Injuries not from 'a fall', doc tells Suhakam
The injuries observed on Hanafi Hawari, a Bersih 2.0 rally participant could not have resulted from “a fall”, said the doctor who had attended to the youth.
The injuries observed on Hanafi Hawari, a Bersih 2.0 rally participant could not have resulted from “a fall”, said the doctor who had attended to the youth.
Dr Abd Adzim E Arim Sasi, based at the Trauma and Emergency Unit at Hospital Kuala Lumpur (HKL), agreed with this suggestion by representatives of the Bar Council.
It is holding a watching brief at the Human Rights Commission (Suhakam) public inquiry into issues relating to the massive street protest on July 9.
“If a person’s head is covered with a bag... and he is handcuffed to the back, he can’t see what’s in front of him. So, if he can’t see, is it possible that he knocks into anything in his way?” asked lawyer Richard Wee.
Adzim replied that “it is possible”.
Wee then asked if, under these circumstances, if it would be impossible for the detainee to use any “self-defence measures to avoid getting hurt”.
“That is correct,” said Adzim, speaking from three years of experience in dealing with emergency cases.
The doctor had attended to Hanafi
(right)
, 21, in the wee hours of July 10 after the youth was released from the Jinjang police station where about 1,700 demonstrators had been held.
“Hanafi had sustained injuries to the right and left side of the head. I would say it was a soft tissue injury and minimal conjunctiva (or haemorrhage) in the left eye,” said Adzim.
He added that Hanafi informed him that he had been beaten up by three or four police officers.
Asked by conducting officer Ameer Izyanif Hamzah on the cause of the injuries, Adzim said: "It is due to trauma, but I can't say the exact mechanics. It could be due to a fall or assault or other things."
The Suhakam panel showed a series of photographs of Hanafi, in which his head was covered with a bag-like item of opaque white material.
‘Accidental fall’ ruled out
Adzim had earlier testified that "it is not possible" for one to sustain direct facial injury upon falling to the ground, taking into consideration that, in such situations, there would be "self-defence".
He found no injuries on other parts of Hanafi's body to indicate "self-defence" was used.
"If there was self-defence, the face is rarely injured," he told commissioner Detta Samen (left) .
Detta:
"Also it can't be injured on the left and the right side of his face at the same time?"Adzim: "Yes, very unlikely ...the injuries could not have been caused by accidental fall”.
He also agreed with Wee that the injury to the left eye could have been due to a blow.
When police representative Jamaluddin Abdul Rahman asked if the injuries were concurrent to signs of struggle, Adzim said this was a possibility.
Jamaluddin: "Say, if I stepped on my shoe laces and tripped, would I have time to react in self-defence?"
Adzim: "Usually no difference, I would still react in self-defence.”
The inquiry had begunn on Oct 11 with the following terms of reference:
- To identify human rights violations on or before July 9;
- To determine how the violations occurred, and to identify the process and agency involved; and
- To make recommendations to prevent a recurrence.
The inquiry is headed by Suhakam vice-chairperson Khaw Lake Tee, and commissioners Detta and Mahmood Zuhdi A Majid.
It will resume on Jan 3 with more witness accounts alleging human rights violations.
Related stories
Game over - Dewan Negara passes Assembly Bill
Senators 'traitors' for not killing Assembly Bill
Assembly Bill: Bar Council's open letter to senators
