Complaint by BTF

Complaint 1

Babak Pourtavoosi, Esq

Pannun The Firm, P.C.

75-20 Astoria Boulevard, Suite 170

Jackson Heights, NY 11370

T: (718) 672-8000 F:(718) 672-4729

[email protected]

Attorney for the Plaintiffs

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

_________________________________________

"Burma Task Force" (BTF); )

)

Hitay Lwin Oo; ) Civil Action. No. 15-7772

an individual belonging to Rohingya community )

)

and ) COMPLAINT FOR GENOCIDE;

) TORTURE; CRUEL INHUMAN

"JOHN DOEs" for themselves and ) OR OTHER DEGRADING

their injured and deceased relatives, ) TREATMENT;

left presently unnamed, ) ARBITRARY DETENTION;

) CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY

Plaintiffs, ) VIOLATION OF FREEDOM OF

v. ) RELIGION AND BELIEF

)

Thein Sein )

President of Myanmar ; former Prime ) CLASS ACTION

Minister and General of Myanmar Army )

) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Wunna Maung Lwin )

Minister for Foreign Affairs of Myanmar )

)

Thein Htay )

Ex Minister of Border Affairs, Myanmar )

)

Khin Yi )

Ex Minister for Immigration and Population )

)

Maung Ohn )

Chief Minister of Rakhine State, Myanmar )

)

Ko Ko )

Minister of Home Affairs, Myanmar )

)

Defendants )

_________________________________________ )

Case 1:15-cv-07772 Document 1 Filed 10/01/15 Page 1 of 26

mailto:[email protected]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ministry_of_Foreign_Affairs_(Burma)

Complaint 2

Plaintiffs, by and through their attorney, allege the following:

I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

1. This is a civil action for compensatory and punitive damages for torts committed in

violation of international laws and domestic laws of the United States. Plaintiffs in this

action -- are individuals and members of the Rohingya community, a minority Muslim

community mostly inhibiting in western Myanmar (Burma).

2. The Rohingya people numbering over 1.3 million is a Muslim minority living in western

Myanmar. Although they are living in the country for generations they are denied

citizenship and basic necessities including basic healthcare, work and schooling. They are

primary targets of hate crimes and discrimination amounting to genocide fueled by

extremist nationalist Buddhist monks and Thein Sein government.

3. Since 1962, the Burman Buddhist supremacist government of Myanmar has ruled with an

exclusionary, authoritarian ideology. Rohingyas are excluded from citizenship and

brutally persecuted because of their faith and ethnicity. The government’s policies were

described in 2000 as “Ethnic Cleansing” by the International Federation of Human Rights

Leagues and in 2010, as Crimes Against Humanity by the Irish Center for Human Rights.

4. In 1982, the Burman supremacist government stripped most Rohingya of their

citizenship. They were re-named “Bengalis,” and reclassified as foreign to Myanmar.

Rohingya speak a different language and are not “Bengalis,” a different ethnic group that

lives mostly in Bangladesh. Their only common identity is that both groups are Muslim.

The government claimed that the Rohingya were colonial era settlers from Bengal,


Complaint 3

British India, denying the fact that Rohingya have lived in Rakhine State for hundreds of

years.

5. Plaintiffs and/or their next of kin were subjected to genocide1, torture, arbitrary detention,

cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment by the officials acting under the command and

control of or on behest of the defendants and other anti Muslim groups particularly 969

Movement with the acquiescence and approval of the defendant(s).

6. The defendants planned, instigated, ordered, authorized or incited the official forces and

unofficial groups to commit the abuses suffered the plaintiffs in particular and the

members of the Rohingya community of Myanmar in general, and had command or

superior responsibility over, controlled or aided and abetted such forces in their

commission of such abuses. The acts committed against Plaintiffs and the members of

Rohingya community were carried out in the context of an ongoing policy of persecution

and genocide against the Rohingya people of Myanmar.

7. Genocide, ethnic cleansing and persecution of Rohingya people in Myanmar is well

documented and is acknowledged by the international community. United Nations

officials and independent human rights groups have reported evidence of direct state

complicity in ethnic cleansing and severe human rights abuses, blocking of humanitarian

aid and incitement of anti-Muslim violence, constituting ominous warning signs of

genocide.

