Home / News / Urgent Appeals / BURMA: Young woman and man illegally held and charged without evidence over protests
 

BURMA: Young woman and man illegally held and charged without evidence over protests

April 27, 2008

ASIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION - URGENT APPEALS PROGRAM

Urgent Appeal Case: AHRC-UAC-083-2008

28 April 2008
---------------------------------------------------------------------
BURMA: Young woman and man illegally held and charged without evidence over protests

ISSUES: Rule of law; rights to liberty and security; police; military government; judicial system; illegal detention; prison conditions
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear friends,

The Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) regrets to inform you that a young woman and young man are among those persons currently being tried in courts in Burma over their alleged roles in the nationwide protests of last August and September. The two were illegally held without charge for months before being brought to the courts, yet even then the police have not been able to concoct any evidence to support the cases against them and appear to be relying simply upon the judges to pass guilty verdicts irrespective of whether or not there is any procedure or facts applied to their cases.

CASE DETAILS:

Ma Honey Oo, a 21-year-old law student, is accused of having had contact with overseas radio stations to give out information at the time of the protests last September that obtained worldwide attention, and having been involved in making a student union and having been involved in the protests. She was taken into custody on October 9 but was not brought before a court until December 20; during those more than two months she was held illegally without charge at the central prison.

Honey Oo has been charged with sedition and under the illegal associations law. However, when the two cases came in to court it was revealed that the police had no evidence of any sort against her except their oral assertions and on the contrary they could not explain how she might have been protesting or what time she had been protesting when the defence lawyer pointed out that she was attending university exams at the time that they claimed to have seen her. They showed ignorance and confusion about the sections of law under which they had brought her to court and also about the correct procedure. For instance, they presented the statements that they had taken from her as evidence to the court, which is not permitted. When the defence lawyer again pointed to this the Tamwe police chief insisted that in some situations it is but when asked to identify them by the lawyer he could not. The police also made virtually identical statements to the court in the two cases against her although the distinctive charges of sedition and illegal association should be framed on separate issues.

Aung Min Naing, 20, has also been charged with being involved in one of the protests of August 23, at Tamwe. He was detained on that day and illegally held in custody without charge at the central prison until December, when he was charged with sedition and put back in jail. At his trial, again the police have been unable to present any evidence to support their case except for again giving the confession of the accused, which as noted is not permitted as evidence in court and which anyway did not contain anything other than an admission that the accused had gone to protest because he was dissatisfied with rising prices caused by the government's increase in fuel charges.

As in Honey Oo's case, when Aung Min Naing's lawyer asked them why they were bringing the case as one of sedition and not just obstructing a public road, the police could not explain. They could also not explain why he in particular, and not the many other people involved in the protests, was being charged. Nor could they account for the period of illegal detention except by saying that it was not their responsibility.

In both cases, the police denied that they had forced the testimonies that they presented to the court from the victims or that they had arrested and detained them illegally but when challenged on these points could not give further explanations.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:

The Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) has been documenting cases of illegal arrest, detention and prosecution since the nationwide protests in Burma last September and has in recent months also issued a number of other recent cases of young women imprisoned under similar circumstances and on similar charges, in particular, Khin Sanda Win (AHRC-UAC-022-2008) and Ma Thanda (AHRC-UAC-048-2008). See also the case of Ko Thiha (AHRC-UAC-052-2008).

For links and other material on the protests in Burma of August and September 2007 see: http://campaigns.ahrchk.net/burmaprotests/

See also the comprehensive report on Burma: "Burma, political psychosis and legal dementia" issued by the AHRC's sister organisation and the 2007 AHRC Human Rights Report chapter on Burma.
 
______________________________

SUGGESTED ACTION:

Please write to the persons listed below to call for the cases against Honey Oo and Aung Min Naing to be dropped. Please note that for the purpose of the letter, the country should be referred to by its official title of Myanmar, rather than Burma.

Please be informed that the AHRC is writing a separate letter to the UN Special Rapporteurs on Myanmar and independence of judges and lawyers as well as the UN Special Representative on human rights defenders, the UN Working Group on arbitrary detention, the International Labour Office and the regional human rights office for Southeast Asia, calling for interventions into this case.

