Home / News / Urgent Appeals / BURMA: Three children among six females imprisoned with hard labour
 

BURMA: Three children among six females imprisoned with hard labour

October 1, 2009

ASIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION - URGENT APPEALS PROGRAMME

Urgent Appeal Case: AHRC-UAC-131-2009



2 October 2009
---------------------------------------------------------------------
BURMA: Three children among six females imprisoned with hard labour

ISSUES: Rule of law; judicial system; illegal detention; child rights
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear friends,

The Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) has learned that three girls in Burma have been sentenced to a year in jail with hard labour for allegedly selling illegal lottery tickets. When the case against them came to court, the judge reportedly ignored evidence given that the three girls are not yet 16 years old, and should have been tried in a juvenile court. All six of the defendants claimed that they were innocent of the charges and that the police set them up; the AHRC has also received information that the police bribed the prosecutor to take the case.

CASE DETAILS:

In the mid-morning of 27 February 2009, a group of police from Daik-U station in Pegu, north of Rangoon, went to the house of Daw Aye Myint in Ushitkone village. She was in the fields at the time, and was called back to the house to find the police with her daughter, Ma Amy Htun, 15; her sister, Ma Sein Htwe, two other adult women and three other girls. The police accused them of running an illegal lottery ring--which are very common in Burma--and arrested them all. The accused denied the charges but were held at the local lock up and were denied bail. According to family members, each time they took food for the girls and women they had to pay the guards 500 Kyat (about 50 US cents) to give it.

One of the girls was found to be underage and was transferred to the juvenile justice system, but the others were recorded as 'youths', which under the current law in Burma means that they are 16 or 17 years old and can be tried as adults. The police allegedly falsified records to make the girls birth dates earlier than they are. The girls submitted evidence to the court, like testimonials from school headmistresses, to support the claim that they are children. The prosecutor and judge had special responsibilities to check the ages, which they failed to do. The police allegedly also paid the prosecutor to proceed with the case knowing that the ages of the girls had been falsely recorded.

As the government of Burma places special emphasis on the rights of women and children--the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women are the only two rights charters that it has joined--it should be possible to have this case opened and the girls released. The Child Law grants special authority to the social welfare minister to order immediate and unconditional release of children held in custody. So please sign and send the sample letter below.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:

The AHRC has been documenting numerous cases that address what it has described as Burma's 'injustice system' which can be accessed by going to the appeals homepage and typing 'Burma' or 'Myanmar' into the search box: http://www.ahrchk.net/ua/. 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 those listed below to call for the immediate release of the six convicted persons, especially the three girls. Please note that for the purposes of the letter Burma is referred to by its official name, Myanmar, and Pegu as Bago.

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, the UNICEF office in Burma and the regional human rights office for Southeast Asia calling for interventions into this case.

To support this appeal please click here:

SAMPLE LETTER:

Dear ___________,

MYANMAR: Three children among six females sentenced to hard labour

Details of accused:
1. Daw Aye Myint, 46; resident of Ushitkone Village, Daik-U Township, Bago Division, Myanmar.
2. Ma Sein Htwe, 41; sister of first defendant; resident of Ushitkone Village.
3. Ma Ei Ei Khaing, 29; resident of Ushitkone Village.
4. Ma Sanda Win, aged under 16; resident of Ushitkone Village; currently held at Bago Prison.
5. Ma Amy Htun (a.k.a. April Htun), 15 (DOB: 30 December 1993); daughter of Daw Aye Myint; resident of Targwa Village, Daik-U Township; currently held at Bago Prison.
6. Ma Thuza Khaing, 15 (DOB: 4 December 1993); resident of Targwa Village; currently held at Insein Prison, Women's Block, Building 2.

Police officers involved:
1. Deputy Inspector Tin Maung Aye (prosecuting officer).
2. Deputy Inspector Aung Win (investigating officer).
3. Police Corporal Zaw Naing Soe.
4. Police Corporal Aung Naing Latt.
(All officers from Daik-U Township Police).

