by the SLORC between 18 August 1988 and 12 November 1993; (b) the 186 Laws repealed by the SLORC; and (c) the 93 Laws under review.  It is also to be noted that the Law Revision Commission, over which the Attorney-General presides, is officially known in SLORC Notification No. 33/91 of 17 July 1991 as the "Laws Scrutiny Central Body".

 

 

5.  The meeting with the Minister of Information

 

22.  On the afternoon of 15 November 1993, the Special Rapporteur met with Brigadier General Myo Thant, Minister of Information, together with members of the Information Committee over which the Minister presides.  The subject of discussion focused on the democratization process and, in particular, the National Convention.  At the beginning, the Minister recounted the process from its very start, explaining how the Preparatory Committee for the National Convention was constituted, specifying the composition of delegations to the National Convention, and highlighting the achievements of each meeting of the National Convention since it began on 7 January 1993 through to its recent adjournment (the National Convention was to reconvene in plenary on 18 January 1994).  On the subject of legal processes against political leaders, the case of Dr. Aung Khin Sint was briefly discussed in so far as the offence involved related to circulation of a note in the context of the National Convention.  On the subject of the Government of Myanmar's laws relating to the 135 national races of the country, the Minister of Information explained that this figure and the specific classifications arose simply from the results of the 1983 census where individuals had identified themselves as belonging to one of 135 different groups; 35 such groups were said to have less than 10,000 members, while only 5 groups had more than 1 million members.  The Minister provided further basic information on the following subjects: (a) the nature of the newly constituted Union Solidarity and Development Association; (b) the present composition of the Government; (c) the present costs and availability of basic commodities; and (d) the remaining number of political prisoners.  It should be noted that, in relation to the deliberations on a future constitution, the Minister accepted the Special Rapporteur's suggestion that a copy of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, in the Burmese language, be provided to every National Convention Delegate.  By letter dated 7 January 1994, the Special Rapporteur transmitted an authentic copy of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in the English language, together with an unofficial translation in the Burmese language, to the Minister of Information in the hope that copies of the Declaration would be circulated to all National Convention Delegates upon the reconvening of the Convention on 18 January 1994.

 

23.  In addition to meetings with high-level government officials, the Special Rapporteur visited a number of places relevant to his mandate.  The impressions and views of the Special Rapporteur on those visits are briefly described below.

 

 

6.  The visit to Insein prison

 

24.  On the afternoon of 12 November 1993, the Special Rapporteur visited Insein prison.  The prison warden informed the Special Rapporteur that there were 4,061 prison inmates of whom 942 were women (the prison had a capacity of 5,000).  No prisoners were awaiting death because all death sentences had been commuted by an order of November 1992.  The Special Rapporteur was first guided to a small building where four women inmates were kept in separate cells of approximately 100 square feet having one 4-square-foot window high on one side of a wall.  In another building, about 150 women inmates were grouped together in a large hall dressed in white cotton and sat cross-legged in silent rows with their heads bowed.  There were female guards, well trained and disciplined, watching the women's section of the prison.  Later, the Special Rapporteur passed through another row of cells where male inmates were kept in separate rooms about the same size as the womens' cells.  The physical health conditions of the inmates appeared to be normal.  The Special Rapporteur also viewed the hospital building which could accommodate up to 50 patients.  The doctor serving there informed the Special Rapporteur that, while less serious illnesses could be treated there, the most serious cases would be sent to Yangon Hospital; such cases would number about 50 to 100 a year.

 

25.  Towards the end of his visit to Insein prison, the Special Rapporteur was allowed to meet with two political leaders detained there:  U Tin U, who had a distinguished military career and had been in command of the military and was subsequently Minister of Defence; and Dr. Aung Khin Sint, an NLD member elected in the 1990 elections and a delegate to the National Convention.  The meetings took place in front of the prison warden and other staff of the prison accompanied by a group of photographers.

 

26.  U Tin U greeted the Special Rapporteur in front of a small building where he was being kept.  The building was a separate one-storey house with an entrance, sleeping section and a toilet and kitchen facilities behind.  At the outset of the meeting, U Tin U proclaimed that he was a "political prisoner" despite the claim of the authorities that he was an "ordinary criminal".  He stated that he had suffered five months of effective house arrest before being brought before a military court on numerous charges.  He said that he had been charged, in particular, with:  (a) inciting the entire population for democracy and human rights; (b) corresponding with parliamentarians of the European Communities, Japan and the United States of America; and (c) meeting with military personnel and others in groups.  Government witnesses presented testimony at his trial, but he was denied the right to cross-examine them.  After hearing the witnesses, the Court proceeded to sentence him to three years' imprisonment; he assumes that it was preconceived.  He had already served three years in prison and had, in fact, already served another year.  Instead of being released, he is now serving an additional seven years to which he was sentenced by a second military court for the exact same charges.  He pleaded res judicata, but the judge did not seem to understand what he was saying, and found him guilty again and sentenced him to a second (more severe) term of imprisonment to be served consecutively to the first.  U Tin U declared; "I love the army, but I love the people more than the army".  He stated that, after the 1990 elections, many people had been detained for a long time without trials as "ordinary criminals".  He sought their release and remedies.  So, he came to this fate.  U Tin U indicated that his treatment was good (he appeared to be physically and mentally healthy).  The doctor takes good care of him although a shortage of medicines is a problem.  His wife comes to see him every two weeks.  He has access to all the religious books and the New Light of Myanmar, but he receives no other information and no other entertainment.

 

27.  Following the meeting with U Tin U, the Special Rapporteur was taken to another building, adjacent to the house where U Tin U was kept, with a few cells, one of which held Dr. Aung Khin Sint.  When the Special Rapporteur walked into the cell, together with the prison warden and his staff and accompanying photographers, Dr. Aung Khin Sint stood in the centre of the room which was approximately 16 square metres with a small window on the opposite side of the entrance.  Dr. Aung Khin Sint addressed the Special Rapporteur in the Burmese language, as he clearly indicated he had been advised to do.  He said that he had done his medical training in England and obviously spoke English well.  At the outset, he paraphrased what he called an English proverb:  "When one flies over a cuckoo's nest, one meets with problems and difficulties".  Dr. Aung Khin Sint stated that the Special Rapporteur should know that those he meets would face problems and would be likely to be sentenced to 10 years' imprisonment.  He said that he had once flown over a cuckoo's nest and he did not want to do the same thing again.  Therefore, he must be careful how to answer the questions raised by the Special Rapporteur.  If he answered "wrong", his 20-year prison sentence would become 40 years.  He further stated that, as for the reasons of his imprisonment, they were clearly stated as according to existing laws:  such information could be obtained from the Government.  He said he had been tried in a special court, i.e. not an ordinary court.  It was his own choice that he did not hire a lawyer because he wanted to defend himself.  He had received his sentence recently and was intending to appeal through the proper channels.  Dr. Aung Khin Sint informed the Special Rapporteur that he was treated well in the prison and had even received a new tooth in his first week there.  In concluding, he repeated that he did not want to be in prison for 40 years, and so he preferred to say no more.

 

28.  Following the meetings with the political leaders in prison, the Special Rapporteur returned to the reception room where he requested and was shown the prison records.  Specifically, three registry books were brought:  one, as a general example, from several years back, and then the two books wherein U Tin U and Dr. Aung Khin Sint were registered.  The books were found and brought with relative ease, and all were in order, i.e. all necessary entries had been made including bases of imprisonment, dates, etc.  The entry of U Tin U stated, inter alia, that he had been admitted on 22 December 1989 at 16.20 p.m. and that he had been sentenced for breaching the 1950 Emergency Law, sections 5 (a), (b), (c) and (g), and also Law 114.  It was also recorded that he had been sentenced to three years plus seven years' imprisonment and that he had appealed.  Dr. Aung Khin Sint's entry stated, inter alia, that he entered the prison on 27 October 1993 and had been sentenced on 15 October 1993 to a total of 20 years as follows: (a) 7 years for violation of section 5 (j) of the 1950 Emergency Law; (b) 11 years (7 years plus 4 years) for 2 offences of sections 6/17 and 20 of the Publications and Printing Law; and (c) 2 years for violation of section 5 (1) (4) of the Official Secrets Act.

 

 

7.  Visits to hospitals

 

29.  On the morning of 12 November 1993, the Special Rapporteur visited the First Hospital in the Hlaing Thaya New Township and the Yangon General Hospital in Yangon.  On the afternoon of the same day, he visited the First Military Hospital in Yangon.  On the morning of 15 November 1993, the Special Rapporteur visited the Jivitadana Sangha Hospital for Monks and Nuns in Yangon.  The buildings and facilities of the hospitals looked clean and adequate.  The doctors and nurses were competent, well trained, courteous and dedicated to their work.  The Special Rapporteur was told at Yangon General Hospital, the largest and most sophisticated of the four, that they needed more advanced equipment for diagnosis and surgery.  The Special Rapporteur requested to see the storerooms of medical supplies at each hospital.  They all seemed to have a full complement of medical supplies which were said to be replenished regularly.  The Special Rapporteur observed, however, that some medical supplies at the First Hospital in Hlaing Thaya New Township, the smallest and least sophisticated of the four, had just been freshly delivered in boxes.  While the Special Rapporteur was not able to find any concrete evidence to prove the allegation that people suffer from a shortage of medicine because medical supplies were given to the military first and some were sold on the black market at high prices not easily affordable to ordinary citizens, he learned from interviews with ordinary people on the street that they cannot get enough medicine even at a large hospital.