1 "[G]enocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national,

ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: (a) Killing members of the group; (b) Causing serious bodily or mental

harm to members of the group; (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its

physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e)

Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."[See (Article 2 of the UN Convention on the Prevention

and Punishment of Genocide; 18 U.S.C. § 1091(a)(c)(d)]


Complaint 4

8. The Plaintiff class leaders will testify and produce sworn statements to be filed under seal

for the security and safety of both themselves and their other family members still

residing in Myanmar and subject to the pressures of the local law enforcement controlled

and commanded by the Defendants. These sworn statements would be made available for

"in-camera" inspection by this honorable Court. These sworn statements would show the

horrors that these Plaintiffs have suffered and that their deceased loved ones have

suffered at the hands of the state government run and controlled by the Defendant. They

will show how the Plaintiffs and their families directly and substantially suffered bodily,

property, psychological, emotional and mental injuries in Myanmar, as a result of the

violence that was ordered, aided, abetted, directed, facilitated and connived by the

Defendants.

II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

9. Plaintiffs assert violations of customary international law, including the prohibition

genocide; torture (mental and physical) other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment,

arbitrary detention, crimes against humanity and interference with freedom of religion

and belief and prohibition of torture under Torture Victims Protection Act (“TVPA”),

Pub. L. No. 102-256, 106 Stat. 73 (1992) codified at 28 U.S.C. § 1350 note (2006)); UN

Convention Against Torture, and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or

Punishment; Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of

Genocide (CPPCG) and customary international law. The Court has jurisdiction over the

state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1367.

10. Venue is proper in the Southern District of New York pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sections

1391(b) (3).


Complaint 5

III. PARTIES

A. Plaintiffs

11. The Plaintiff "Burma Task Force" (BTF) is a coalition of nineteen (19) Muslim American

organizations that is managed by Justice for All (JFA), a non-profit human rights NGO

affiliated with the United Nations and working to bring to justice perpetrators of mass

violence and genocide.

12. Individual plaintiff Hitay Lwin Oo is a Rohingya Muslim hailing from the State of

Rakhine, Myanmar. Oo left Myanmar and came to the United States because of the

torture, mistreatment and persecution that he suffered in Myanmar at the hands of the

Government of Myanmar. The plaintiff was illegally detained by the authorities for 27

days and during detention he was beaten and tortured. During the detention the officers

ask him to sign the blank papers and when he refused, the officers starting beating him.

He was punched on the face several times, leaving his nose and face swollen and

bleeding, leaving him unable to eat and chew for several days. On other occasion, he was

beaten all over body with the leather belts and at one point he was hit on the head causing

heavy started. The plaintiff was often beaten tell he fell unconscious. The torture

continued almost on daily basis while he was in illegal detention. The plaintiff was told

by the officers that they had arrested him because he is a Rohingya and that Rohingyas do

not belong to Burma and that he would be either killed or thrown out of the country.

13. In September 2013, plaintiff's family home located in Block Thantwe Township, Rakhine

State was surrounded by police and people 969 Movement. At that time, plaintiff's

brother Than Lwin, mother Malay 80 years old, cousin Ma Khim Wai, aunt Daw Ma Zae

were living there. The attackers lead by the police physically abused and beat plaintiffs


Complaint 6

family members and burnt down the house. Six other houses belonging to Rohingyas

were also burnt. After few weeks of September 2013 attacks defendant Thein Sein visited

the locality to celebrate the victory and on that day another 120 house were burnt. Thein

Sein delivered a speech and praised that area was cleansed of the Rohingyas

14. The attack on the plaintiffs family and burning of his family home was carried out by

workers and activists of 969 Movement and members of Burmese police and military on

the orders and instigation of Thein Sein the President of Burma and other high ranking

members of the Burmese Government.

15. The September 2013 violent attack on the plaintiff's family resulted in the bodily injuries

to his old and ailing mother and injuries to his brother and severe mental trauma and

emotional distress to the plaintiff and his family. The individual Plaintiffs "John Does"

are members of Rohingya community of Myanmar directly affected by the policies and

acts of genocide, ethnic cleansing and persecution. Their families were attacked, tortured,

killed, maimed, or brutally injured. They file this action against the perpetrator of these

wrongs under anonymity for the time being. They bring this action on their own behalf

and that of their families who were killed or injured in Myanmar.

16. The class consists of the members of Rohingya community of Myanmar who are

survivors of or next to kin of those who were killed as result of the policies and acts of

genocide, ethnic cleansing and persecution. Their families were attacked, tortured, killed,

maimed, or brutally injured.

