E/CN.4/2000/9/Add.5 page 11 otorhinolaryngologist with otitis externa in his right ear. He is pursuing a lawsuit for damages, which was pending at the Tokyo District Court at the time of the government reply. He also filed a complaint with the Tokyo Public Prosecutor’s Office, which decided on 12 July not to prosecute. A request for an appeal hearing was dismissed by the Tokyo District Court on 8 August 1995. Malaysia 44. By letter dated 4 February 2000, the Government sent information concerning the allegations transmitted by the Special Rapporteur in November 1999 (see E/CN.4/2000/9, paras. 726-727). 45. Concerning Dr. Munawar Anees, the Government confirmed that he had been arrested on 4 September 1998 under the Internal Security Act and that he had been convicted on 19 September 1998 of an unnatural offence under section 377 of the Penal Code. The Government further stated that Dr. Munawar Anees had pleaded guilty to the unnatural offence of having allowed himself to be sodomised by Anwar Ibrahim and that he was appealing against the conviction and sentence. The Government denied that he had been held in incommunicado detention and averred that he had at all times been allowed communication with the investigators, especially with regard to matters of his health and nutrition. The Government further stated that he had never been subjected to any coercion but had voluntarily admitted a homosexual relationship with Anwar Ibrahim and had voluntarily provided graphic details of sexual acts. The Government denied that Dr. Munawar Anees had at any time been deprived of sleep and stated that investigations and questioning had been carried out in accordance with the principle of fairness and the Lock Up Rules. The Government asserted that he was at all times treated in a polite manner, that his hair had been cut ordinarily, in accordance with the Lock Up Rules, and that he had been placed in a proper cell with sufficient ventilation and the necessary bedding. The Government denied that Dr. Munawar Anees had been stripped naked, but he had been asked to remove his wearing apparel in accordance with the Lock Up Rules in order to ensure that there were no injuries on his body or parts of his body and that he was not holding any weapons which could have been dangerous in the circumstances. 46. Concerning Sukma Darmawan, the Government declared that he had been arrested on 6 September 1998 and had been detained for 13 days. It denied that he had been held in incommunicado detention as he had been able to communicate with investigators and other persons via the investigators. The Government further stated that on 19 September 1998 he had pleaded guilty “for having allowed himself to be sodomised by Anwar Ibahim”. After conviction he had been transferred to the Bukit Aman federal police headquarters pursuant to his own request. He was released on bail pending his appeal to the High Court, which was dismissed on the basis that he had voluntarily pleaded guilty. The Government dismissed allegations of maltreatment as false and baseless, and merely an afterthought to suit his claim that his confession and guilty plea had been involuntary and obtained under duress. The Government stated that he had not been subjected to prolonged interrogation, but that questioning had been carried out in accordance with the Lock Up Rules. He had not been threatened with indefinite detention under the Internal Security Act, but had at all times been treated in a polite manner and had not been stripped naked but had been asked to remove his clothing in order to ensure that he bore no injuries or dangerous weapons. The Government