Home / News / Urgent Appeals / BURMA: Woman imprisoned after one-day trial for having some T-shirts

BURMA: Woman imprisoned after one-day trial for having some T-shirts

September 11, 2009

ASIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION - URGENT APPEALS PROGRAMME

Urgent Appeal Case: AHRC-UAC-116-2009

11 September 2009
---------------------------------------------------------------------
BURMA: Woman imprisoned after one-day trial for having some T-shirts

ISSUES: Rule of law; military government; judicial system; illegal detention
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear friends,

The Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) has obtained information on another recent case of gross injustice and denial of fundamental rights in Burma, this time arising from possession of some T-shirts. Police arrested Ma Mar Mar Aye at her house in August after misleading her into thinking that she would come back home after a short time. They searched the house without a warrant. She was tried without having a lawyer or opportunity to speak. The charge and conviction against her also had no relevance to her supposed offence.

CASE DETAILS:

On 15 August 2009 two police officers came in plain clothes to the house of 46-year-old Ma Mar Mar Aye in Pegu and asked her to go with them. They indicated that she wouldn't need to take anything with her and that she would be coming back the same day. Not only did she not come back, but also the next morning, the police came again to her house and searched it. In the search, they seized four T-shirts that had been made for the campaign to oppose the new army-arranged constitution, which was passed in 2008, and two T-shirts with the image of democracy party leader Daw Aung San Suu Kyi. They also seized copies of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, but later returned these.

Neither the arrest of Mar Mar Aye nor search of her house was done with a warrant or according to any other procedures under law.

On August 17, without informing her family, the police lodged a charge against Mar Mar Aye for allegedly causing fear and alarm to the public. When the charge was read, Mar Mar Aye fainted in court and had to be taken to hospital for treatment before being transferred to prison.

On August 26 the trial was held and two days later the judge sentenced her to two years' imprisonment. Mar Mar Aye was not represented in court, and according to someone who was present she was not permitted to speak. On the date of sentencing armed police were reportedly stationed outside the court to prevent members of the public from entering.

The trial as well as procedure of arrest was completely in violation of Burma's domestic laws, to say nothing of international standards. Furthermore, the charge against Mar Mar Aye, which is often used in cases where police have no other offence available (see most recently the similar case of Aung Aung Oo and three others, AHRC-UAC-107-2009) is completely without basis because keeping some T-shirts at home is not a public act and therefore is irrelevant to this section of law. 

Mar Mar Aye is reported to suffer heart disease and arthritis, and is said to have lost weight even in the short time that she has been incarcerated to date. It is normal for detainees in Burma to experience considerably worsening health while in prison, particularly if already in fragile condition when they are interred, and many have died from illnesses and complications while still in jail.

Further details of the case are provided in the sample letter below, as usual.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION:

The AHRC has been documenting numerous cases speaking to what it has described as Burma's "injustice system" and provided a range of links on these in the recent prior urgent appeal on Aung Aung Oo and his fellow defendants: AHRC-UAC-107-2009. See also the recent appeal on the case of detained monk U Sandadhika: AHRC-UAC-110-2009. Two special reports have also been issued in the article 2 periodical, "Saffron Revolution imprisoned, law denied" (vol. 7, no. 3, September 2008) and "Burma, political psychosis and legal dementia" (vol. 6, no. 5-6, December 2007). There are also a number of related sites, including the AHRC Burmese-language blog, Pyithu Hittaing, and the 2008 AHRC Human Rights Report chapter on Burma.

SUGGESTED ACTION:

Please write to the persons listed below to call for the release of Mar Mar Aye. Please note that for the purpose of the letter, the country should be referred to by its official title of Myanmar, rather than Burma, and Bago rather than Pegu.

Please be informed that the AHRC is writing a separate letter to the UN Special Rapporteurs on Myanmar and the independence of judges and lawyers, the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention and the regional human rights office for Southeast Asia calling for interventions into this case.

SAMPLE LETTER:

Dear ___________,

MYANMAR: Woman imprisoned for possession of T-shirts after unfair trial

Details of accused: Ma Mar Mar Aye, 46, National ID No. 7/KaPaTa(Naing)004130, resident of Hsettainggone Ward, Kyopinkauk Township, Bago Division, Myanmar
Date of arrest: 15 August 2009
Police officers involved:
1. Deputy Inspector Soe Kyaw
2. Female Constable Ni Ni Mar
3. Police Captain U Htun Kyi
4. Police Sergeant Thein Lwin (station clerk)
(All from Kyopinkauk Township Police Station)
Charge & trial: Penal Code section 505(b); Kyopinkauk Township Court, Judge Mya Thein presiding, charges lodged on 17 August 2009, case heard on August 26, defendant sentenced to two years' rigorous imprisonment on August 28

I am greatly disturbed to hear of another case of illegal arrest followed by an unfair trial under an ambiguous charge resulting in a prison term for a Myanmar citizen.

From what I have learned, on 15 August 2009 the first two police officers identified above acting on instructions from the chairman of the Kyopinkauk Township Peace and Development Council came in plain clothes to the house of Ma Mar Mar Aye and asked her to go with them. When Mar Mar Aye asked if she needed to take clothes with her (to wear in detention), they said that they would have her back home by about 4pm; however, she did not return home that day. The police had no warrant of arrest and deliberately gave a false impression that they were just taking the accused for questioning.

At 11am on August 16 the police searched Mar Mar Aye's house and seized three T-shirts with the word "NO" (to vote No for the new constitution, which was passed in 2008); one T-shirt with an X on it (meaning as above); two T-shirts with the picture of detained democracy party leader Daw Aung San Suu Kyi on them; and, 15 copies of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. (On August 20 the copies of the declaration were returned.) Again, they had no search warrant and they did not have witnesses to the search as required by law.

On August 17, without informing the family the police lodged a charge against Mar Mar Aye for allegedly causing fear and alarm to the public. On August 26 the trial was held and two days later the judge sentenced her to two years' imprisonment. Mar Mar Aye was not represented in court and according to someone who was present she was not permitted to speak, in violation of the Judiciary Law 2000, section 2(f) that in all cases the right of defence be guaranteed. On the date of sentencing armed police were reportedly stationed outside the court to prevent members of the public from entering.

I am greatly concerned that this is another case in Myanmar where a person who has committed no offence but against whom the authorities are keen to produce some sort of charge has found herself imprisoned in a patently illegal process of arrest and trial. I am aware that aside from the breaches of procedure from the time of arrest to imprisonment, there is nothing in having some T-shirts at one's house to constitute an offence under section 505(b). 

Accordingly, I urge that the Attorney General at once order a review of this case as per section 4(b) of the Attorney General Law 2001, and for the Minister of Home Affairs and Director General of Police also to look into the matter with a view both to seeing that the unfairly and illegally imprisoned accused is released and also that disciplinary action is taken against the officers concerned with the handling of the case in a manner contrary to law.

I note that Mar Mar Aye is reported to suffer from heart disease and arthritis and that she has already lost weight during the short time that she has been detained. I urge the prisons authorities concerned to ensure that all necessary steps be taken to ensure that her condition does not deteriorate during her incarceration. In this regard, I also 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, in accordance with its globally recognized mandate, without any further delay.

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: +951 549 663 / 549 208

Thank you.

Urgent Appeals Programme
Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) (ua@ahrc.asia)

Document Type :
Urgent Appeal Case
Document ID :
AHRC-UAC-116-2009
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.