B. Defendants:

17. Defendant Thein Sein is a Burmese politician and former military commander who has

been President of Burma (Myanmar) since March 2011. He was the Prime Minister of


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prime_Minister_of_Myanmar

Complaint 7

Myanmar from 2007 until 2011. During his military career, Thein Sein commanded

soldiers who committed war crimes and what would now be classed as crimes against

humanity, while regional commander in Eastern Shan State. Crimes committed by his

soldiers include widespread and systematic rape, mass forced relocation, land

confiscation and forced labor. In 1998 Thein Sein was personally named by the United

Nations Special Rapporteur on human rights in Burma for directly ordering his soldiers to

commit human rights abuses. In 1988, as major of Light Infantry Division 55, the

defendant Sein he played a role in the crushing of the democracy uprising. Thousands of

students were massacred. Thein Sein later said that the Burmese Army ‘saved the nation’

by crushing the uprising. In 1996 Thein Sein became Commander of the Triangle Region

Military Command, based in Kentung, eastern Shan State. He held this position until

November 2001. During this period horrific human rights abuses were committed by

soldiers under his command. These abuses were so serious that they could be classed as

war crimes and as crimes against humanity. As commander of these soldiers he is directly

responsible for the abuses which took place. Under Thein Sein's rule, the government of

Myanmar has intensified the policies of persecution and ethnic cleansing of Rohingya

people. The defendant's regime has been denying the right to citizenship to Rohingya

people, limiting their rights to marry, have children, work, obtain healthcare and go to

school. The defendant Thein Sein has declared that “There are no Rohingya” in Myanmar

and under his rule Rohingyas were denied recognition in the 2014 census.

18. Defendant Wunna Maung Lwin is the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Myanmar, in

office since 2011. He joined the diplomatic service in 1999, after a long career in

the Myanmar Armed Forces. As foreign minister of Myanmar, defendant Lwin has been



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myanmar_Armed_Forces

Complaint 8

playing a key role in denying the Genocide of Rohingya before the international

community and has thus been instrumental in prolonging the persecution of Rohingya

Muslims of Myanmar.

19. Defendant Thein Htay is currently serving as Lieutenant General of the Myanmar

Army. During the period beginning March 2011 till February 2013, defendant Htay was

Minister of Border Affairs in Myanmar government and during that time, mass violence

against Rohingya Muslims was carried out by the forces he controlled and commanded.

20. Defendant Khin Yi, was the Minister for Immigration and Population from 2011 till

August 2015. He previously served as the Chief of the Myanmar Police Force and is a

retired Brigadier General of the Myanmar Army. As Minister for Immigration and

Population, Defendant Yi directly ordered, participated in and oversaw the policies and

actions of the government aimed at stripping citizenship and restricting population and

birth rights of Rohingya Muslims. In 2013, Khin Yi, while he was Minister of

Immigration and Population, publicly supported the government's announcement of

enforcement by local authorities of a two-child policy in northwestern Rakhine State for

Rohingya Muslims, establishing his complicity and participation in acts of genocide.

21. Defendant Maung Ohn is the incumbent Chief Minister of Rakhine State, Myanmar. He

is a General in Myanmar Army and has previously served as Deputy Minister of Home

Affairs. Defendant Ohn, a Burmese by ethnicity, throughout his career has supported,

promoted and facilitated the persecution of Rohingya people and especially ever since he

has assumed the office of Chief Minister, Ohn has intensified the policies and practices

targeting Rohingya Muslims living under his control.


Complaint 9

22. Defendant Ko Ko is the incumbent Minister of Home Affairs, a department responsible

for internal security and policing in Myanmar. Ko Ko also serves as Lieutenant General

in Myanmar Army. Defendant Ko Ko is part of those innner circles of Myanmar

government and authorities where decisions of taking violent actions against Rohingya

Muslims are made.

23. Under the defendants' rule and control, the criminal acts committed against the Rohingya

Muslim community beginning in June 2012 amount to crimes against humanity carried

out as part of ongoing genocide. Under international law, crimes against humanity are

crimes committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack on a civilian population.

The attack must be against a specific population and part of a state or organizational

policy. Non-state organizations – including political parties and religious bodies – can be

responsible for crimes against humanity if they have a sufficient degree of organization.

24. The evidence indicates that at behest of and with the acquiescence of the defendant Thein

Sein, political and religious leaders in Arakan State planned, organized, and incited

attacks against the Rohingya and other Muslims with the intent to drive them from the

state or at least relocate them from areas in which they had been residing – particularly

from areas shared with the majority Buddhist population.

25. The allegations herein maintain that in various capacities, the Defendant committed acts

and omissions in violations of the law of nations and of the laws of the United States of

America.

C. Class Allegations

26. The class consists of all men, women, and children who are the surviving victims of the

policy and practice of genocide of Rohingya people carried out by the government


Complaint 10

officials and by non-state actors with the connivance acquiescence of the government

authorities including the named defendants.

27. The exact number of class members is not known, but it is estimated that the class

includes several hundred thousand victims, survivors and their next of kin. The class is so

numerous that joinder of individual Plaintiffs is impracticable.

