Starting today, the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (Suhakam) will investigate the case of missing Brickfields police detainee G Francis Udayapan.

Commissioner Prof Chiam Heng Keng announced this after hearing the detainee mother's recount of events that led to her belief that her son died in custody and that the police are involved in the incident.

While she was unable to provide the family and lawyers a time frame of their investigations, Chiam nevertheless promised that the probe will be independent.

The commission today heard arguments from Francis' mother, G Sara Lilly, and her lawyers N Surendran and R Sivarasa, in rejecting the police's claim that Francis escaped from the police lock-up last month by jumping into the Klang river behind the station in Kuala Lumpur.

They were accompanied by family and friends, as well as politicians from Parti Keadilan Rakyat (Keadilan) who have taken a public interest in the case.

Surendran said it is important for Suhakam to step into this case, because the subsequent aggressive police conduct, when juxtaposed next to the "inconsistent and doubtful" police explanation of events, suggested a cover up on the part of the police.

Over the past month, Brickfields district police - where Francis was held from April 14 until his disappearance two days later - have both arrested and threatened to arrest the family and friends of the missing detainee, and their lawyers.

Police rule out foul play

Twelve individuals, including lawyer P Uthayakumar, were detained for a few hours on Friday for gathering outside the Brickfields police station in support of Francis' mother who was lodging a report inside. No charges were laid.

Interest groups have criticised the arrests as unlawful and six police reports were subsequently lodged over the arrests.

Numerous other altercations have also taken place between the police and the family, friends and lawyers.

Family and friends who attempted to obtain the official explanation of events from Brickfields station were threatened with arrest by a chief inspector there.

In another case, a police cameraman attempted to arrest Sara following a quarrel over the officer's attempts to gain footage. Sara claimed the officer assaulted her by grabbing her breast.

But the federal police, who took over investigations 22 days after the detainee was first reported missing, has already ruled out foul play.

However, they did not reveal any details of how they arrived at that conclusion.

"The most shocking attitude of the police is the constant, comprehensive attempt to prevent information from coming out. And when they decided there was no foul play at the end, they gave no details on how the police arrived at their conclusion," said Surendran during the meeting with Chiam this afternoon.

'Officer lied'

Family and lawyers say it is logically impossible for the police to uphold Brickfield's version of events - verbally explained to the detainee's mother by a station officer on April 16.

According to the mother, the officer informed over the phone that Francis escaped custody by jumping off the first floor building of the station. His handcuffs also apparently broke on impact of that fall.

She was told that her 24-year-old son had squeezed through a gap in the fence at the back of the station and proceeded to escape by jumping into the Klang river located behind the station.

During today's proceedings at Suhakam, Sara and her lawyers questioned the veracity of the information issued by the police.

According to Surendran, even Kuala Lumpur police chief Mustafa Abdullah admitted in a meeting with family and lawyers that the officer - who claimed Francis' handcuffs broke on impact of his fall - had lied and was "trying to save his own skin."

Events 'improbable'

But it still does not explain how the 10 officers who witnessed the 'escape' - as claimed by Mustafa during the meeting - could not catch up with the detainee, the lawyers stated.

"There were 10 policemen (who were present), but somehow the boy managed to find and get to the hole in the fence ahead of everyone else. It seems to suggest that he knows (the station grounds) better," said lawyer Sivarasa.

Moreover, Sara claimed that it is highly improbable that Francis would choose the river as his escape route. "My son does not even know how to swim," she said.

Not only is the police's version of events doubtful, said Sivarasa, but it also fails to explain why the recently-married Francis would choose to escape the day after his phone conversation with Sara who assured him that the owner of the handphone had agreed to withdraw the charges.

"Just look at the psychology (of this case). Francis was barely married. He would also have known the case was quite trivial. Which is why the family have found the police's explanation to be unacceptable," said Sivarasa.

Assault a coincidence?

And an unknown phone call one day after Francis' reported the disappearance confirmed Sara's worst fears.

On April 17, a Saturday, Sara said she received a call from a unknown man, claiming to be a police officer from Brickfields, informing her that her son had died while in custody.

Speaking in Tamil, Sara said the man told her that her son is already "gone" and that the police have thrown his body into the river. She has not been able to identify the caller up to this day.

"Assuming the phone call was correct, Brickfields police have committed a most serious crime," said Sivarasa.

So is it purely coincidental when one of the family's lawyers, P Uthayakumar, was threatened at gunpoint by three men yesterday evening, and had his car windshield and windows smashed, asked the lawyer.

The incident in Bangsar, Kuala Lumpur, occurred just one week after Uthayakumar's car also had its windows and windshield smashed while parked in the building hosting his legal firm.

"These threats have escalated to a serious and unacceptable manner. The very fact this happened suggests an attempt to intimidate the lawyers involved in this case," said Sivarasa.

Uthayakumar who lodged a police report at the Brickfields police station yesterday believed that both the assault and the damage done to his car was related to the Francis case.

Unidentified witnesses

On another matter, lawyers pointed to the discovery of a body in the Klang river two days after Francis' disappearance, and questioned why the police have not publicised their discovery, which is usual in such a case.

Last Friday, a divisional leader from Parti Keadilan Rakyat (Keadilan) told malaysiakini that he saw the handcuffed body, which was stuck under a bridge in Section 25, Shah Alam, fished out by police officers at around noon on April 18.

However, when recalling the incident today, Abdul Razak Ismail changed his earlier assertion that he personally saw the body.

"I was informed by reliable witnesses that they saw the body and the handcuffs on the body. But because this is such a high profile case, they are hesitant to step forward unless absolutely necessary," said Abdul Razak.

When malaysiakini contacted Bukit Aman CID Director Musa Hassan yesterday, he denied that the body found in Shah Alam was Francis'.

"We have positively identified that the body in Shah Alam is not Francis ... there were no handcuffs attached to this body and we are still investigating this case," said the officer-in-charge of the Francis investigation.

But Abdul Razak proceeded to lodge a police report on Saturday, questioning the police decision not to publicise the identity of the person.

"I want Musa to once again deny that there were no handcuffs on the body, because I have eyewitnesses who can testify otherwise," said Abdul Razak today.