Home / News / Urgent Appeals / BURMA: Two men jailed for allegedly possessing video of army wedding
 

BURMA: Two men jailed for allegedly possessing video of army wedding

May 6, 2007

URGENT ACTION URGENT ACTION URGENT ACTION URGENT ACTION URGENT ACTION

ASIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION - URGENT APPEALS PROGRAM

7 May 2007

---------------------------------------------------------------------
UA-150-2007: BURMA: Two men jailed for allegedly possessing video of army wedding

BURMA: Denial of media freedom; illegal search & arrest; un-rule of law
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear friends,

The Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) has received detailed information about two men in Burma who have been imprisoned for allegedly possessing videos showing the wedding of the daughter of the country's senior most army officer. Ko Than Htun and Ko Tin Htay were arrested separately in March and convicted in April of having intended to incite public fear and for violations of video censorship regulations. Although there was no evidence at all against Tin Htay, he was sentenced to two years' imprisonment, and Than Htun to four and a half.

On the night of 20 March 2007, a team of police and local officials acting on a tip-off came to Ko Than Htun's house in Nyaungdone, in the delta region west of Rangoon. They searched the premises and at the back found a parcel containing CD videos and other items. When they looked at the videos they found that they contained footage of the extravagant wedding of the daughter of Senior General Than Shwe, the country's military ruler. The video had been edited to contrast the extraordinarily opulent lifestyle of the military elite with the ordinary people, including still images of children begging and other signs of widespread poverty. Different versions of the wedding video have reportedly been widely distributed throughout Burma.

(Watch footage of the wedding on You Tube: type "Thandar Shwe" into the search and then select any of dozens of uploads; or watch documentary version here: http://www.khitpyaing.org/ads/seinCnya_eng.php.)

In the daytime the police came back and confiscated all the CDs, saying that they had not complied with censorship regulations; then they took Than Htun to the police station where they charged him with possessing illegal videos. He obtained bail and was allowed to return home. But that night the police came and searched again and took Than Htun into custody for a while.

On the morning of March 22 the police came a third time, took Than Htun back to the police station and this time refused to release him.

Around midday on the same day (May 22) a police deputy superintendent entered the house of Ko Tin Htay, and searched for videos without a warrant, saying that the police had information from the case of Than Htun. (Tin Htay was formerly the chairman of the Democratic Party for a New Society, which supported the National League for Democracy in the 1990 general election.)

The police opened and viewed all the CDs in Tin Htay's house but found only karaoke CDs. At around 2:30pm Tin Htay was called to the station for formalities. But when there the police accused him of being involved in politics and took down a signed statement from him to use as evidence, which is against criminal procedure law. He was also taken into custody and refused bail.

Initially, both of the two men were charged only under the video law. But on March 23 the local council met and decided that they should also be charged with seeking to incite unrest under the penal code. (In Burma there is no separation of the prosecution from government and local councils have the authority to give orders concerning legal cases.) At that time the head of the local police station also was given responsibility to take the case to court.

The case went to court on March 29. In court, the illegally obtained statement was used against Tin Htay. A photograph of General Aung San, the father of democracy leader Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and the leader of Burma's independence struggle, was also produced to show that he is politically active. However, Aung San is an historical figure who is considered a national martyr; his story and images can be found everywhere, from children's schoolbooks to the market named after him in central Rangoon. It is also still relatively common for his portrait to be hung in ordinary persons' houses. So the use of the picture as evidence in the court is ridiculous.

On April 6, at the second hearing in the court the accused men's lawyers sought bail but were refused as inciting fear among the public is a non-bailable offence. On April 9 and 10 the hearings continued.

On April 25 Than Htun was sentenced to four and a half years' imprisonment; Tin Htay was sentenced to two years' imprisonment, both with hard labour. They are expected to appeal against the sentences.

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:

Section 505(b) of the Penal Code is used indiscriminately in Burma against any persons considered to be doing anything contrary to the interests of the state or local authorities. Other cases where it has been used that the AHRC has reported in recent times include that of U Thein Zan (UA-078-2007), against whom charges were dropped under mysterious circumstances (UP-052-2007; see also "Politics & the price of eggs" at UPI Asia Online), and farmer U Tin Nyein (UA-155-2006), who was released after eight months' imprisonment (UP-018-2007).