28. There are common questions of law and fact in this action that affect and relate to each

member of the class, including:

a. Whether Defendants, acting individually or collectively, authorized, condoned,

commanded, or directed the unlawful acts of the authorities and forces under his

control;

b. Whether Defendants, acting individually or collectively, aided and abetted or

conspired with other forces in commission of unlawful acts;

c. Whether Defendants, acting individually or collectively, knew or should have

known that forces under his command were: deliberately and wantonly killing,

attacking, burning, raping, torturing, and maiming Rohingya people; undertaking

discriminatory and religiously bias-motivated attacks; using lethal means to carry

out those attacks; treating civilians and residents inhumanely; and undertaking

acts of violence the primary purpose of which was genocide and displacement of

the ethnic group, Rohingya.

d. Whether Defendants, acting individually or collectively, jointly or severally,

failed to punish or ratified such unlawful acts by forces and authorities under his

command;

e. Whether Defendants, acting individually or collectively, failed to take adequate

and appropriate measures to prevent subordinates under his command from

committing violations of the laws of the nations; and

f. Whether Defendants' actions give rise to liability under applicable international

and domestic laws.

29. This action is properly maintained as a class action because a) Defendants has acted and

failed to act in a way generally applicable to the class, making any declaratory relief

awarded appropriate to the class as a whole, and b) questions of law and fact common to


Complaint 11

the class predominate over questions affecting individual members and a class action is

superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the

controversy.

IV. STATEMENT OF FACTS

A. Background

30. For nearly 50 years, the population in Rakhine State struggled under repressive military

rule, and ethno-religious tensions between Rakhine Buddhists and Rohingya Muslims

have persisted for generations. The troubles for Rohingya of the Rakhine have been

double faced as they are equally persecuted and targeted by their fellow Rakhine of non-

Muslim faith and the central government of Myanmar, as they have been intent on

forcing Rohingya out of what they regard as their exclusive ancestral homeland. These

tensions have fueled significant waves of violence and well-coordinated arson attacks in

Rakhine State since 2012, targeting the Rohingya population and other Muslim

communities. State security forces participated in violence against Rohingya or failed to

protect Rohingya communities under attack. Several hundred men, women, and children

have been killed and entire Muslim neighborhoods and villages have been razed.

31. Ethnic Rohingya in Myanmar reside primarily in Rakhine State and are predominantly

Muslim. Rohingya are particularly subject to torture, abuses, state-sponsored persecution

and genocide. The state policies directed towards Rohingya Muslims includes restrictions

on movement, marriage, childbirth, home repairs and construction of houses of worship,

and other aspects of everyday life of the Rohingya. These restrictions are impermissible

under international law have been in place for decades. For example, Rohingya must seek

official government approval before marrying and are subject to restrictions on childbirth.


Complaint 12

The implementation of these policies leave Rohingya with few options but to flee the

country. These abuses amount to genocide and crimes against humanity under

international law.

32. Rohingya are barred from equal access to citizenship under the 1982 Citizenship Law,

making them the world’s largest stateless population within any single country’s borders,

according to the UN High Commissioner for Refugees. In 2014, the government of

Myanmar began a “citizenship scrutiny” process to “verify” the status of “Bengalis” in

Rakhine State—a discriminatory process that requires Rohingya to disavow their ethnic

identity in exchange for a type of citizenship that does not include the rights afforded to

full citizens.

33. International NGOs have reported that since 2012 the Myanmar Army and other security

forces have used forced labor from several thousand Rohingya persons in northern

Rakhine State, including children.

34. Rohingya Muslims and other Muslim communities in Myanmar have experienced state-

sponsored violence and targeted attacks amounting to genocide, during the past four

years. In 2012, violence in 13 of 17 townships in Rakhine State, targeting Rohingya

Muslims, resulted in deaths, widespread destruction of property, and the internal

displacement of more than 150,000 people. State security forces failed to intervene to

stop deadly attacks and, in some cases, participated in attacks—killing men, women, and

children. Further state-sponsored anti-Muslim attacks erupted throughout the country

following the 2012 violence.

35. In or around January 2013, the government sealed off Du Char Yar Tan village and

surrounding areas in Rakhine State’s Maungdaw Township for several weeks following


Complaint 13

reports of killings and property destruction in the area. There has yet to be a credible

independent investigation into this incident or accountability for perpetrators of violence.

36. More than 150,000 people, mostly Rohingya Muslims, remain internally displaced in

Rakhine State and confined to IDP camps. They are cut off from access to livelihood

outside of the camps and have limited access to aid. The government continues to permit

delivery of aid only to “registered IDPs,” effectively denying aid to tens of thousands.