 

30.  At the First Military Hospital, which mainly serves the military personnel and their families (although it was explained that about 20 per cent of the patients were non-military people), the Special Rapporteur was told that it was just about to start a training programme with the help of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) on the subject of war medicine and treatment.  They use the "Rules for Behaviour in Combat" booklet in their education.  Through this training, doctors will pay more attention to cases of untoward injuries, such as injuries suffered in fighting and possibly alleged injuries suffered from torture and the like.  The military doctors do visit in the prisons, too.  There were said to be occasional fights between prisoners and sometimes with guards, and the doctors try to note the cases.  But the Special Rapporteur was told that it was not easy to discern how injuries were actually sustained.  Aside from the ICRC training programme conducted in Myanmar, the Government has sent the military's Chief Instructor and the head of its Judge-Advocate-General's office to the courses given by the International Institute of Humanitarian Law at San Remo, Italy, on humanitarian law to be followed by two more weeks of training at the ICRC headquarters in Geneva.  In terms of their own training programmes, it was explained that humanitarian law was taught in the Defence Services Academy and two other military colleges.

 

8.  Visits to the Myanmar Red Cross Society and

the Myanmar Medical Association

 

31.  On the afternoon of 11 November 1993, the Special Rapporteur visited the Myanmar Red Cross Society at their offices and met with its representatives led by Dr. Tin U.  The subject of discussion went directly to the problem of AIDS.  In response to the inquiry of the Special Rapporteur, it was explained that there are fewer than 1,000 cases of AIDS in Myanmar and between 4,000 and 5,000 cases of HIV+.  However, the numbers are on the increase and the Society is responding to the problem through a large programme of public health education.  With respect to the specific problem of the Myanmarese girls who had returned from Thailand diagnosed HIV+, Dr. Tin U himself had gone to the Thai border to inspect the situation.  He said that the girls who had returned from Thailand were living together and were being "rehabilitated" through learning cooking and sewing and other skills in the facility operated under the Department of Social Welfare.  Of the total of 139 such girls, 43 had tested HIV+.  The reason for the high ratio of HIV+ among the returnees was explained that they were sent back to Myanmar because they were suspected of having been infected.  On the subject of the Geneva Conventions, the Myanmar Red Cross Society was cooperating with the ICRC in a dissemination project.  Such cooperation was expected to continue.  In the next days, the ICRC Military Coordinator was to be lecturing to officers of the army.

 

32.  On the morning of 16 November 1993, the Special Rapporteur met with the representatives of the Myanmar Medical Association.  The Special Rapporteur was informed that a Food and Drugs Control Act had recently been passed and under this law several projects were under way to address the problem of shortage of medical supplies.  Consequently, there was said to be "no shortage of essential drugs".

 

 

9.  Visits to university campuses

 

33.  On the morning of 10 November 1993, the Special Rapporteur visited Dagon University which had been recently opened in the Dagon New Township.  There were a few newly constructed buildings for offices, classrooms, auditoria and general stores.  There were evident plans to construct more buildings with the intention of making a large university accommodating more than 10,000 students in the future.  The day of the Special Rapporteur's visit coincided with registration day at the university and there was a crowd of young students in the registration office waiting for the admission registration process to be completed.  The Special Rapporteur asked about 10 young men and women to gather with him in an empty room to have a private conversation.  All of them, looking bright and honest, said that they were interested in mathematics or natural sciences and were disinterested in politics.  In his discussions with the Rector and other staff of the university, the Special Rapporteur learned that the content and textbooks of the lectures in all subjects taught at universities in Myanmar are centrally controlled and that it was not possible for individual professors or instructors to develop their own courses using materials or textbooks of their own choice.  The Special Rapporteur stated that such practices were contrary to what he knew of "academic freedom" and would severely handicap the university's capacity to encourage learning and research through free thinking, free discussion and free expression of ideas.

 

34.  On the afternoon of 15 November 1993, the Special Rapporteur briefly visited the campus of Yangon University.  The university gates were officially closed because the university was in recess, so the Special Rapporteur was told, and there were practically no students or staff visible on the large campus composed of many mostly very old buildings for classrooms, offices, faculty residences and student dormitories surrounded by green trees.  Some pedestrians were visible casually walking through the campus.  Apart from the lack of visible student life, the campus appeared normal.

 

 

10.  Visit to Rakhine State

 

35.  On 13 and 14 November 1993, the Special Rapporteur visited Rakhine State under the kind and efficient arrangements of the Government of Myanmar and the military.  He observed the operations at two reception camps near the border with Bangladesh.  His visit coincided with the return of some 500 persons who had fled to Bangladesh.  There were three Bangladesh officials who accompanied the returnees and assisted in the identification processes conducted by the Myanmarese officials.  Officials from both countries were seen to be handling the matter quite professionally and efficiently.  However, the returned refugees waiting for identification or for provision of food of other daily necessities appeared uncertain of their fate.  The Special Rapporteur interviewed three male returnees privately, but through interpreters provided by the local authorities which was found necessary because the witnesses did not understand the Burmese language.  They were chosen by the Special Rapporteur randomly from among 10 or so returnees preselected by the local authorities.  They all said that the reason they had gone to Bangladesh was because of a shortage of food and an unavailability of employment.  They stated that they had decided to come back because they had been told that the Myanmar and Bangladesh Governments had signed an agreement and that they had to come back.  Two of the three returnees interviewed reported that they had returned to their former houses which required some repair; the third said that he had had to go to his father's house because his own house had been destroyed by a rain storm.

 

36.  On the morning of 14 November 1993, the Special Rapporteur met with Major-General Win Myint, Commander of the Western Command of Rakhine SLORC.  He told the Special Rapporteur that the problem of the Muslim population in Rakhine State was complex and that its history dated back to the British colonial era when the British had brought labourers from Bengal, which was then also under British rule, to the more fertile land of what is now known as Rakhine State.  Many of these labourers stayed even after the area became part of what is today Myanmar.  There are now approximately 600,000 Muslim residents in Rakhine State the total population of which is approximately 2,300,000.  Myanmar people were said to have treated the Muslim population kindly and today the Government is trying to assist the development of the area by constructing schools, hospitals, roads and bridges.  However, many of the Muslims were said not to love the country or to want to work.  The difficulty of economic life was said to be the main reason for their move to Bangladesh.  It was said that they had thought that they would get enough food, clothing and shelter in the UNHCR camps in Bangladesh without hard work.  There was also said to be the problem of insurgent Muslim groups in Bangladesh who obstruct the process of repatriation.

 

 

11.  The meetings with leaders of political parties

 

37.  On the afternoon of 14 November 1993, the Special Rapporteur met with representatives of three political parties participating in the National Convention, i.e. the Union Kayene League, the National League for Democracy (NLD) and the National Unity Party (NUP).  In spite of the strong request by the Special Rapporteur to meet with them in private at his office in the United Nations compound in Yangon, the meetings were arranged to take place at a Government Guest House (36 Inya Road).  The location and atmosphere were evidently not conducive to a free and unencumbered exchange of views.

 

38.  The Special Rapporteur first met with the two representatives from the Union Kayene League:  Chairman U Mahn Tay Aung Than and Vice-Chairman U Saw Than Aung.  The representatives stated that the group had been formed in 1948 (reorganized in 1988) and that five delegates from the Union Kayene League freely attended the meetings held in the context of the National Convention.  The League's membership was said to be approximately 5,000.  The 27 Central Committee members all stood for election in the 1990 elections, but all failed to be elected.  They stressed that they were natives and citizens of Myanmar, which they referred to as their "motherland".  They stated:  "We must do our best for our motherland".  The motto of the Union Kayene League was said to be "Peace and Prosperity".  They claimed to seek love and peace between all national races without hatred.  In this vein, the representatives insisted that the country needs reconciliation "because some in the past have said unscrupulous things:  we need law and order to make national solidarity".  They said that they preferred the 1947 Constitution because it provided for more democracy.  The representatives said that, when the National Convention is meeting, they could get together in groups and circulate their materials to their people.  However, they added that "the world is not as wide as before; whatever we do, they know".

 

39.  Then, the Special Rapporteur met with the two representatives of the NLD:  Chairman U Aung Shwe and Vice-Chairman U Lwin.  They explained that there were 92 delegates from the NLD participating in the National Convention.  In the Convention, 15 points which would eventually form 15 chapters in the new constitution had been agreed upon by May 1993.  On 6 May 1993, the Work Committee for the National Convention told the delegates that they would next discuss the draft chapter by chapter, beginning with the first chapter.  However, on 6 June 1993, the delegates were told to state their views on all the chapters.  The NLD was not prepared to do so; they were only prepared to make a detailed statement on the first chapter (entitled "Basic Principles").  Most other parties were prepared to make comments on all the chapters.  The Shan NLD representatives spoke in detail on the first chapter, but said very little on the other chapters.  On 16 November 1993, the Work Committee announced that the National Convention had concluded all the discussions on all the chapters and that the Convention would go into recess until 18 January 1994.  This was contrary to what was understood by the NLD.  The NLD considers that the Convention completed deliberation only on the first chapter and, therefore, they were not certain what would happen when the Convention was to reconvene in January 1994.  The representatives informed the Special Rapporteur that the delegates to the National Convention could discuss matters in relative freedom in the Kyaikkasan Grounds (the camp where all the delegates stay during the meetings of the Convention), but, of course, there is always someone around when they meet and discuss matters.  When the NLD delegates wish to meet and discuss matters at their office, they have to seek permission from the Government which is not easy to obtain in the case of the NLD (other parties seem to get such permission more easily).  Also, the NLD was not permitted to publish any documents while other political parties seem to manage to publish their documents and newsletters.

