BURMA: 14 accused over bombing in fabricated case


Urgent Appeal Case: AHRC-UAC-145-2011
ISSUES: Arbitrary arrest & detention, Enforced disappearances and abductions, Judicial system, Right to fair trial,

Dear friends, 

At a time that the proxy military government in Burma is purporting to bring about political change, it is continuing to arrest and falsely accuse citizens in various criminal cases. In this appeal, the Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) draws your attention to 14 persons accused in connection with a bombing in Pegu town during 2010. The police have brought charges against the accused following illegal detention of over three months and having falsified records. 


On 29 September 2010 a bomb exploded in a local council office in Pegu, northeast of Rangoon. During the next month, officials arrested 13 persons over the case, while three who have been named as accused escaped capture. 

The police have lodged charges against 14 of the accused over having allegedly gone to Thailand to get training in political defiance and use of Internet and having got financial support with which they made the bomb attack. 

As for the other 14 persons, of whom 11 are in custody, the cases against them are completely confused, and full of fabrications and gaps. 

To begin with, the accused were arrested during October 2011. But, the police did not open a case against them until January 2011. They then submitted documents showing the date of arrest of the accused as 7 February 2011, and lodgment of charges on February 21. These records are fabricated. In fact, the accused were illegally detained at a special interrogation centre and other facilities in this time where confessions were obtained from them under which to lodge the cases. It is quite likely that during this time some or all of the accused were tortured, although the AHRC has not yet obtained details on the manner of interrogation. 

Also, the police records show that they found material evidence to link the accused to the bombing, but that they gave this material to the military intelligence. No material has been brought to court and nor has any army officer been called to testify to prove that such material actually exists; only some photographs of the purported evidence were shown to the court. 

Lastly, so far as the main problems with the case are concerned, there are a number of different types of charges against the accused, including illegal immigration, contact with unlawful groups and having explosive substances. Not all charges apply to all accused in fact, but on the records, they have all been mixed together and some of the accused are being charged with direct involvement in the bombing when the police have not even accused them of this. 

Further details of the case are in the sample letter below. 


The AHRC has been following a number of other cases where persons have been wrongfully and without evidence accused of involvement in bombings in Burma. These include the cases of: 

Aye Min Naing & 6 others: http://www.humanrights.asia/news/urgent-appeals/AHRC-UAC-028-2011

U Zeya & Sithu Zeya: http://www.humanrights.asia/news/urgent-appeals/AHRC-UAC-013-2011/

Phyo Wai Aung: http://www.humanrights.asia/campaigns/phyo-wai-aung/

U Myint Aye: http://www.humanrights.asia/news/urgent-appeals/AHRC-UAU-018-2009/

For these and other recent appeals, statements and other information visit the AHRC Burma country page: http://www.humanrights.asia/countries/burma

Please write to the persons listed below to call for the case against these accused persons to be dropped. Please note that for the purposes of the letter Burma is referred to by its official name, Myanmar, and also, Pegu as Bago and Rangoon as Yangon. 

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

To support this case, please click here: SEND APPEAL LETTER


Dear ___________, 

MYANMAR: 14 charged over bombings on falsified police records 

Details of accused: 
1. Htun Oo, 36, M, resident of Ward 8, Bago 
2. Win Myint, 42, M, resident of Kadaingsein Village Tract, Taikkyi Township, Yangon Region 
3. Hanminthar (a.k.a. Francis), 22, M, resident of Golden Heart Christian School, Ward 8, Oatthar New Town, Bago 
4. Myint Kyaing, 32, M, farmer, resident of Kadaingsein Village Tract, Taikkyi Township, Yangon Region 
5. Zaw Min Aung (a.k.a. Duwa/ Paukpaw), 30, M, poultry farmer, resident of Thapyechaung Village Tract, Nyaungdon Township, Ayeyarwaddy Region 
6. Saw William, 24, M, resident of Pyay Road, Mingalardon Township, Yangon, former migrant worker in Thailand 
7. Saw Naing Win (a.k.a. Alexander), 25, M, resident of St Joseph’s School, Thonze, Bago Division, former migrant worker in Thailand 
8. Anthony (a.k.a. Htun Mya), 22, M, pastor, resident of Insein Station Road, Nanthargon Ward, Insein Township, Yangon 
9. Saw Francis (a.k.a. Kyaw Kyaw), 27, M, resident of Hlapadar Village, Hmawbi Township, Yangon Region 
10. Zarni Oo (a.k.a. Zar Zar), 31, F, street vendor, resident of Wagatdan Road, Pepingon Ward, Thonze, Bago Division 
11. Aye Aye Nwei (a.k.a. Elizabeth), 27, F, resident of Shwesangaung, Ward 6, Kyansitthar Estate, Hlaingthayar Township, Yangon, former migrant worker in Thailand 
12. Ma Choe (a.k.a. Yi Yi Choe), F, resident of Kayin Compound, Mingalardon Township, Yangon, absconded 
13. Aung Win Naing, 26, M, resident of Taikkyi Township, Yangon Region, absconded 
14. Paghe, 27, M, resident of Papun, Kayin State, absconded 