Rohingya living in IDP camps and elsewhere in northern Rakhine State are deprived of

food, health-care, and livelihood opportunities. These deprivations create conditions of

life that are deliberately destructive to the Rohingya community.

37. Hundreds of thousands of Rohingya have fled Myanmar since 2012, mostly in boats

bound for Bangladesh, Thailand, and Malaysia. In 2013 and 2014, the complicity of

Myanmar authorities in transnational trafficking and smuggling operations is reported by

several NGOs. Police, Navy, and Army officers demanded payments from transnational

criminal syndicates to allow Rohingya individuals to depart Rakhine State, and Myanmar

Navy ships at times escorted boats carrying asylum seekers to international waters.

38. For decades, as a matter of state policy, menacing security forces in northern Rakhine

State have restricted freedom of movement between village tracts, townships and beyond.

This limits the Rohingya ability to work, access health care and enjoy other basic rights.

If Rohingya attempt to violate such policies, they risk years in prison, fines or both.

39. These abuses are supported and implemented by the highest levels of Burmese

officialdom. The minister of home affairs in July 2012 told parliament that authorities

were tightening regulations against Rohingya "in order to handle travelling, birth, death,


Complaint 14

immigration, migration, marriage, construction of new religious buildings, repairing and

land ownership and right to construct building[s]."

40. Other military and civilian officials are on record discussing restrictions against

Rohingya as recently as last year. State-level policies (dating from 1993 to 2008) are

signed by various officials and copied to departments that fall under state and central

government jurisdictions. All of the policies remain in force today.

B. Defendants' participation

41. Defendant Thein Sein has been in Burmese military and political positions for several

decades and has held positions of command enabling him to order, aid, abet and conspire

in acts of torture and genocide against the Rohingyas. Thein Sein maintains direct links

and supports, promotes and sponsors, the notorious Buddhist monk Ashin Wirathu, who

openly preaches and incites violence against Muslims. Despite ample evidence of

Wirathu's complicity in perpetrating violence against Rohingya Muslims, defendant Sein

has publicly called him 'son of lord Buddha spreading metta'. In July 2013, TIME

magazine put Wirathu on its Cover Page as the "The Face of Buddhist Terror", and in

retaliation, Thein Sein banned the article and denied the journalist Hannah Beach the visa

to Myanmar. Recently, Thein Sein's office issued a four minute video clip claiming as his

achievement the passage of anti-Muslim racist laws which categorically deny Rohingya

existence. Thein Sein is on record to instruct the parliament to draft racist laws targeting

Muslim population, as demanded by Ma Ba Tha led by Wirathu. The fact that no one

during Thein Sein's rule has ever been prosecuted for killing or attacking Rohingya is a

proof that Thein Sein has granted blanket protection and institutionalized impunity to

anyone who harms the Rohingya.


Complaint 15

42. Defendant Wunna Maung Lwin is the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Myanmar, in office

since 2011. He joined the diplomatic service in 1999, after a long career in the Myanmar

Armed Forces. As foreign minister of Myanmar, defendant Lwin has been playing a key

role in denying the Genocide of Rohingya before the international community and has

thus been instrumental in prolonging the persecution of Rohingya Muslims of Myanmar.

43. Defendant Thein Htay is currently serving as Lieutenant General of the Myanmar Army.

During the period beginning March 2011 till February 2013, defendant Htay was

Minister of Border Affairs in Myanmar government and during that time, mass violence

against Rohingya Muslims was carried out by the forces he controlled and commanded.

44. Defendant Khin Yi, was the Minister for Immigration and Population from 2011 till

August 2015. He previously served as the Chief of the Myanmar Police Force and is a

retired Brigadier General of the Myanmar Army. As Minister for Immigration and

Population, Defendant Yi directly ordered, participated in and oversaw the policies and

actions of the government aimed at stripping citizenship and restricting population and

birth rights of Rohingya Muslims. In 2013, Khin Yi, while he was Minister of

Immigration and Population, publicly supported the government's announcement of

enforcement by local authorities of a two-child policy in northwestern Rakhine State for

Rohingya Muslims, establishing his complicity and participation in acts of genocide.

45. Defendant Maung Maung Ohn is the incumbent Chief Minister of Rakhine State,

Myanmar. He is a General in Myanmar Army and has previously served as Deputy

Minister of Home Affairs. Defendant Ohn, a Burmese by ethnicity, throughout his career

has supported, promoted and facilitated the persecution of Rohingya people and





Complaint 16

especially ever since he has assumed the office of Chief Minister, Ohn has intensified the

policies and practices targeting Rohingya Muslims living under his control.