 

40.  The Special Rapporteur met with two representatives of the National Unity Party (NUP), which was formed out of the former Burma Socialist Programme Party (BSBP), and claimed a membership of about 1 million:  U Khin Maung Cyi, an Executive Committee member, and U Han Shwe, the Secretary of the Political Department.  They said that the party had eight delegates in the National Convention (five for the party and three from the elected representatives).  The Special Rapporteur was informed that the NUP knew that they were expected to make statements on all 15 chapters of the new constitution and they did so in June 1993.  The Special Rapporteur was further informed that the NUP was permitted to produce booklets and to distribute to its members.

 

 

C.  The visit to camps in Thailand

 

41.  Following his visit to Myanmar, the Special Rapporteur travelled to the frontier of Myanmar on the Thai side in order to meet with persons from Myanmar living in camps which skirt the Myanmar-Thai border.  The visit to Thailand was conducted between 16 and 20 November 1993.  The two camps visited were driving distance from the Thai city of Mae Sot.  It is believed that there are approximately 60,000 persons who have fled Myanmar and are living in similar camps in the border area.

 

 

III.  ALLEGATIONS

 

A.  Arbitrary arrest and detention

 

42.  The Special Rapporteur welcomes the fact that more than 2,000 persons detained under the emergency regulations have been released since April 1992.  Allegations have nevertheless been received that under the prevailing SLORC orders and other emergency decrees many persons have been arrested for criticizing the SLORC and the army (Tatmadaw) or for openly criticizing the process of the National Convention.  Reports indicate that up to 60 persons may have been detained since July 1993 for engaging in political activity although many of them have now been released.

 

43.  By a letter dated 30 September 1993, the Special Rapporteur requested the Government of Myanmar to provide information regarding the following persons allegedly arrested:  (a) U Aung Myint, Daw Khin Mar Aye and Htay Myint (alias Khin Soe) who were allegedly arrested in December 1992 for printing and distributing leaflets criticizing the National Convention; (b) Dr. Aung Khin Sint and U Than Min who were allegedly arrested in August 1993 for being "engaged in unscrupulous activities with intent to undermine the National Convention"; (c) Ma Thi Da, Nay Thin Myint, Bo Lay, Thet Oo, Tin Htune, Khin Maung, Kyaw Than, Kyi Myint and Than Min who were allegedly arrested in August 1993 in connection with the National Convention.

 

44.  By a joint letter of 12 October 1993, the Special Rapporteur and the Chairman of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention requested the Government of Myanmar to provide information concerning the legal situation of the following persons who were allegedly arrested on or about 3 September 1993 and detained at Insein prison on charges, in particular, of printing material without a permit, distributing illegally printed matter and committing acts against State security:  Ma Thi Da, U Khin Maung, U Kyi Myint, U Kyaw Than, U Lwin Oo, U Win Kyi, Ne Thin Myint, Bo Lay, Thet Oo, Ne Win, U Thin Thun, U Han Sien, Myu Win and Than Myin (some names overlapping with those listed in the foregoing paragraph).

 

45.  In a note verbale dated 17 October 1993, the Government of Myanmar provided the Special Rapporteur with the following response to the above inquiries:

 

"1.  Legal Action was taken against U Aung Myint, aged 57, Daw Khin Mar Aye, aged 53, and Htay Myint (alias) Khin Soe, aged 37, for distribution of seditious leaflets which could be detrimental to the security of the Union and maintenance of public law and order in accordance with section 5 (i) of the 1950 Emergency Provisions Act.

 

"2.  Legal Action was taken against the following persons:

 

(a)  Dr. Aung Khin Sint

(b)  U Than Min

(c)  Ma Thi Da

(d)  Nay Tin Myint

(e)  Bo Lay

(f)  Thet Oo

(g)  Tin Htun

(h)  Khin Maung

(i)  Kyaw Than

(j)  Kyi Myint

(k)  Than Myint

 

for infringing the existing laws.  Each person has been charged and is being prosecuted in the Yangon Division Law Court presided over by two Divisional Judges.

 

"3.  In the Union of Myanmar, arrest or detention of a person is made in accordance with the provisions contained in the Criminal Procedure Code enacted in 1898.  The person concerned is formally charged and defended by a Legal Counsel, and a fair trial is conducted by a competent court.  He has the right to appeal.  The details concerning arrest or detention and trial of cases are appended herewith.

 

"4.  The following are the detailed charges against the persons mentioned in the summary of allegations received:

 

Name of defendant            Charges

 

(Charges against 11 persons - (a) to (k) - are (Unlawful Association Act 17 (1) - distribution and dissemination during 1993 in Yangon Division of literature and leaflets issued by terrorist groups.

    

1950 Emergency Provisions Act 5 (j)   Action which could be detrimental to the security of the Union and order: distribution and dissemination of literature and leaflets.

 

Section 17/20 of Registration of Printers and Publishers Law Infringement of this law for illegal action mentioned above.

 

(a)  Khin Maung (alias) Nyi Nyi Unlawful Association Act 17 (1

(b)  Than Min (alias) Tin Tun Aung    

(c)  Thet Oo  

(d)  Ko Lay (alias)Aung Naing Oo      

(f)  Lwin Oo      

(g)  Kyaw Than              

(h)  Ma Thida          

(i)  Han Sein 

(j)  Kyi Myint         

(k)  Tin Tun (alias) Rashid

 

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

 

(a)  Dr. Aung Khin Sint

(b) U Than Min (alias) Tin Tun Aung  

 

1950 Emergency Provisions Act 5 (j)

 

Both were found to have instigated the delegates attending the National Convention by surreptitious means to cause disruption and disorder among the delegates. Both of them distributed leaflets in May 1993 fraudulently under the name of 'monks and laity'.

 

Section 17/20 of Registration of Printers and Publishers Law

 

The infringement of this Law for illegal action mentioned above, including letters of threat to the delegates.

 

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

 

(a) Dr. Aung Khin Sint 

 

The Burma Official Secrets Act, section 5 (1) (4)

He infringed the above Law by making use of an official document in committing the above-mentioned illegal acts."

 

46.  With respect to Criminal Procedure Code of 1898 referred to by the Government of Myanmar in paragraph 3 of its letter quoted above, it has recently been brought to the attention of the Special Rapporteur that the licences of 10 lawyers were revoked by order of the High Court on 30 July 1993 as a consequence of convictions by military tribunals for various offences including offences of the 1950 State Protection Act, section 5 (j).  The background of this order and its implications for the administration of justice in Myanmar are not yet clear to the Special Rapporteur.

 

47.  With respect to the charges and judicial procedures in the case of Dr. Aung Khin Sint, the Special Rapporteur has been provided with copies of the judgements delivered by the North Kayain District, Yangon Division, Court on 15 October 1993.  The judgements were separately given for charges under: (a) the 1950 Emergency Provisions Act, 5 (j); (b) Section 17/20 of the Registration of Printers and Publishers Law; and (c) The Burma Official Secrets Act, section 5 (j) (4).  However, each judgement refers to both Dr. Aung Khin Sint and U Than Min.  Moreover, and as concerns the factual basis of the accusations leading to the judgements, the content of an allegedly threatening letter distributed by Dr. Aung Khin Sint was not provided in the judgement.

 

 

B.  Torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment

 

48.  Extensive allegations have been received that torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment have continued to be used by the Myanmar Army, police and intelligence services personnel.  Such practices are said to have been used routinely in the interrogation of persons and in the treatment of porters, forced labourers and members of ethnic minorities.

 

49.  The serious cases of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment continue to occur in the context of military operations, forced portering and labour and forced relocation.  They typically take the following forms:  (a) forcing persons to carry heavy loads (in most cases, about 50 kg) of weapons, ammunition, food and other supplies for the army in mountainous areas and in harsh weather conditions; (b) beating, drowning and stabbing in cases of disobedience or attempts to escape; and (c) raping and other sexual assaults.  The Special Rapporteur is particularly concerned about some recent reports alleging the taking of women and children for purposes of portering, where men are not available, and of subjecting them to the kinds of treatment described above.

 

50.  In addition to the extensive reports received by the Special Rapporteur alleging widespread torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment in Myanmar, he has also interviewed persons claiming to be victims of such human rights violations.  On some specific cases, the Special Rapporteur draws attention to the report of the Special Rapporteur on torture (E/CN.4/1994/31, paras. 399-403); in this connection, the Special Rapporteur is also aware that the Government of Myanmar has recently responded in detail to the allegations transmitted by the Special Rapporteur on torture.

