Malaisie: procédure ajournée et pas de traitement médical en détention pour l'avocat des droits humains P. Uthayakumar

Your Excellency,

I am deeply concerned following reports of the delay in proceedings in the case of human rights defender and lawyer, Mr P. Uthayakumar. He continues to be deprived of his required prescription medication for diabetes and is suffering from a number of diabetes related illnesses. Mr P. Uthayakumar is a human rights lawyer working to defend the rights of the ethnic minority Indians and an active Legal Advisor of Hindu Rights Action Force (HINDRAF). He was arrested on 13 December 2007 for organising a peaceful demonstration.

On 25 June 2008, Mr P. Uthayakumar had a scheduled habeas corpus hearing. On that day the Director of Public Prosecution (DPP) served an additional twenty-one affidavits upon the lawyers for P. Uthayakumar. Due to the last minute filing of the said affidavits the hearing was adjourned until 31 July 2008 in order to allow the defense lawyers to respond. The application had been filed at the Kuala Lumpur High Court for a release order on the grounds of medical deprivation and treatment. I believe that the filing of additional affidavits constitutes a deliberate attempt to delay the proceedings and further deny Mr P. Uthayakumar the required medical attention.

Mr P. Uthayakumar has been a diabetic patient since 1996. His condition required that he take medication, 500 mg of Glucophage three times a day and 80mg of Diamicron twice a day, which would control his blood sugar levels and maintain a level of between 5 and 7 mmol/L. Following his arrest on 13 December 2007, the prison authorities at first allowed his family to supply his medication. In February 2008 the prison authorities refused to accept the medication and furthermore did not provide Mr P. Uthayakumar with any alternative medication despite repeated formal requests that it be supplied or accepted from family members. Mr P. Uthayakumar believes that the prison authorities have been intentionally providing him with a diet of rice and curry made in a 'Malay' style that is very sweet, in a deliberate attempt to affect his health. On 7 April 2008 he was admitted to the Taiping General Hospital, suffering from frequent thirst, urination, tiredness, headaches, dizziness, weakness, high blood pressure, skin disease and problems with his vision. He had a blood sugar level reading of 18,8 mmol/L.

Mr P. Uthayakumar was arrested on 13 December 2007 together with Messrs M. Manoharan, V. Ganapathy Rao, Mr T.Vasanthakumar and R. Kengatharan, under the Internal Security Act (ISA) of Malaysia on the grounds of threatening national security by organising a peaceful demonstration. All five human rights lawyers had taken up, on a pro bono basis, many cases of death in police custody and police violence. They had filed many cases against the Malaysian Government and authorities. I believe that Messrs P. Uthayakumar, M. Manoharan, V. Ganapathy Rao, Mr T.Vasanthakumar and R. Kengatharan have been targeted as a result of their legitimate work in the defence of human rights, in particular their work defending the rights of the ethnic minority Indians in Malaysia. I am concerned for the physical and psychological integrity of the aforementioned human rights defenders, in particular Mr P. Uthayakumar who is suffering from diabetes and is not receiving the required medication.

I urge the Malaysian authorities to:

1. Immediately release Messrs P. Uthayakumar, M. Manoharan, V. Ganapathy Rao, Mr T.Vasanthakumar and R. Kengatharan as it is believed that they are being detained solely on account of their legitimate human rights activities;

2. Ensure that Mr P. Uthayakumar is supplied with all required medication for his condition and medical attention as needed;

3. Take all necessary measures to guarantee the physical and psychological security and integrity of the aforementioned human rights defenders;

4. Guarantee in all circumstances that human rights defenders in Malaysia are able to carry out their legitimate human rights activities without fear of reprisals, and free of all restrictions including judicial harassment.

I respectfully remind you that the United Nations Declaration on the Right and Responsibility of Individuals, Groups and Organs of Society to Promote and Protect Universally Recognized Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, adopted by consensus by the UN General Assembly on 9 December 1998, recognises the legitimacy of the activities of human rights defenders, their right to freedom of association and to carry out their activities without fear of reprisals.

I would particularly draw attention to Article 6 (c): “Everyone has the right, individually and in association with others: (c) To study, discuss, form and hold opinions on the observance, both in law and in practice, of all human rights and fundamental freedoms and, through these and other appropriate means, to draw public attention to those matters”, and to Article 12 (2): “The State shall take all necessary measures to ensure the protection by the competent authorities of everyone, individually and in association with others, against any violence, threats, retaliation, de facto or de jure adverse discrimination, pressure or any other arbitrary action as a consequence of his or her legitimate exercise of the rights referred to in the present declaration.”

Yours sincerely,