46. Defendant Ko Ko is the incumbent Minister of Home Affairs, a department responsible

for internal security and policing in Myanmar. Ko Ko also serves as Lieutenant General

in Myanmar Army. Defendant Ko Ko is part of those inner circles of Myanmar

government and authorities where decisions of taking violent actions against Rohingya

Muslims are made.

C. Inadequacy of local remedies

47. Despite suffering persecution and violence for decades and despite pressure from

international community during recent years, the victims - the individual plaintiffs and

members of the class, has not and will not receive justice in Myanmar. In fact all the

evidence points to the persistence and prevalence of strong culture of impunity.

48. Impunity for crimes committed against Rohingya has enabled escalating human rights

abuses, including targeted violence against the wider Muslim community. In March 2013

former Special Rapporteur Quintana noted that the warning signs for further violence had

been evident since June 2012, but the government had “simply not done enough to

address the spread of discrimination and prejudice against Muslim communities across

the country, and to tackle the organized and coordinated mobs that are inciting hatred and

violently attacking Muslim communities.”

49. Further efforts to attempt justice for the members of Rohingya Muslim community,

particularly the named individuals, in their native country, Myanmar, will be futile and

pointless.


Complaint 17

50. For several years, Myanmar has been listed among "Countries of Particular Concern", by

the US Commission on International Religious Freedom, a statutory body to monitor the

state of affairs around the world viz a viz religious freedom, which clearly indicates the

prevalence of impunity and hence the lack of availability of local remedies.

51. From the above, it becomes clear that there can be no justice in a country where the state,

government and the system covers up the acts and omissions of officials and non-officials

alike, targeting an ethnic and religious minority. solely on account of ethnicity and

religion.

V. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

52. Plaintiffs’ causes of action arise under and violate both domestic law and international

law as defined in agreements, declarations, conventions, resolutions, and treaties,

including but not limited to the following:

a. Customary international law and treaties of the United States;

b. Statutes and common law of the United States;

c. Statutes and common law of New York;

d. Any other applicable laws, domestic, foreign or international.

53. The claims herein under the law of nations are based on norms that are definable,

obligatory, and universally recognized.

54. The law of nations prohibits the targeting of civilians and the blatant discrimination based

on targeting members of a specific ethnic and religious group.

55. The law of nations prohibits acts or threats of violence against a specific group of people

targeted because of their ethnicity and religious beliefs.


Complaint 18

56. Based on the foregoing, Defendants are guilty of Genocide, Crimes against Humanity,

Torture, Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, Extrajudicial Killings,

Wrongful Death, Negligence, Public Nuisance, Battery, and Intentional and Negligent

Infliction of emotional Distress.

57. The testimony of Plaintiffs and other witnesses will show that the defendants, through

their actions or omissions, carried out, conspired in, aided, abetted or facilitated, the

commission of crimes against humanity, targeting the minority Rohingya Muslims TO

WIT: killing of members of the Rohingya community through massacre, causing serious

bodily or mental harm to members of the community through massacre, rape, burning,

stabbing, beating, deliberately inflicting pain and imposing of conditions calculated to

bring about physical destruction in whole or in part through massacre, economic boycott,

psychic, physical, and social trauma, and imposing measures intended to prevent births

within the group through rape, trauma, destruction of family, sexual violence, and

mutilation.

58. Plaintiffs John Does requested that their identity be withheld at this stage of the

proceeding, fearing retaliation and harm to her family members living in Myanmar at the

hands of defendants or their agents. Plaintiff John Does have used the pseudonym for

the purposes of safety, security, and the prevention of retaliation by Defendants and the

forces under their control who would subject the Plaintiffs and their family members in

Myanmar to death, great bodily and mental harm, or other forms of cruelty should their

identities become known during the initial course of these proceedings. Plaintiffs are

willing to provide sworn statement as to the facts alleged in this complaint which can be

presented for this honorable Court's in-camera review.


Complaint 19

59. The United States Courts, specifically the Second Circuit, have held that in recognizing

the right to a public trial of the Defendant, such considerations “must be balanced against

other interests that might justify closing the courtroom to the public, including

preservation of order, protection of parties or witnesses, or maintenance of the

confidentiality of certain information.”2

General Allegations

60. The acts described in the Complaint were undertaken under color of law.

61. The acts and injuries to Plaintiffs and their deceased and injured relatives described

herein, as well as those similarly situated, were part of a pattern and practice of

systematic human rights violations designed, ordered, implemented, and directed with the

participation of Defendants and carried out by local law enforcement and military

authorities and personnel acting at their direction, and/or with his encouragement and

acquiescence and by the non-state actors acting with the permission of the defendants.