 

 

C.  Disappearances

 

51.  The Special Rapporteur has received allegations stating that during the mass demonstrations of 1988 and December 1991, hundreds of persons, including students, monks, workers, writers, professors and others, were arrested or shot to death and that the whereabouts of many of these persons have never been established.  It is believed that many remain in unacknowledged detention and that others have been buried in mass graves reported to be located in an army base near the airport and in the Hlaing Thaya New Township.  It has also been reported that many of the persons detained recently for their activities in connection with the National Convention have been held incommunicado for at least a period of time after the detention.  Many cases of disappearance have been reported in the context of military operations and forced portering, labouring or relocation.  One report received by the Special Rapporteur stated that "the victims were simply taken away by SLORC troops and 'disappeared'".

 

52.  A specific response of the Government of Myanmar to the allegation of disappearances is found in the note verbale dated 17 October 1993 sent by the Government to the Special Rapporteur.  As reproduced by the Special Rapporteur in his interim report to the General Assembly (A/48/578, para. 12), the Government stated, in particular, the following in paragraphs 5 to 7 of its reply:

 

"5.  Allegations stating that during the mass demonstrations of 1988 and December 1991, hundreds of persons including students, monks, workers, writers, professors and others were arrested or shot to death and that the whereabouts of many of these have never been established; that many remain in unacknowledged detention and that others have been buried in mass graves reported to be located in an army base near the airport and in the new Hlaingthaya Township are totally false and unfounded.

 

"6.  Under the existing laws, organizations empowered to arrest any person who has committed an offence maintain a register of persons arrested by them in accordance with the law, and reports have to be submitted to the relevant authorities concerning such arrests.

 

"7.  Under the existing laws of Myanmar, no one can be arrested and detained if it is not in accordance with the law.  It is provided in section 61 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and no police officer shall detain in custody a person arrested, for a period exceeding 24 hours.  Where it is necessary to detain such an accused for more than 24 hours, a special order of a Magistrate has to be obtained under section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.  If an arrest which is not in accordance with the law is made, the person making the arrest is liable to be punished under sections 341 to 348 of the Penal Code."

 

 

D.  Extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions

 

53.  The Special Rapporteur welcomes the decision of the Government of Myanmar, according to SLORC Order No. 12/92, to commute all death sentences passed by civil or military courts or tribunals between 18 September 1988 and 31 December 1992 to transportation for life (life imprisonment).  However, the Special Rapporteur is particularly concerned about the reports from various reliable sources that there are still many cases of arbitrary killings of civilians by soldiers.  For instance, the Special Rapporteur was informed that, as recently as September and October 1993, 18 villagers were murdered in Kyauk Kyi Township, Pegu Division, by members of Infantry Regiment Nos. 73 and 351.  The victims were generally charged as "KNU (Karen National Union) sympathizers", but none of them were in fact involved in anti-government activity.  According to this report, those 18 victims were known cases and it is believed that many other villagers, who had been taken by the army and whose whereabouts remain unknown, were also murdered.

 

54.  Other cases of reported extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions were described in paragraphs 20 to 23 of the interim report of the Special Rapporteur to the forty-eighth session of the General Assembly (A/48/578) of 16 November 1993.  In response to the request of the Special Rapporteur to receive information describing any investigations into these allegations undertaken by the Government, the Government of Myanmar replied, by a note verbale dated 17 October 1993, as follows (and as previously reported by the Special Rapporteur in paragraph 12 of his interim report referred to above):

 

"All allegations stated under this heading are totally false and unfounded.  While undertaking our three main causes, which are non-disintegration of the union, unity and solidarity of the national races and perpetuity of sovereignty, the Tatmadaw has never, at any time committed such atrocities nor will it ever do so in future.  There have been numerous cases running into thousands where the Tatmadaw, even in skirmishes with the insurgents, have treated captured persons very well and then handed them over to the police for prosecution for the offences committed.  Atrocities such as demanding rice, livestock or money from villagers, rape of rural women, forced conscription and mass execution of villagers are being committed only by the insurgents time and again.  It is believed that these allegations are based upon false information given by the insurgents, persons communicating with insurgents and persons who are endeavouring to bring down the government of the State Law and Order Restoration Council."

 

55.  Although the Special Rapporteur is aware that sometimes reports of arbitrary killings tend to be exaggerated or distorted, that there are cases of good treatment of villagers and captured insurgents by the Tatmadaw soldiers and that the insurgents also commit serious violations of human rights now and then, the Special Rapporteur cannot deny, in view of so many reports confirmed by him as reliable, the fact that atrocities are being committed consistently and on a wide scale by the soldiers of the Myanmar Army against innocent villagers (particularly those belonging to ethnic minorities) in the form of extrajudicial execution, forced labour, rape, forced relocation and confiscation of property.  In private conversations held with the Special Rapporteur, some high ranking officers of the army acknowledged the existence of such atrocities, but added that these were committed only rarely by some bad soldiers.

 

 

E.  Treatment of the Muslim population in Rakhine State

 

56.  In accordance with the agreement reached between Myanmar and Bangladesh on 28 April 1992, repatriation of the Myanmar residents having fled to Bangladesh began on 22 September 1992.  In order to facilitate a systematic and orderly repatriation, five reception camps were established on the Myanmar side of the border on 15 May 1992.  Of the five camps, only three are in fact being used.  The Special Rapporteur visited two such camps in the course of his visit to Rakhine State on 13 and 14 November 1993.  According to the figures supplied by the Government, a total of 9,209 households and 41,098 persons (20,103 males and 20,995 females) have been repatriated since 22 September 1992 and 12 October 1993.  However, a substantial number of Muslim population from Rakhine State still remain in the camps on the Bangladesh side of the border.  Many of them are said to be fearful of possible ill-treatment by the Myanmar authorities upon return and, therefore, do not wish to come back without some kind of international monitoring.  

 

57.  In this connection, the Special Rapporteur welcomes the willingness of the Government of Myanmar to cooperate with UNHCR, through elaboration of a Memorandum of Understanding with UNHCR signed on 5 November 1993, in order to ensure the voluntary and safe return of the Muslim population who had fled to Bangladesh from Rakhine State.  The Special Rapporteur was informed that preparations for UNHCR involvement in the repatriation process is making steady progress and some UNHCR staff would soon be sent to Myanmar.  A fund-raising operation for this purpose is under way and there have already been several positive responses from potential donors.

 

 

F.  Labour rights

 

58.  The Special Rapporteur has been informed that workers in Myanmar do not enjoy basic labour rights including, in particular, freedom of association and the right to organize.  There is hardly any trade union movement, and workers and trade unionists who criticize the Government would risk interrogation and arrest.  The Special Rapporteur takes note of the fact that the matter has been raised before appropriate bodies of the International Labour Organisation (ILO).  It is hoped that the work of the ILO would result in progress in the area of labour rights in Myanmar.  It should also be pointed out that the new constitution to be drafted would have clear provisions for basic labour rights in accordance with international standards.

 

 

G.  Rights of the child

 

59.  The Special Rapporteur is pleased to note that, by a letter dated 15 October 1993 from U Ohn Gyaw, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Myanmar, to Dr. Boutros Boutros-Ghali, Secretary-General of the United Nations, the Government formally withdrew the reservations made by Myanmar upon accession to the Convention on the Rights of the Child in July 1991 with respect to article 15 (regarding freedom of association) and article 37 (regarding the prohibition of torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment in regard, inter alia, to the treatment of children during interrogation).  However, the Special Rapporteur is disturbed to learn from the testimony of witnesses that there exist many cases of children being forced to serve the army as porters.  This practice, which is reported to remain widespread, would involve a variety of human rights violations, including forced labour, cruel and degrading treatment (if not also torture), and threats to life.

 

 

H.  The National Convention

 

60.  On 9 January 1993, the Government convened a National Convention to lay down the basic principles for the elaboration of a new and enduring constitution.  Of the 702 delegates from 8 categories of people, 49 are selected by the 10 political parties remaining after the 1990 elections, 106 are elected representatives and the remainder of the delegates from the other six categories were chosen by the SLORC.  Before any real discussion could take place at the National Convention, a broad framework of basic objectives was given by the Government as follows:  (a) non-disintegration of the Union; (b) non-disintegration of national solidarity; (c) consolidation and perpetuity of sovereignty; (d) emergence of a genuine multi-party democratic system; (e) development of eternal principles of justice, liberty and equality in the State; and (f) participation of Tatmadaw in a leadership role in the national politics of the future.

 

61.  The Special Rapporteur has been informed that each of the eight groups represented were to have a panel of five chairmen who would lead the discussions and that, in the political parties group, only one chairman was from the NLD - the party that won a majority in the 1990 elections.  In the elected representatives group, where 89 of the remaining 106 delegates were from the NLD, no NLD representatives were selected as chairmen.