SAMPLE LETTER:

Dear ___________,

MYANMAR: Young woman and man illegally held and charged without evidence over protests

Details of victims:
1. Ma Honey Oo, 21, daughter of U Tun Oo, residing in Natmauk Ward, Tamwe, Yangon Division, final year law student, detained on 9 October 2007
2. Aung Min Naing, 20, son of U Thar Nyunt, residing in Kyimyindaing, Yangon, detained on 7 September 2007
Primary police officers involved:
1. Police Deputy Superintendent Soe Moe Aung, No. La/134172, Tamwe Police Station, arresting officer
2. Police Superintendent Hla Thein, No. La/155953, chief of police, Tamwe Police Station, in charge of investigation
3. Police Deputy Superintendent Hla Htun, Special Branch
Charge and trial: Charged with sedition, Penal Code sn. 124A (both accused), and sn. 143 and the Organisation Law No. 6/88 in Yangon Eastern District Court Felony Case Nos. 30/2008 and 31/2008 (Honey Oo), and 32/2008 (Aung Min Naing) opening depositions heard on 19 March 2008, Daw Aye Thein, Deputy District Judge (1), Ta/1724 presiding

I am greatly concerned about the trial being conducted against two young people in Myanmar, Ma Honey Oo and Aung Min Naing, in connection with the nationwide protests against increasing commodity prices there last year.

According to the information that I have received the two are being tried in court without evidence and despite having been held in prison without charge or correct procedure applied prior to having the cases opened against them.

In Honey Oo's case, the police have accused her of having been involved in a student union, having talked to foreign media by telephone and of having participated in protests at the Yuzana Plaza and on the road from Mingalar Market to Natmauk on 25-6 September 2007. However, when pressed in court they could not produce any evidence to support any of their claims and on the contrary showed ignorance and confusion about the laws under which she had been brought, the Tamwe police chief admitting that he does not precisely understand the law on sedition and whether or not the case had the necessary elements to meet its requirements. When it was pointed out to them that Honey Oo had had exams on the day that she was supposedly protesting they also could not explain the exact time, places or other details that she was supposedly involved in the events. The police chief also brought the statements that had been taken from Honey Oo into the court, which is a violation of section 27 of the Evidence Act; however, when asked about this point he appeared not to know the precise details of the law on evidence and insisted that in some circumstances he could give these testimonies but was unable to explain further.

Importantly, Honey Oo was first detained on 9 October 2007; however, she was not put in remand until December 20, during which time she was held in Building 3 of Insein Prison without charge, which amounts to illegal arrest and detention and during which time a Special Branch investigation under Police Deputy Superintendent Hla Htun was able to allegedly torture her to obtain a number the statements that were wrongly presented in court on March 19.

Aung Min Naing has been accused of joining around 50 persons and on August 23 going to Tamwe Plaza and the road in front of the Tamwe Temporary Market and Kyaukmyaung Market and marching in protest at the fuel price hikes, for which he has also been charged with sedition without the police apparently properly understanding the charges they have brought against him. Like in the case of Honey Oo they have been able to produce no evidence, be it written, photographic, audio or video, to support their accusations other than a confession obtained during police custody which they have again brought to the court in violation of criminal procedure. Even in that statement there is nothing to support the charge of sedition, as the accused stresses that he took to the streets because of dissatisfaction with the increase in fuel prices. And like Honey Oo, Aung Min Naing was held illegally and without charge from the time of the protest until December 14.

I am appalled not only that these cases have been brought to court by police that apparently have no evidence and have little understanding of the law, but also that the public prosecutor has failed to do the job of making a robust case and likewise that the presiding judge has not yet addressed the manifest defects in the case and stopping proceedings on the basis of these. I thus call for the concerned senior officials, including the Minister of Home Affairs, the Director General of Police, the Attorney General and the Chief Justice to look into these two cases with a view either to having the prosecution withdrawn or having the presiding judge close the proceedings on grounds of lack of evidence and other flagrant irregularities that render the prospects for fair trial impossible. I also call for a review of the handling of these cases by the concerned police and township law office staff in view of their apparent disregard and ignorance of law and procedure.

Finally, I take this opportunity to remind the Government of Myanmar of the need to allow the International Committee of the Red Cross access to places of detention and not least of all, access to those persons and forcibly disrobed monks and nuns who have been held in violation of criminal procedure and without charge or trial since the events of last September.

Yours sincerely

---

PLEASE SEND YOUR LETTERS TO:

1. Maj-Gen. Maung Oo
Minister for Home Affairs
Ministry of Home Affairs
Office No. 10
Naypyitaw
MYANMAR
Tel: +95 67 412 079/ 549 393/ 549 663
Fax: +95 67 412 439

2. Lt-Gen. Thein Sein
Prime Minister
c/o Ministry of Defence
Naypyitaw
MYANMAR
Tel: + 95 1 372 681
Fax: + 95 1 652 624

3. U Aung Toe
Chief Justice
Office of the Supreme Court
Office No. 24
Naypyitaw
MYANMAR
Tel: + 95 67 404 080/ 071/ 078/ 067 or + 95 1 372 145
Fax: + 95 67 404 059

4. U Aye Maung
Attorney General
Office of the Attorney General
Office No. 25
Naypyitaw
MYANMAR
Tel: +95 67 404 088/ 090/ 092/ 094/ 097
Fax: +95 67 404 146/ 106

5. Brig-Gen. Khin Yi
Director General
Myanmar Police Force
Ministry of Home Affairs
Office No. 10
Naypyitaw
MYANMAR
Tel: +95 67 412 079/ 549 393/ 549 663
Fax: +95 67 412 439

Thank you.