62. Plaintiffs and their decedents are members of the Rohingya Muslim community hailing

from Myanmar.

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Genocide - Under ATCA)

63. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference all the allegations set forth in the

preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.

64. The abuses committed against Plaintiffs and their next of kinds constitute the crime of

Genocide.

2 See United States v. Lloyd, 520 F.2d 1272, 1274 (2d Cir. 1975).


Complaint 20

65. The acts inflicted against plaintiffs were inflicted by and/or at the instigation, under the

control or authority, or with the consent of acquiescence of a public official or a person

acting in an official capacity.

66. The acts described in the complaint were carried out with an intent to destroy the people

of Rohingya ethnicity, based on their ethnicity and religion through killings and

displacement.

67. The acts described in this complaint constitute "genocide" in violation of the Article 2 of

the UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide and 18 U.S.C. §

1091(a)(c)(d).

68. As a result of the defendants actions, the individual plaintiffs and class members, have

been damaged and are entitled to compensation in amounts to be determined at trial.

69. Defendants acts and omissions were deliberate, willful, intentional, wanton, malicious

and oppressive, and should be punished by an award of punitive damages in an amount to

be determined at trial.

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Torture under the TVPA and ATCA)

70. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference the allegations set forth in the preceding

paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.

71. The acts inflicted against individual Plaintiffs, their next of kin, and class members, were

inflicted by and/or at the instigation, under the control or authority, or with the consent or

acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity.

72. The acts described herein-placed individual Plaintiffs, their next of kin, and class

members, in imminent fear for their lives and caused them to suffer severe physical and

mental pain and suffering.


Complaint 21

73. The acts described herein were inflicted deliberately and intentionally for purposes that

include, among others, obtaining information or a confession, punishing the victim,

intimidating the victim or a third person, or discrimination against Rohingya Muslims of

Myanmar.

74. The acts described herein constitute torture in violation of the Torture Victim Protection

Act (“TVPA”), Pub. L. No. 102-256, 106 Stat. 73 (1992) (codified at 28 U.S.C. 1350

note), and constitute “tort[s] … committed in violation of the law of nations or a treaty of

the United States” under the Alien Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1350, in that the acts

violated customary international law prohibiting torture as reflected, expressed, and

defined in multilateral treaties and other international instruments, international and

domestic judicial decisions, and other authorities.

75. Defendants, individually and jointly, instigated, ordered, authorized, or incited police and

other security forces to commit the abuses suffered by individual Plaintiffs and class

members, and had command or superior responsibility over, controlled, or aided and

abetted such forces in their commission of such abuses. As a result of the torture

described above, individual plaintiffs and class members have been damaged and are

entitled to compensation in amounts to be determined at trial.

76. Defendants' acts and omissions were deliberate, willful, intentional, wanton, malicious



THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment -- TVPA, ATCA)

77. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference the allegations set forth in the preceding



Complaint 22

78. The acts inflicted against individual Plaintiffs, their next of kin, and class members, were

inflicted by and/or at the instigation, under the control or authority, or with the consent or

acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity.

79. The acts described herein had the intent and effect of grossly humiliating and debasing

the individual Plaintiffs, their next of kin, and class members, by among other things,

forcing or attempting to force them to act against their will or conscience, inciting fear

and anguish, and breaking physical and moral resistance, and/or forcing or leading them

to leave their home country or families. As an intended result of these acts, Plaintiffs

were placed in great fear for their lives or physical safety, suffered severe physical and

psychological abuse and agony.

80. These acts described herein constitute “tort[s] … committed in violation of the law of

nations or a treaty of the United States” under the Alien Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. §

1350, in that the acts against individual Plaintiffs, their next of kin, and class members,

violated customary international law prohibiting cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment

as reflected, expressed, and defined in multilateral treaties and other international

instruments, decisions of national and international judicial bodies, and other authorities.

81. Defendants, jointly and severally, individually and collectively, planned, instigated,

ordered, authorized, or incited police and other security forces to commit the abuses

suffered by Plaintiffs, and had command or superior responsibility over, controlled, or

aided and abetted such forces in their commission of such abuses. As a result of the acts

constituting cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment described above, individual Plaintiffs,

their next of kin, and class members, have been damaged and are entitled to

compensation in amounts to be determined at trial.


Complaint 23

82. Defendants acts and omissions were deliberate, willful, intentional, wanton, malicious



FORTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Arbitrary Detention -- ATCA)

83. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference the allegations set forth in preceding

paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein. The acts inflicted against

individual Plaintiffs, their next of kin, and class members, were inflicted by and/or at the

instigation, under the control or authority, or with the consent or acquiescence of a public

official or other person acting in an official capacity.