 

62.  In response to the query by the Special Rapporteur with regard to the allegation that, since the beginning of the National Convention, numerous participants have been disqualified or arrested for allegedly contravening the guidelines and, in particular, for having questioned the leadership role foreseen for the Tatmadaw, the Government replied, in paragraph 34 of its note verbale of 17 October 1993, and as reproduced by the Special Rapporteur in his interim report to the General Assembly (A/48/578, para. 12), as follows:

 

"The sweeping allegations that numerous participants were disqualified or arrested for various reasons are totally false.  Out of all the delegates attending the National Convention, action was taken against the following five delegates:

 

"(a) The names of U Aung Htoo and Dr. Aung Khin Sint of the National League for Democracy were struck from the list of delegates representing the National League for Democracy.  This action was carried out at the request of the National League for Democracy itself;

 

"(b) Legal action was taken against U Maung, who represented one of the national racial groups, for infringement of existing laws;

 

"(c) A representative from Pekhon constituency was disqualified as he became involved in and joined a terrorist group;

 

"(d) The name of U Maung Ngwe of the Union Paoh National Organization was struck from the list of delegates as he passed away on 25 April 1993."

 

 

I.  The movement toward reconciliation with insurgents

 

63.  The Special Rapporteur has been informed that Secretary One, General Khin Nyunt, during his visit to Kayah State on 17 and 18 November 1993, spoke on the Government's efforts to restore peace and tranquillity and to promote social and economic development in the country.  In doing so he extended an official invitation to the armed groups to return to the legal fold, to hold talks with the Government and to join hands with the Government in the ongoing national endeavours for the development of border areas and national races.  It has been reported that in response to this invitation the Karen National Union (KNU), the largest armed insurgent group, has decided to enter into talks with the Government of Myanmar.  It is still too early to make any meaningful assessment of developments in this respect, but, from the viewpoint of protection of human rights, such a move towards true national reconciliation should be welcomed because, as stated above, many cases of serious human rights violations are being committed in the context of military operations.  

 

 

IV.  CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 

A.  Conclusions

 

64.  The visit of the Special Rapporteur to the Union of Myanmar at the invitation of the Government was facilitated by the efforts, cooperation and courtesy extended to him by the officials of the Government, in particular General Khin Nyunt, Secretary One of the SLORC, and U Ohn Gyaw, Minister for Foreign Affairs.  Most of the requests of the Special Rapporteur to meet with persons pertinent to his mandate were met, including meetings with the Attorney-General, Chief Justice, Minister of Information, some political leaders in detention and representatives of political parties.  However, the Special Rapporteur was disappointed that he was not allowed to meet with Daw Aung San Suu Kyi.  He also regrets that the meetings with the representatives of political parties were held at a place and in an atmosphere not fully ensuring privacy.  The Special Rapporteur, however, would wish to commend the Government for arranging quite efficiently his visits to Rakhine State, Insein prison and other places and facilities that he requested to visit.

 

65.  The Special Rapporteur generally observed in Yangon and Sitway (the capital of Rakhine State) that there were visible signs of relaxation of tension in the life of the people.  There were many consumer goods in market-places where many shoppers crowded.  Streets and bridges have been constructed or improved.  There were many cars on the streets.  In fact, in the centre of Yangon, there were traffic congestions and parking problems at certain times of the day.  However, the Special Rapporteur was informed that there were many poorer people in the cities and, in particular, in the countryside; these persons did not share in the prosperous life, and rather suffered from inflationary pressures on basic necessities such as rice and medicines.

 

66.  The Special Rapporteur continues to be concerned about the serious restrictions imposed upon people in the enjoyment of civil and political rights.  The people do not generally enjoy freedoms of thought, opinion, expression, publication and peaceful assembly and association.  They seem to be always fearful that whatever they or their family members say or do, particularly in the area of politics, would risk arrest and interrogation by the police or military intelligence.  Consequently, most people with whom the Special Rapporteur casually spoke avoided any conversation touching upon political subjects.  Several people told him that there were many persons wishing to tell the Special Rapporteur their stories, but were too afraid to come to see him.

 

67.  The persons whose civil and political rights are most severely restricted are the leaders of political parties, particularly the NLD leaders, and delegates to the National Convention, again those from the NLD.  Because of both visible and invisible pressures, they cannot assemble in a group, cannot freely discuss, and cannot publish or distribute printed materials.  In this situation it is difficult to assume that, in the National Convention, open and free exchanges of views and opinions are taking place in order to produce a truly multi-party democratic constitution.

 

68.  The Special Rapporteur is pleased to note that a little over 2,000 persons who had been imprisoned for political activities have been released since April 1992.  He would, however, express concern that there are still hundreds of such persons detained, most notably Daw Aung San Suu Kyi.  He also regrets that, since the summer of 1993, up to 60 persons have been arrested for engaging in political activities.  While some of them have been released, still others are detained and some have been sentenced to long prison terms.

 

69.  Government representatives have repeatedly explained to the Special Rapporteur that the Government is willing to transfer power to a civilian government, but that, in order to do so, they have to have a strong constitution and that, in order to have a strong constitution, they are doing their best to complete the work of the National Convention.  However, the Special Rapporteur cannot help but feel that, given the composition of the delegates (only one out of seven delegates was elected in the 1990 elections), given the restrictions imposed upon the delegates (practically no freedoms to assemble, to print and distribute leaflets or to make statements freely), and given the general guidelines to be strictly followed (including the principle regarding the leading role of Tatmadaw), the National Convention does not appear to constitute the necessary "steps towards the restoration to democracy, fully respecting the will of the people as expressed in the democratic elections held in 1990" (General Assembly resolution 47/144, para. 4).

 

70.  The Special Rapporteur welcomes the initiative of the Government of Myanmar to withdraw the two reservations relating to articles 15 and 37 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

 

71.  The Special Rapporteur also welcomes the signing on 5 November 1993 of a Memorandum of Understanding between the Union of Myanmar and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees to facilitate and guarantee the voluntary and safe return of Myanmar residents from Bangladesh.

 

72.  The Special Rapporteur further welcomes the undertaking of various training programmes for military officers and soldiers with the cooperation of the International Committee of the Red Cross and the Myanmar Red Cross Society in the area of international humanitarian law.

 

73.  The Special Rapporteur is paying special attention to the recent successes of the Government initiative to invite the armed insurgent groups to enter into talks with the Government and he notes in particular some initially positive response from the Karen National Union.  He is hopeful that the process will move forward in the direction of obtaining true reconciliation and peace throughout the country.

 

 

B.  Recommendations

 

74.  In the light of the foregoing conclusions, the Special Rapporteur submits the following recommendations for the consideration of the Government of Myanmar:

 

(a)  The Government of Myanmar should fulfil in good faith the obligations it has assumed under Articles 55 and 56 of the Charter of the United Nations "to take joint and separate action in cooperation with the Organization for the achievement of ... universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language and religion".  In this respect, the Special Rapporteur would wish to note that the Government of Myanmar is in an ideal position because it could encourage the delegates to the National Convention to include various human rights provisions in the new constitution using, as a reference, the provisions of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, copies of which the Minister of Information has agreed to circulate among the delegates;

 

(b)  The Government of Myanmar should consider accession to the International Covenants on Human Rights, the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment and the two Protocols Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 1949;

 

(c)  Myanmar law should be brought into line with accepted international standards regarding protection of physical integrity rights, including the right to life, protection against disappearance, prohibition of torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, providing humane conditions for all persons under detention and ensuring the minimum standards of judicial guarantees.  Freedoms of thought, assembly and expression, including a free press and media, should be fully guaranteed;

 

(d)  All political leaders, including elected political representatives, students, workers, peasants and others arrested or detained under martial law after the 1988 and 1990 demonstrations or as a result of the National Convention, should be tried by a properly constituted and independent civilian court in an open and internationally accessible judicial process.  If found guilty in such judicial proceedings, they should be given a just sentence or, alternatively, they should be immediately released with the Government accepting responsibility to refrain from all acts of intimidation, threat or reprisal against them or their families.  With respect to Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, the Government should release her immediately.  In any event, she should not be kept under house arrest after 20 July 1994 when, according to the Government's own interpretation of Myanmar law, there will be no legal basis to continue to keep her under house arrest;

 

(e)  The Government of Myanmar should take the necessary steps to bring the acts of soldiers, including privates and officers, in line with accepted international human rights and humanitarian standards so that they will not commit arbitrary killings, rapes and confiscations of property, or force persons into acts of labour, portering, relocation or otherwise treat persons without respect for their dignity as human beings.  When the hiring of local villagers for porterage and other works may be required for governmental purposes, it should be obtained on a voluntary basis and adequate wages should be paid.  The nature of work should be reasonable and in accordance with established international labour standards.  When relocation of villages is considered necessary for military operations or for development projects, proper consultation with the villagers should take place and appropriate compensation should be paid for those relocations which may be determined necessary for reasons of the public good;

 

(f)  Military and law enforcement personnel, including prison guards, should be thoroughly informed and trained as to their responsibilities for all persons in full accord with the standards as set out in international human rights instruments and humanitarian law.  Such standards should be incorporated into Myanmar law and legislation, including the new constitution to be drafted.  The training programme undertaken recently with the cooperation of the ICRC is a good start in this direction and should be continued;

 

(g)  Given the magnitude of the abuses, official condemnation should be made by the Government of all acts by authorities involving human rights violations.  Such acts, including all acts of intimidation, threat or reprisal, should not benefit from the present system of complete denial by, and impunity under, the Government;

 

(h)  The Government of Myanmar should consider the revision of the 1982 Citizenship Law to abolish its burdensome requirements for citizenship.  The law should not apply its categories of second-class citizenship in a manner which has discriminatory effects on racial or ethnic minorities, particularly Rakhine Muslims.  It should be brought into line with the principles embodied in the Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness of 30 August 1961;

 

(i)  The Government of Myanmar is encouraged to cooperate with UNHCR in facilitating and ensuring the voluntary and safe return of Rakhine Muslims from Bangladesh.