Details of key officials involved: 
1. Police Major Aung Swe, Serial No. La/58844, Special Branch, Yangon Division, plaintiff in Criminal Case Nos. 14 & 15 
2. Police Captain Kyaw Soe, Serial No. La/128592, Special Branch 
3. Inspector Saw Moe Shwe, Serial No. La/129866, Station Commander, Police Station No. 3, Bago, plaintiff in Criminal Case Nos. 16 & 17 
4. Inspector Khin Myint, Serial No. La/126459, Special Branch, Myawadi detachment 
5. Inspector Kyaw Yin, Serial No. La/86694, Special Branch, investigating officer 
6. Inspector Ko Ko Htay, Serial No. La/113104, Special Branch 
7. Sub Inspector Htun Htun Naing, Serial No. La/16022, Special Branch 
8. Sub Inspector Kyaw Min Oo, Serial No. La/166325, Special Branch, Bathein detachment 

Cases lodged against detainees: Criminal Case Nos. 14-17/2011 in Yangon Western District Court, under section 17(1), Unlawful Associations Act 1908; section 13(1), Immigration (Emergency Provisions) Act 1947; and, sections 3 and 4, Explosive Substances Act 1908, Deputy District Judge No. 3, Judge U Hla Win presiding 

I am writing to you to express my alarm at information I have received about yet another case concerning a bombing in Myanmar in which all standards of fair trial seem to have been completely abandoned and the accused have been brought to court, or some of them, anyway, on the basis of fabricated police records. 

According to the information that I have received, the police have accused Htun Oo of having contact with insurgent groups and of having organized the accused persons to go to Thailand for training and financial support and then to plant and explode a bomb in the administrative council office on Shwegugyi Road in Ward 8, Oatthar New Town, Bago on 29 September 2010. 

Thereafter, the police arrested the accused in various places October 2010, and sent them to the Aungthapyay Interrogation Centre where they were interrogated and passed on to the Special Branch, Yangon Division for prosecution. According to the police records, the First Information Reports against the accused were prepared on 11 January 2011 and the accused were arrested on 7 February 2011, and charges lodged on February 21. In fact, what these records show is that the accused were held in illegal custody for over three months before being brought to court on the basis of confessions obtained while they were interrogated during this period. 

According to the search warrants in the case, the investigators recovered material evidence to link them to the bombing but according to records that material was then handed to a Sergeant Shwe Htun Aung of the Military Affairs Security (military intelligence), Bago. None of the material evidence that supposedly exists was brought to the court and nor was this army officer called to appear as a witness, so there is no proof that such evidence actually exists, or if it does, that it establishes a connection between any of the accused and the crime; only some photographs of the purported evidence were shown to the court. 

Aside from the above, I am informed that there are numerous other procedural errors in the cases against the accused, including that there was an inexplicable delay of 18 days between the time that the bombing occurred and the date that the police opened a case in the official record; that the charges under the Immigration Act should be dealt with in a separate case from those in connection with the alleged bombing and that they should have been brought by immigration officials rather than police; that there are inconsistencies, omissions and errors in dates on the police documents brought to court; that evidence was incorrectly collected and recorded; that some of the accused have been accused in connection with illegal immigration and having contact with unlawful associations but not with the bombing, yet have also been included in the accused under the explosive substances law because the charges have been brought together, and that some of these errors the police have themselves admitted to in court. 

In light of the multitudinous errors and inconsistencies in these cases, I urge that the responsible persons see to it that it is dropped immediately. I also urge an inquiry into the police conduct of the cases, with regards to how the charges could be brought to court at all on the basis of fabricated records, and with regards to the periods of illegal detention of the accused. 

I also want to take this opportunity to query the apparently mutually supporting relationship in this case between the police Special Branch and military intelligence. At a time that the government of Myanmar is purporting to move towards civilianization of administration, it is of concern to me to see that the military and police are seemingly maintaining extremely close relations in the investigation of cases of this sort. I fail to see how it was the responsibility of the military to take accused persons into this case into its custody, apparently illegally, and also why it was that the military took possession of the purported material evidence linking the accused to the crime. I urge that the government of Myanmar move as quickly as possible to ensure that the police alone are responsible for criminal investigations, such that the types of inconsistencies, gaps and excuses as found in this case are no longer sustainable. 

Yours sincerely, 


1. U Hla Min 
Minister for Home Affairs 
Ministry of Home Affairs 
Office No. 10 
Tel: +95 67 412 079/ 549 393/ 549 663 
Fax: +95 67 412 439 

2. U Thein Sein 
President of Myanmar 
President Office 
Office No.18 

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

4. Dr. Tun Shin 
Attorney General 
Office of the Attorney General 
Office No. 25 
Tel: +95 67 404 088/ 090/ 092/ 094/ 097 
Fax: +95 67 404 146/ 106 

5. U Kyaw Kyaw Htun 
Director General 
Myanmar Police Force 
Ministry of Home Affairs 
Office No. 10 
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)