Urgent Appeals Programme
Asian Human Rights Commission (ua@ahrchk.org)

Document Type :
Urgent Appeal Case
Document ID :
AHRC-UAC-083-2008
Countries :
Issues :
Document Actions
Share |
Subscribe to our Mailing List
Follow AHRC
Extended Introduction: Urgent Appeals, theory and practice

A need for dialogue

Many people across Asia are frustrated by the widespread lack of respect for human rights in their countries.  Some may be unhappy about the limitations on the freedom of expression or restrictions on privacy, while some are affected by police brutality and military killings.  Many others are frustrated with the absence of rights on labour issues, the environment, gender and the like. 

Yet the expression of this frustration tends to stay firmly in the private sphere.  People complain among friends and family and within their social circles, but often on a low profile basis. This kind of public discourse is not usually an effective measure of the situation in a country because it is so hard to monitor. 

Though the media may cover the issues in a broad manner they rarely broadcast the private fears and anxieties of the average person.  And along with censorship – a common blight in Asia – there is also often a conscious attempt in the media to reflect a positive or at least sober mood at home, where expressions of domestic malcontent are discouraged as unfashionably unpatriotic. Talking about issues like torture is rarely encouraged in the public realm.

There may also be unwritten, possibly unconscious social taboos that stop the public reflection of private grievances.  Where authoritarian control is tight, sophisticated strategies are put into play by equally sophisticated media practices to keep complaints out of the public space, sometimes very subtly.  In other places an inner consensus is influenced by the privileged section of a society, which can control social expression of those less fortunate.  Moral and ethical qualms can also be an obstacle.

In this way, causes for complaint go unaddressed, un-discussed and unresolved and oppression in its many forms, self perpetuates.  For any action to arise out of private frustration, people need ways to get these issues into the public sphere.

Changing society

In the past bridging this gap was a formidable task; it relied on channels of public expression that required money and were therefore controlled by investors.  Printing presses were expensive, which blocked the gate to expression to anyone without money.  Except in times of revolution the media in Asia has tended to serve the well-off and sideline or misrepresent the poor.

Still, thanks to the IT revolution it is now possible to communicate with large audiences at little cost.  In this situation there is a real avenue for taking issues from private to public, regardless of the class or caste of the individual.

Practical action

The AHRC Urgent Appeals system was created to give a voice to those affected by human rights violations, and by doing so, to create a network of support and open avenues for action.  If X’s freedom of expression is denied, if Y is tortured by someone in power or if Z finds his or her labour rights abused, the incident can be swiftly and effectively broadcast and dealt with. The resulting solidarity can lead to action, resolution and change. And as more people understand their rights and follow suit, as the human rights consciousness grows, change happens faster. The Internet has become one of the human rights community’s most powerful tools.   

At the core of the Urgent Appeals Program is the recording of human rights violations at a grass roots level with objectivity, sympathy and competence. Our information is firstly gathered on the ground, close to the victim of the violation, and is then broadcast by a team of advocates, who can apply decades of experience in the field and a working knowledge of the international human rights arena. The flow of information – due to domestic restrictions – often goes from the source and out to the international community via our program, which then builds a pressure for action that steadily makes its way back to the source through his or her own government.   However these cases in bulk create a narrative – and this is most important aspect of our program. As noted by Sri Lankan human rights lawyer and director of the Asian Human Rights Commission, Basil Fernando:

"The urgent appeal introduces narrative as the driving force for social change. This idea was well expressed in the film Amistad, regarding the issue of slavery. The old man in the film, former president and lawyer, states that to resolve this historical problem it is very essential to know the narrative of the people. It was on this basis that a court case is conducted later. The AHRC establishes the narrative of human rights violations through the urgent appeals. If the narrative is right, the organisation will be doing all right."

Patterns start to emerge as violations are documented across the continent, allowing us to take a more authoritative, systemic response, and to pinpoint the systems within each country that are breaking down. This way we are able to discover and explain why and how violations take place, and how they can most effectively be addressed. On this path, larger audiences have opened up to us and become involved: international NGOs and think tanks, national human rights commissions and United Nations bodies.  The program and its coordinators have become a well-used tool for the international media and for human rights education programs. All this helps pave the way for radical reforms to improve, protect and to promote human rights in the region.