 

 

-----

 

************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************

 

 

UNITED NATIONS

Economic and Social Council

 

Distr. GENERAL

 

E/CN.4/1995/65

12 January 1995

 

Original: ENGLISH

 

 

COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS

Fifty-first session

Item 12 of the provisional agenda

 

 

QUESTION OF THE VIOLATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS, IN ANY PART OF THE WORLD, WITH PARTICULAR REFERENCE TO COLONIAL AND OTHER DEPENDENT COUNTRIES AND TERRITORIES

 

Report on the situation of human rights in Myanmar, prepared by the Special Rapporteur, Mr. Yozo Yokota, in accordance with Commission resolution 1994/85*/

 

 

CONTENTS

Paragraphs

 

Introduction 1-16

A. Mandate 1-4

B. Historical background 5-16

 

I. ACTIVITIES OF THE SPECIAL RAPPORTEUR 17-94

A. Introduction 17

B. Visit to Myanmar 18-93

C. Visits to camps in Thailand 94

 

II. ALLEGATIONS 95-144

A. Extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary execution 95-103

B. Arbitrary arrest and detention 104-113

C. Torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment 114-117

D.Freedom of movement 118-120

E. Freedom of expression 121-123

F. Labour rights 124-127

G. Rights of the child 128-129

H. Treatment of the Muslim population in Rakhine State 130-135

I. The National Convention 136-141

J. The movement towards reconciliation with insurgents 142-155

 

III. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 145-155

 

Annexes:

(Documents given to the Special Rapporteur by the Myanmar authorities)

 

I. Response of the Government of Myanmar to allegations of extrajudicial execution while in Custody, as raised by the Special Rapporteur during his meeting with Colonel Kyaw Win of the Directorate of Defence Service Intelligence on 10 November 1994 p38

 

II. National armed groups which have returned to the legal fold p42

 

III. Chart showing particulars of those against whom action has been taken for having contact with KNU insurgents and who have been released by the Myanmar authorities during 1994 p 43

 

 

 

Introduction

 

A. Mandate

 

1. The mandate of the Special Rapporteur of the Commission on Human Rights on the situation of human rights in Myanmar has been described in each of the Special Rapporteur's previous reports to the General Assembly (A/47/651, A/48/578 and A/49/594), and to the Commission on Human Rights (E/CN.4/1993/37 and E/CN.4/1994/57). The mandate, initially articulated in Commission resolution 1992/58 and extended most recently by the Commission in its resolution 1994/85 of 9 March 1994 (approved by the Economic and Social Council in its decision 1994/269 of 25 July 1994), required the Special Rapporteur to establish or to continue direct contacts with the Government and the people of Myanmar, including political leaders deprived of their liberty, their families and their lawyers, with a view to examining the situation of human rights in Myanmar and following any progress made towards the transfer of power to a civilian government and the drafting of a new constitution, the lifting of restrictions on personal freedoms and the restoration of human rights in Myanmar. In resolution 1994/85, the Commission urged the Government of Myanmar to extend its full and unreserved cooperation to the Commission and the Special Rapporteur and, to that end, to ensure that the Special Rapporteur had effectively free access to any person in Myanmar whom he might deem it appropriate to meet in the performance of his mandate, including Daw Aung San Suu Kyi; and requested the Special Rapporteur to report to the General Assembly at its forty-ninth session and to the Commission at its fifty-first session.

 

2. The substantive issues addressed by the Commission on Human Rights in resolution 1994/85 include the following concerns: that the electoral process initiated in Myanmar by the general elections of 27 May 1990 has not yet reached its conclusion and that the Government still has not implemented its commitments to take all the necessary steps towards democracy in the light of those elections; that many political leaders, in particular elected representatives, remain deprived of their liberty and that Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, a Nobel Peace Prize laureate, is still under house arrest; and that serious violations of a variety of fundamental rights continue, inter alia the practice of forced labour, including forced portering and forced displacement of the population. The Commission also expressed its concern about the continuous problems created in neighbouring countries by the exodus of refugees from Myanmar.

 

3. In addition, the Commission took note of the fact that the Government of Myanmar had acceded to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949; signed a memorandum of understanding on 5 November 1993 with the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) concerning the voluntary and safe repatriation of refugees from Bangladesh; received the Special Rapporteur for a visit to Myanmar; and observed cease-fires and undertaken negotiations with several minority groups.

 

4. The Special Rapporteur submitted a preliminary report to the General Assembly at its forty-ninth session in October 1994 (A/49/594 and Add 1). The present comprehensive report is submitted to the Commission on Human Rights at its fifty-first session for its consideration.

 

 

B. Historical background

 

5. In 1948, the Union of Myanmar (then called Burma) gained independence from British colonial rule. From 1948 until 1962, the country was governed by a parliamentary democracy based on the Constitution of 2 September 1947. It provided for a federal system of government with separate executive, legislative and judicial branches. The states under the Union were considered autonomous. According to article 201 of the Constitution of 1947, ethnic minorities had, in theory, the right to secede from the Union, but, under article 202, this right was not to be exercised until 10 years from the date of entry into force of the Constitution. In March 1948, an armed insurgency against the then Government of Burma was begun by the Communist Party of Burma. Between 1948 and 1961, various minority ethnic groups joined the armed insurgency.

 

6. In March 1962, General Ne Win took power in a coup d'état. He installed one-party (the Burma Socialist Programme Party) rule under military control and embarked upon a programme known as the "Burmese Way to Socialism". In 1974, a new constitution was drafted under which one-party rule continued.

 

7. Towards 1988, nationwide demonstrations began in reaction to the suppression of all civil and political rights since the overthrow of the constitutional Government in 1962 and to the economic failure as a consequence of the policy of the "Burmese Way to Socialism".

 

8. From March to June 1988, students, workers and monks demonstrated for more freedom and democracy, but the army used harsh measures to crush the demonstrations. Hundreds of civilians were arrested and many suffered severe injuries or died from ill-treatment in detention. Many persons were summarily or arbitrarily executed. On 21 June 1988, the Government imposed a ban on all public gatherings.

 

9. On 23 July 1988, General Ne Win resigned as party leader and promised economic reform and the holding of a referendum to end one-party rule and institute a multi-party system. However, demonstrations continued and the army and riot police attacked the demonstrators. It was reported that approximately 3,000 persons were killed in August 1988 alone. On 18 September 1988, the military took power and the State Law and Order Restoration Council (SLORC) was set up under the chairmanship of the Chief of Staff, Senior General Saw Maung. The National Assembly (Pyithu Hluttaw), the Council of State and other governmental bodies were dissolved. Free elections were promised by SLORC, but Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, daughter of General U Aung San (the national hero of independence who was assassinated in 1947) and General Secretary of the National League for Democracy (NLD), was banned from campaigning on the grounds that she kept unlawful association with insurgent organizations. On 20 July 1989, Daw Aung San Suu Kyi was detained by government forces. She has been under house arrest without trial since then and, in 1991, she was awarded the Nobel Prize for Peace. Many others, including most of the important opposition political leaders, were also detained.

 

10. On 27 May 1990, general elections were held in which the main opposition party (NLD) won 81 per cent of the seats (392 seats out of a total 485) and 60 per cent of the vote. However, the official announcement of the results of the elections was postponed by SLORC in order to allow the Election Commission set up by SLORC to scrutinize the expense accounts of all elected representatives.

 

11. Beginning in early 1992, a mass exodus of Myanmar Muslims from Rakhine State into Bangladesh was reported. At least 250,000 such persons sought refuge for fear of persecution. On 28 April 1992, the Governments of Myanmar and Bangladesh signed an agreement for the voluntary and safe return of the refugees. By October 1993, approximately 40,000 refugees had returned to Myanmar under this arrangement.

 

12. On 5 November 1993, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and the Government of Myanmar signed a memorandum of understanding in an effort to ensure the voluntary and safe repatriation of the persons who had left the country. This memorandum of understanding was similar to the one between UNHCR and the Government of Bangladesh signed on 12 May 1993. Both Governments expressed satisfaction at this accord and at the participation of UNHCR. Between September 1992 and the end of September 1994, a total of 75,000 refugees returned to Myanmar. Another 45,000 refugees are expected to return before the end of 1994.

 

13. In April 1992, General Than Shwe became Chairman of SLORC after General Sa Maung had resigned from the post for reasons of health. Since this change of leadership, a number of new policies have been announced and implemented, including the release of many political leaders in detention (among them the former Prime Minister U Nu, but not Daw Aung San Suu Kyi); the holding of a national convention to draft the principles and guidelines for a new constitution; the granting of permission to the family of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi to visit her; the opening of universities and other institutions of higher education; the lifting of the curfew order and martial law; and cessation of the hearing of civilian cases by military tribunals.