84. Defendants and Defendants' subordinates and agents detained individual Plaintiffs, their

next of kin, and class members, or caused Plaintiffs to be detained without a warrant,

probable cause, articulable suspicion, or notice of charges; and failed to accord them due

process or any legal, consular, or familial protection and support. Defendant’s acts

constitute “tort[s] … committed in violation of the law of nations or a treaty of the United

States” under the Alien Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1350, in that the acts against

Plaintiffs violated customary international law prohibiting arbitrary detention as reflected,

expressed, and defined in multilateral treaties and other international instruments,

international and domestic judicial decisions, and other authorities.

85. Defendants, jointly and severally, individually and collectively, planned, instigated,



aided and abetted such forces in their commission of such abuses.


Complaint 24

86. The acts constituting arbitrary detention described above, placed Plaintiffs in imminent

fear for their lives, and caused them to suffer severe physical and mental pain and

suffering. As a result of these acts of arbitrary detention, Plaintiffs have been damaged

and are entitled to compensation in amounts to be determined at trial. Defendant’s acts

and omissions were deliberate, willful, intentional, wanton, malicious and oppressive,

and should be punished by an award of punitive damages in an amount to be determined

at trial

FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Crimes Against Humanity -- ATCA)



88. The abuses committed against individual Plaintiffs, their next of kin, and class members,

described herein also constituted persecution against an identifiable group based on

ethnic, religious, political or cultural status, and were committed in the context of a

widespread or systematic attack against a civilian population.

89. Defendants acting jointly or severally, individually or collectively, planned, instigated,



aided and abetted such forces in their commission of such abuses, and knew or should

have known that such acts or omissions were committed in the context of a widespread or

systematic attack against a civilian population.

90. Defendants' acts constitute “tort[s] … committed in violation of the law of nations or a

treaty of the United States” under the Alien Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1350, in that

the acts against Plaintiffs violated customary international law prohibiting crimes against


Complaint 25

humanity as reflected, expressed, and defined in multilateral treaties and other

international instruments, international and domestic judicial decisions, and other

authorities.

91. The acts constituting arbitrary detention described above, placed Plaintiffs in imminent

fear for their lives, and caused them to suffer severe physical and mental pain and

suffering. As a result of these acts of arbitrary detention, Plaintiffs have been damaged

and are entitled to compensation in amounts to be determined at trial.

92. Defendant's acts and omissions were deliberate, willful, intentional, wanton, malicious



SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Interference with Freedom of Religion and Belief -- ATCA)



94. The arbitrary arrests, detention and physical abuse suffered by individual Plaintiffs, their

next of kin, and class members on account of their Muslim faith at the hands of Buddhists

of Myanmar, constitutes a serious interference with their right to freedom of religion and

belief. The interferences with Plaintiffs’ right to freedom of religion and belief constitute

“tort[s] … committed in violation of the law of nations or a treaty of the United States”

according to the Alien Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1350, in that they constitute

violations of customary international law protecting the right to freedom of religion and

belief as reflected, expressed, defined and codified in multilateral treaties and other

international instruments, international and domestic judicial decisions, and other


Complaint 26

authorities. Plaintiffs were subjected to arbitrary arrests, detention and physical abuse as a

result of their practice and expression of belief in the teachings of Muslim faith.

95. Defendants acting jointly or severally, individually or collectively, planned, instigated,

ordered, authorized, or incited police and other security forces to commit the serious

interferences with the freedom of religion and belief suffered by Plaintiffs, and had

command or superior responsibility over, controlled, or aided and abetted such forces in

such interferences with Plaintiffs’ freedoms of religion and belief, and Defendants knew

or should have known that such acts or omissions were committed in the context of a

widespread or systematic campaign to interfere with the right of Rohingya Muslims to

exercise their freedom of religion and belief. The acts constituting serious interference

with Plaintiffs’ freedom of religion and belief described above, caused Plaintiffs to suffer

severe mental pain and suffering. As a result of these acts of arbitrary detention, Plaintiffs

have been damaged and are entitled to compensation in amounts to be determined at trial.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, pray for judgment against the Defendant as

follows:

a) For compensatory damages according to proof;

b) For punitive and exemplary damages according to proof;

c) For reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs of suit, according proof;

d) For a declaratory judgment holding that Defendant’s conduct amounted to "Genocide"

and was in violation of the law of nations;

e) and

f) For such other and further relief as the court may deem just and proper.

A jury trial is demanded on all issues.

Dated: October 01, 2015

_/s/ Babak Pourtavoosi _________

Babak Pourtavoosi, Esq

Attorney for the Plaintiffs


Documents

Complaint by BTF