Myanmar Witness report documents alleged Myanmar airstrikes on detention sites holding captured military personnel

Photo : Aftermath of air attack in Ann Township, Rakhine State

Mizzima

Over the last couple of years, a number of Myanmar military airstrikes have surprised analysts as they appear to have targeted their own military personnel – POWs or detainees caught in the crossfire.

A report by NGO Myanmar Witness has documented seven alleged Myanmar Air Force (MAF) attacks on sites holding captured military personnel between October 2024 and March 2026, concluding that more than 200 detainees and other individuals were likely killed or injured across the incidents.

The report, “Reported Airstrikes on Sites Holding Captured Military Personnel: Documented Attacks On Facilities Detaining Members of Government Armed Forces In Myanmar” combines satellite imagery, forensic assessment, geolocation, chronolocation, and analysis of user-generated content to examine attacks on detention facilities in Rakhine, Shan and Kayah states.

It is unclear from the report whether the MAF knew POWs or detainees were located in the targeted sites – or were considered acceptable collateral damage.

Myanmar Witness investigated seven locations reportedly operated by resistance forces where captured members of Myanmar’s armed forces were being detained. The organisation stresses that it uses the term “detainee” rather than prisoner of war because Myanmar’s conflict is legally classified as a non-internatio nal armed conflict (NIAC), although Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions still requires all parties to treat detainees humanely and prohibits violence against those no longer taking part in hostilities.

The report’s most detailed investigation focuses on an alleged airstrike carried out on 8 March 2026 in Ann Township, Rakhine State. According to the Arakan Army (AA), Myanmar Air Force aircraft struck a camp holding captured military personnel, killing 116 people, including surrendered soldiers and members of their families.

Myanmar Witness analyzed photographs and videos showing extensive destruction, burned structures and numerous fatalities. Investigators identified metal shackles attached to some of the deceased and injured, along with iron-barred detention cells at the site, providing strong evidence that the compound was being used to detain captured military personnel.

The organisation independently geolocated the camp near the Dalet River in Ann Township using satellite imagery and determined that it was an isolated detention site located more than one kilometre from nearby villages. Satellite data from NASA’s Fire Information for Resource Management System (FIRMS), Planet Labs imagery showing a large dust cloud during the reported attack period, and Sentinel-2 imagery documenting landscape changes before and after the incident all supported the reported timing of the attack on 8 March 2026.

While Myanmar Witness concluded that the date of the incident was verified, it stated that available evidence did not allow investigators to independently confirm that the damage was definitively caused by an airstrike.

Forensic examination of images from the Ann site identified multiple charred human remains, extensive burn patterns and severe injuries among survivors. Some injured detainees appeared still to be wearing leg restraints while receiving medical treatment. The report also links the detention facility to the capture of the Myanmar military’s Western Command headquarters by the AA in December 2024.

Footage released after the attack included Brigadier General Thaung Tun, one of the senior officers captured during that operation, appearing in shackles and describing the aftermath of the bombardment. Myanmar Witness concludes that available evidence makes it highly likely the compound functioned as a detention facility.

Beyond the Ann incident, Myanmar Witness documented six additional attacks on alleged detention sites. These include Pauktaw Township, where approximately 20 people were reportedly killed and 15 injured on 8 September 2024; Maungdaw Township, where more than 50 detainees and civilians were reportedly killed the following day at a former Border Guard Police base captured by the AA; Mrauk-U Township, where 28 people were reportedly killed and 25 injured in January 2025; Kyauktaw Township, where 21 detainees and family members were reportedly killed and 30 wounded in January 2026; Ho Hko Labour Camp in Nawnghkio Township, Shan State, where 12 people were reportedly killed and around 60 injured in October 2024; and No. 2 Prison in Mese Township, Kayah State, where five people, including women and children, were reportedly killed in March 2026.

Investigators were able to geolocate five of the seven detention sites with high confidence and identify landscape changes consistent with the reported attack dates through satellite imagery. However, Myanmar Witness repeatedly notes that limited user-generated content and the absence of direct evidence of aircraft or munitions meant it could not independently verify that every incident resulted from an airstrike. Instead, the report distinguishes between verified locations and dates and claims regarding the method of attack.

The report also notes that six of the seven detention sites had not previously been publicly identified as locations where captured military personnel were being held. Only one incident, in Maungdaw Township, coincided with ongoing fighting in the surrounding area, suggesting that the remaining reported strikes occurred at relatively isolated facilities rather than active battlefields. Two of the detention sites were established at former Myanmar military bases that had been captured and subsequently occupied by ethnic armed organisations or resistance groups.

Myanmar Witness concludes that its findings raise serious humanitarian concerns regarding the safety of detainees (or POWs) held by resistance organisations during Myanmar’s conflict. While acknowledging the limitations of open-source investigations, the organisation says its methodology – including secure preservation of digital evidence, geolocation, chronolocation, forensic image analysis and confidence ratings – provides a transparent framework for independently assessing reported incidents.

It emphasizes that verified locations and timelines do not necessarily constitute proof of responsibility but contribute to the growing body of documented evidence surrounding alleged attacks on detention facilities in Myanmar’s ongoing armed conflict.

While it is hard to draw strong conclusions from the evidence laid out in the report, it is difficult to ignore the apparent disregard by the Myanmar military for the well-being of their own personnel and their family members blown to smithereens by fighter jets.