 

14. On 9 January 1993, the National Convention was convened, composed of 702 delegates in eight categories: (a) representatives of political parties, including NLD (49); (b) representatives elected in the 1990 elections (107); (c) representatives of national racial groups (215); (d) representatives of peasants (93); (e) representatives of workers (48); (f) representatives of the intelligentsia and technocrats (41); (g) representatives of state service personnel (92); and (h) other invited persons (57). The meeting of the National Convention has been adjourned several times for reasons not clear to outside observers.

 

15. When the National Convention adjourned on 9 April 1994, the Chairman of the National Convention, Chief Justice U Aung Toe, stated that agreement had been reached on the principles for drafting the chapters of the constitution on the State, the state structure and the Head of State. According to these principles, the country would be governed by an executive president and two vice presidents, elected by presidential electoral colleges formed by all members of the two houses of Parliament. The National Convention reconvened on 2 September 1994. The subjects on its current agenda are self-administered divisions and self-administered zones, the legislature, the executive and the judiciary.

 

16. In July 1994, Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, began her sixth year of house arrest. Earlier in the year, and for the first time since her arrest, she was allowed to meet with persons other than her immediate family. United States Congressman William Richardson met with her twice at her home during his visit to Myanmar from 15 to 17 February. Also present at the meetings were the Resident Representative of the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) in Myanmar, a representative of the United States Embassy, and a reporter from The New York Times. On 20 September 1994, Daw Aung San Suu Kyi attended another meeting with the Chairman of SLORC, General Than Shwe, and Secretary One, Lieutenant General Khin Nyunt, at a governmental guest-house. The meeting was the result of mediation by Dr. Rewata Dhamma, a Burmese Buddhist monk living in the United Kingdom. During two visits to Myanmar in 1994, Dr. Rewata Dhamma met with Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, whom he has known for many years, and also with members of SLORC. A second meeting between SLORC representatives, Lieutenant General Khin Nyunt, Armed Forces Judge-Advocate, General Brigadier Than Oo and Armed Forces Inspector-General, Brigadier General Tin Aye and Daw Aung San Suu Kyi took place on 28 October 1994 at a governmental guest-house.

 

 

I. ACTIVITIES OF THE SPECIAL RAPPORTEUR

 

A. Introduction

 

17. In carrying out his mandate, the Special Rapporteur has continued to seek information from all relevant sources. During the past year, information in the form of letters and reports has been received on a regular basis from a wide variety of individuals and non-governmental organizations, as well as from the Government of Myanmar. In November 1994, the Special Rapporteur visited Myanmar, conducted interviews with high-level government officials, as well as representatives of various United Nations specialized agencies and bodies, including the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF), representatives of various non-governmental organizations and the people of Myanmar both inside the country and outside as he paid visits to places relevant to his mandate.

 

 

B. Visit to Myanmar

 

18. On 10 August 1994, the Special Rapporteur addressed a letter to the Government of Myanmar requesting permission to visit the country from 7 to 16 November 1994 and to have audiences with high governmental officials and meetings in circumstances providing full confidentiality with leaders of political parties, including those in detention or under restriction, in particular Daw Aung San Suu Kyi. The Special Rapporteur also requested full and free access to all individuals and representatives of non-governmental and intergovernmental organizations, whom he might deem it necessary to meet in the carrying out of his mandate or who might have expressed the wish to meet him. He further requested permission to visit prisons and other centres of detention, and to have confidential contact with those detained. In addition, the Special Rapporteur requested that he be granted full access to other areas of the country, in particular the eastern part, for the purpose of carrying out unrestricted and confidential visits with the recent returnees. By letter dated 23 September 1994, the Government replied that the Special Rapporteur would be welcome in Myanmar.

 

19. The Special Rapporteur visited Myanmar from 7 to 16 November 1994. Prior to the visit, the Special Rapporteur had been in frequent contact with the Permanent Representative of Myanmar to the United Nations Office at Geneva and with the Minister for Foreign Affairs, who cooperated fully and facilitated the visit. During his visit to Myanmar all of the Special Rapporteur's specific requests for meetings with high-level government officials were met. Similarly, visits to Mon, Mandalay and Mengwe States were facilitated with appropriate briefings, meetings and visits in the areas concerned. In general, the Special Rapporteur enjoyed relative freedom of movement and access to private persons and others of interest, with some notable exceptions which will be addressed below. In addition, he was promptly furnished with all the documentary information he requested before, during and after his visit. Consequently, the Special Rapporteur would like to record his deep appreciation to the Government of Myanmar for its cooperation in facilitating his visit to the country and in responding to his requests for information and explanations.

 

20. In Yangon the Special Rapporteur met with the following governmental representatives: Lieutenant General Khin Nyunt, Secretary One of SLORC; U Ohn Gyaw, Minister for Foreign Affairs; Colonel Kyaw Win, Deputy-Director of the Directorate of Defence Services Intelligence; Brigadier General Myo Thant, Minister of Information; U Tha Tun, Attorney-General; and U Aung Toe, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. In Mawlamyine, Mon State, the Special Rapporteur met with the Vice-Commandant of South Eastern Command, Col. Mya Nyein; in Mandalay, Mandalay State, with the Commander of Central Command, Major-General Kyaw Than; and in Pakkokhu, Mengwe State, with the Commander of North Western Command, Major-General Hla Myint Swe.

 

21. In the course of his visit to Myanmar, the Special Rapporteur paid visits to the following governmental institutions and facilities: administrative offices of the Ministry of Home Affairs, Insein and Mandalay prisons; the National Convention premises; Yangon University campus; and Dagon University in the Dagon New Township.

 

22. The Special Rapporteur also visited and met with representatives of the following national organizations and institutions: the Myanmar Maternal and Child Welfare Association, the Union Solidarity and Development Association, the Myanmar Red Cross Society and representatives of the Department of Law at Yangon University.

 

23. On 11 November 1994, the Special Rapporteur met with representatives of the following political parties which are participating in the National Convention drafting the new constitution of the Union of Myanmar: the National League for Democracy (NLD); the Union Kayene League; and the National Unity Party (NUP).

 

24. While the information and views obtained in the course of his visits and meetings will be reflected below under relevant subject headings, the Special Rapporteur draws attention here to the salient aspects of the visits and meetings mentioned above.

 

 

1. Meeting with Secretary One

 

25. On the morning of 14 November 1994, Secretary One of SLORC, Lieutenant General Khin Nyunt, received the Special Rapporteur at the Ministry of Defence. They discussed political, economic and social changes and enjoyed a frank, open and lengthy exchange of views which touched upon issues of concern for the respect of human rights in Myanmar.

 

26. On the matter of the general political organization of the State, Lieutenant General Khin Nyunt explained that SLORC took power in 1988 to counter anarchy that was prevailing in the country during the riots and to re-establish security for the people and maintain stability in a country that is composed of 135 ethnic groups. Lieutenant General Khin Nyunt said that, to achieve unity in Myanmar, SLORC was managing a process of national reconciliation in which a variety of insurgent groups were now being brought back into the legal framework of discussions and the National Convention was engaged in a process that would lead to the drafting of a new, strong constitution for the country. Lieutenant General Khin Nyunt assured the Special Rapporteur that once the new constitution had been drafted and adopted elections would take place and a civilian government would take power. With regard to the time frame for the transfer of power to a civilian government, Lieutenant General Khin Nyunt stated that it was not yet the moment to specify when a new civilian government would be formed under such a constitution. However, he explained that it was the intention of the Government to complete the process of the National Convention as soon as possible because it was costing half a million kyats a day to manage. He also explained that, before those goals were achieved, two basic conditions would have to be met: (a) political and social stability must be maintained and (b) the "Union" as a multi-ethnic State must be secured so as to avoid a disastrous dissolution of the State. He strongly stressed that the Tatmadaw (the army) had no intention of remaining in political power for ever.

 

27. Lieutenant General Khin Nyunt described a variety of social and economic development initiatives which had been taken by the Government in managing the process of national reconciliation and restoring law and order since it took power in 1988, in order to improve the lives of the people and help "build nationalism", i.e. the general sentiment of belonging to one's beloved country and building and protecting the nation. In this regard, Lieutenant General Khin Nyunt cited different projects launched by the Government, for example, the construction of roads, bridges and railroads. He said that such projects had been realized all around the country in order to develop all the regions and to reduce the gap between rich and poor and between urban and rural areas. Specifically, the transportation system in the country was being improved and the Government was also attempting to improve agricultural production by building several dams in the country. Regarding these development projects, Lieutenant General Khin Nyunt said that the slanderous stories about forced labour were not true and were only invented by persons who did not want to see Myanmar developed, or by insurgent groups. He stated that the people of Myanmar were of the Buddhist faith and they contributed voluntarily to the development projects, believing that they would be the first to enjoy the results on earth and thereafter. He said that the army was also taking part in those works, together with prisoners, who would have their sentences reduced.

 

28. On the general subject of human rights, Lieutenant General Khin Nyunt explained that Myanmar had a population of 43 million persons, yet only a few hundred persons were criticizing the situation of human rights in the country and writing and reporting false information.