Charge & trial: Sections 14(a), 15(a) & 16(a), Gambling Law 1986, Daik-U Township Court, Felony No. 133/2009; Judge Aye Myint (Special Power) presiding; judgment delivered on 31 August 2009, all accused sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment

I am shocked to hear that a court in Myanmar has sentenced three children to a year's imprisonment with hard labour, and I urge that this case be immediately reopened and that the correct ages of the girls be ascertained so that they are released without delay.

According to the police, at around 11:30am on 27 February 2009 Deputy Inspector Tin Maung led a team on the instructions of the Daik-U Township Police commander to Ushitkone Village where they entered the house of Daw Aye Myint on a warrant and in the front room found the second to sixth accused with books of illegal lottery ticket stubs, record books and 45,950 Kyat (about USD 45). Aye Myint was out at the time. After she came back they were all arrested and charged will illegal gambling. They were held in the police lock up without bail until the case came to court. While there, the families allegedly had to pay the police sentries 500 Kyat each time they came to bring food for the detainees.

In court the accused denied the charges and said that the items of evidence were not theirs. They said that they had signed the search warrants out of fear of the police. They also said that they had never seen the two men who the police brought as supposed witnesses for the search and seizure at the house. They did not have lawyers to defend them.

Whereas the court recorded the ages of the fourth, fifth and sixth accused as 17, 17 and 16 respectively, the judge was informed that they were all aged less than 16 but he apparently failed to verify this fact because the police gave allegedly falsified documentary evidence on their ages. I am aware that the law in Myanmar stipulates that anybody not yet aged 16 must be tried as a child under the terms of the Child Law 1993, which was introduced in partial compliance with the international Convention on the Rights of the Child. This means that the three children in this case should have been held and tried separately from adults, and should have been sentenced according to a completely separate regime in which imprisonment would not have arisen as an option in sentencing.

Nonetheless, the judge tried the three as youths (aged 16 or 17). As there was doubt raised over the ages of the girls on the basis of information that was brought to the court which contradicted the records of the police, the judge should have taken steps to obtain further evidence to show the ages of the defendants one way or the other, but apparently he failed to do so. Yet the Child Law places special obligations on a judge to correctly ascertain the ages of persons who are apparently youths brought before him and even though the police and prosecutor also have to give correct evidence of the age of the accused (sections 67, 68).

I have furthermore been informed that the law officer who handled the prosecution case, one Daw Myint Myint Soe of the Daik-U Township Law Office, allegedly received 30,000 Kyat from Deputy Inspector Tin Maung Aye to try the case against the three girls as adults. Interestingly, in giving the verdict the judge also instructed that of the amount of money seized, this figure of 30,000 Kyat be returned to the investigating police rather than submitted to the state treasury.

In light of the above concerns, I urge that this case be immediately reopened and reviewed so that the correct ages of the girls can be established and so that, in the event that they are found to be underage, they can be immediately released in accordance with the authority granted to the Minister of the Social Welfare Department under section 59 of the Child Law.

Furthermore, in light of the serious doubts about the credibility of the case, I urge that the three adult detainees also be released pending a full re-examination of the facts, which should be conducted through a special inquiry team appointed from outside the township. The team should also examine the allegations of corruption and the alleged violations by the local police of sections 37 and 38 of the Child Law, by sending up underage girls to a township court rather than a juvenile one.

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, 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. Maj-Gen. Maung Maung Swe
Minister for Social Welfare, Relief and Resettlement
Ministry of Social Welfare, Relief and Resettlement
Office No. 23
Naypyitaw
MYANMAR
Tel: +95 67- 404 020-22/ 404 337
Fax: +95 67- 404 335

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

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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

7. Daw Thinda Nyunt,
Chairperson
Myanmar Women's Affairs Federation
No.132, Than Lwin Road, Bahan Township,
Yangon
MYANMAR
Tel: +95 1 501 776
Fax: +95 1 501 814
Email: mwaf@mptmail.net.mm
---------------------------------------------
Thank you.

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

Document Type :
Urgent Appeal Case
Document ID :
AHRC-UAC-131-2009
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.