 

29. Regarding the reasons for the detention of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, Lieutenant General Khin Nyunt noted that she was the daughter of the national hero and had only come back into the country in 1988, after several years of absence, in order to see her mother, who was ill. Her absence from the country for a long period had not permitted her to understand the political and social situation, i.e. the chaos instigated by the Communists, which had prevailed in the country in 1988 and, therefore, while she had been getting involved in political affairs, she had not realized that she was being manipulated by "the Communists". Consequently she had accepted leadership of the movement, which had then been unable to control the riots. Concerning the Special Rapporteur's specific questions and his requests to visit her, Lieutenant General Khin Nyunt stated that it was not yet the appropriate moment for a visit. Since the Government was meeting her and holding discussions with her, it did not want any interference in that dialogue, which was being conducted in a "good manner" and based on a "mutual understanding". He hoped that the Special Rapporteur understood the circumstances and all the security, political and administrative concerns that such a decision involved. When asked if the Government intended to release her on 20 July 1995 in conformity with the law, Lieutenant General Khin Nyunt answered that it was still too early to say and that the decision had to be taken by the Council of Ministers and also at the level of SLORC. Secretary One assured the Special Rapporteur that SLORC intended to continue its dialogue with Daw Aung San Suu Kyi in the future.

 

30. Regarding the venue of the meetings between political leaders and the Special Rapporteur, which were arranged to take place at a government guest-house despite the strong request by the Special Rapporteur to meet with them in private at his office in the United Nations compound in Yangon, Secretary One said that politicians were quite free to go about their business and to travel freely in the country with the permission of the Government. However, they could not be allowed to disturb the peace and tranquillity or bring about disorder. As a government, SLORC had to take into consideration several concerns, i.e. economic and political, including security, concerns. It was in that connection that he justified the arrests of the five opposition activists which occurred between July and October 1994. He added that, in order to understand the human rights situation in the country, the situation had to be seen in the overall framework as explained by him; people were not severely repressed.

 

31. Regarding collaboration with the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), Secretary One indicated that a memorandum of understanding with ICRC was under active consideration and that a favourable decision was expected in due course.

 

32. Lieutenant General Khin Nyunt ended the meeting by stating that the Government was attempting to develop the country politically, economically and socially, and that, although there were problems, these would be overcome. It could not allow the country to be destroyed or to disintegrate. It would carry on action, in accordance with the law, against any activity aimed at disunity and destruction of the country.

 

 

2. Meeting with the Minister for Foreign Affairs

 

33. The Minister for Foreign Affairs, U Ohn Gyaw, received the Special Rapporteur on 8 November 1994. During the meeting, various issues relevant to the mandate of the Special Rapporteur were discussed.

 

34. The Minister for Foreign Affairs outlined the cooperation of the Government of Myanmar with the United Nations and the Special Rapporteur, whose tasks had been facilitated and requests met despite the fact that the Government did not agree with the resolution of the Commission on Human Rights. Regarding the Special Rapporteur's request to meet Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, the Minister replied that the Government of Myanmar could not respond to all the requests made by the various personalities who would like to meet Daw Aung San Suu Kyi; otherwise it would become a "kind of circus". He explained the long process which United States Congressman William Richardson and Dr. Rewata Dhamma, a Burmese Buddhist monk, had followed in order to see her, and added that Daw Aung San Suu Kyi as an individual had also the right to refuse to see people.

 

35. With respect to the allegations of human rights violations regarding forced portering and forced labour, the Foreign Minister rejected them and said that they were completely false. According to him, local inhabitants, because of their Buddhist faith, were voluntarily cooperating in the various development projects in the country. These citizens did not even ask for money because they would consider it to be an insult.

 

36. With regard to the National Convention and the drafting of the Constitution, priority must be given to national reconciliation and achieving peaceful relations between all the national races in order to obtain a consensus in the country and secure the Union. When asked by the Special Rapporteur if a copy of the Universal Declaration oft it was impossible to distribute it among 700 delegates, but an English copy was available at the Convention Library.

 

 

3. Meeting with the Deputy Director of the Directorate of Defence Services Intelligence

 

37. On the afternoon of 10 November 1994, the Special Rapporteur met with Col. Kyaw Win, Deputy Director of the Directorate of Defence Services Intelligence. During the meeting, various issues relevant to the mandate of the Special Rapporteur were discussed.

 

38. Col. Kyaw Win explained to the Special Rapporteur that the principal aim of the current Government was to achieve democracy in the country. He added that that objective could not be achieved without stability in the country. Therefore, priority was being given to national reconciliation and economic development.

 

39. Regarding political stability, Col. Kyaw Win informed the Special Rapporteur that there were still three "insurgent" groups (the Karen National Union (KNU); a Mon faction; and the Karen National Union Party (KNUPP)) who were not taking part in the work of the National Convention.

 

40. Regarding economic development, Col. Kyaw Win provided the Special Rapporteur with details of the progress that had been made in that domain, as well as the various development projects which were under way in the country. He added that if the people of Myanmar did not have food, clothes and houses, there would be no human rights in the country.

 

41. With regard to the allegations of human rights violations regarding forced portering and forced labour, Col. Kyaw Win said that those accusations mainly concerned locations where insurgent groups were fighting against the Myanmar Army. Such false information was provided by the insurgents to destroy the image of the Government.

 

 

4. Meeting with the Minister of Information

 

42. On the afternoon of 11 November 1994, the Special Rapporteur met with Brigadier General Myo Thant, Minister of Information, together with members of the Information Committee over which the Minister presides. The discussion focused on the democratization process and, in particular, the National Convention. The Minister first recounted the process from its very start, explaining how the Preparatory Committee for the National Convention was constituted, specifying the composition of delegations to the National Convention and highlighting the achievements of each meeting of the National Convention, since it began on 7 January 1993 up to recent developments.

 

43. Regarding the suggestion made last year by the Special Rapporteur that a copy of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, in the Burmese language, be provided to every National Convention delegate in relation to deliberations on a future constitution, while the Minister accepted the Special Rapporteur's suggestion and received an authentic copy of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in the English language, together with an unofficial translation in the Burmese language, the Declaration was not circulated to National Convention delegates as agreed. The Minister told the Special Rapporteur that only an English copy was available at the Convention Library.

 

44. The Minister provided further basic information on the following subjects: (a) the availability of international newspapers and magazines in Yangon; (b) the preparation of the country for the celebration of 1996 as The Year of Tourism (Visit Myanmar Year); (c) the composition of the Government, which was the same as the previous year; (d) the cost and availability of basic commodities; and (e) the remaining number of political leaders in detention or in prison.

 

 

5. Meetings with the Attorney-General and the Chief Justice

 

45. On the morning of 15 November 1994, the Special Rapporteur met with Attorney-General U Tha Tun after having earlier met with Chief Justice Aung Toe. In his discussion with the Chief Justice, the recent trials of political leaders, the National Convention (which the Chief Justice is Chairing) and some issues of legislative reform (for which the Chief Justice is not responsible, but of which he has some knowledge as a Member of the Law Revision Commission formed by the Government) were addressed.

 

46. The discussion with Attorney-General U Tha Tun revolved around new legislation, such as reform of existing Myanmar legislation, for which the Attorney-General has some responsibility both in his governmental office and as Chairman of the Law Revision Commission.

 

47. In response to the Special Rapporteur's inquiries about the collaboration between the Government of Myanmar and ICRC, the Attorney-General informed him that the Myanmar authorities were still scrutinizing the draft memorandum of understanding to see if it affected the sovereignty of the country and if it was in accordance with the national laws. The Attorney-General also informed the Special Rapporteur that ICRC was assisting the authorities in their task of spreading knowledge of international humanitarian law within the armed forces. To that end, ICRC had held an introductory three-day course for 27 high-ranking officers of the Myanmar Defence Forces in April 1993. A full five-day course for tactical operations commanders had taken place in Yangon in November 1993. It had been attended by 30 officers. A six-day seminar-workshop for trainers of the Myanmar Defence Forces had been held in early November 1994.

 

 

6. Meetings with leaders of political parties

 

48. On the morning of 11 November 1994, the Special Rapporteur met with representatives of three political parties participating in the National Convention, i.e. the National League for Democracy (NLD), the National Unity Party (NUP) and the Union Kayene League. As last year, and in spite of the strong request by the Special Rapporteur to meet with them in private at his office in the United Nations compound in Yangon, the meetings were arranged to take place at a government guest-house (at 36 Inya Road). The location and atmosphere of the meetings were obviously not conducive to a free and unencumbered exchange of views. In addition, one of the party delegates told the Special Rapporteur that they had been notified to meet with the Special Rapporteur only three hours before the meeting.

 

49. The Special Rapporteur first met with the two representatives of NLD; Chairman U Aung Shwe and a member of the Central Executive Committee, U Than Tun. They explained that, in the National Convention, three headings of the 16 chapters in the forthcoming new constitution had been agreed upon by November 1994. The NLD delegates told the Special Rapporteur that most of their proposals in the National Convention had not been agreed upon except for a very few parts. In the process, should there be any disagreement which had to be settled through discussion, the position of NLD was never taken into consideration. They were requesting that a clause containing human rights provisions be includ