This case also bears a resemblance to that of U Aung Pe, a tuition teacher who was sentenced to three years' jail for hanging a t-shirt bearing the image of democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi in class. In February 2007 Aung Pe reportedly went on a hunger strike to protest his continued imprisonment and poor treatment (UP-029-2007).

See also the 2006 AHRC Human Rights Report chapter on Burma, and visit the AHRC Burma homepage: http://burma.ahrchk.net.

______________________________

SUGGESTED ACTION:

Please write to the Attorney General to demand that the state file for a review of the case and have the two men released from imprisonment.

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 Rangoon as Yangon.

Sample letter:

Dear _________

MYANMAR: Imprisonment of two men for alleged possession of illegal video

Names of victims:
1. Ko Than Htun, aged around 40, resident of Ward 5, Nyaungdone, Irrawaddy Division; convicted under section 505(b) of the Penal Code to two years' imprisonment with hard labour; and sections 32(b) & 36 to two-and-a-half years' imprisonment under the 1996 Television & Video Law, served consecutively
2. Ko Tin Htay, 41, resident of Ward 5, Nyaungdone; convicted under section 505(b) of the Penal Code to two years' imprisonment with hard labour
Police officers involved:
1. Superintendent Aung Naing and subordinates, Myanmar Police Force, Nyaungdone; one Special Branch corporal (case of Ko Than Htun)
2. Deputy Superintendent Zaw Moe Naing, Myanmar Police Force, Nyaungdone (case of Ko Tin Htay)
Case: Nyaungdone Township Court, Criminal Case No. 319/2007; case brought by Superintendent Kyaw Mya Than, Station Officer, Myanmar Police Force, Nyaungdone; Judge Daw Saw Nwet Nwet Win presiding

I am extremely concerned to hear that two men in Myanmar have been imprisoned for allegedly possessing videos showing footage of the wedding of Thandar Shwe, daughter of Senior General Than Shwe, and call for their release.

According to the information I have been given, Ko Than Htun's house was searched by police on 20 March 2007 and in the First Information Report it was recorded that he was being investigated under the Television and Video Law. The next day he was released on bail but held in custody from March 22. On the same day police entered and searched the house of Ko Tin Htay without a warrant and witnesses as required by law (Criminal Procedure Code [CrPC] sn. 103). Although they could reportedly find nothing they called him to the police station, whereupon they accused him of the same offence as Ko Than Htun. On March 23 the Nyaungtone Township Peace and Development Council reportedly instructed that they also be charged with seeking to incite public fear, under the Penal Code.

Not only is the procedure of arrest a matter of concern in this case, especially regarding Ko Tin Htay, but also the manner in which the police took the case to court is troubling to me.

First, from what I understand, in the course of the court hearings that started from March 29, a statement that was taken from Ko Tin Htay at the police station was used as evidence against him. This is a violation of CrPC section 162 and also section 25 of the Evidence Act.

Second, I am also told that during the court hearings a photograph of independence hero General Aung San was presented in evidence to show that the defendant was politically active. I find this bizarre, given that photographs, statues and memorials to General Aung San can be found all over Myanmar, including in people's houses.

Notwithstanding these problems, the two men were convicted to the terms noted above. 

Accordingly, I urge you to use your authority under section 9(l) of the 2001 Attorney General Law to file for a review of the case and have the two men released. I also urge you to ensure that no more persons are arrested and held responsible for possessing or allegedly possessing footage of this wedding, which has already been viewed by millions of people throughout Myanmar and abroad.

Yours sincerely

---

PLEASE SEND YOUR LETTERS TO:

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

PLEASE SEND COPIES TO:

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

2. Maj-Gen. Maung Oo
Minister for Home Affairs
Ministry of Home Affairs
Office No. 10
Naypyitaw
MYANMAR
Tel: +95 67 412 040/ 069/ 072
Fax: +95 67 412 016/ 439

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. Mr. Patrick Vial
Head of Delegation
ICRC
No. 2 (C) - 5 Dr. Ba Han Lane
Kaba Aye Pagoda Road, 8th Mile
Mayangone Township
Yangon
MYANMAR
Tel.: +951 662 613 / 664 524
Fax: +951 650 117
E-mail: yangon.yan@icrc.org

5. Professor Paulo Sergio Pinheiro
Special Rapporteur on Myanmar
Attn: Mr. Laurent Meillan
c/o OHCHR-UNOG
1211 Geneva 10
SWITZERLAND
Tel: + 41 22 9179 281
Fax: + 41 22 9179 018 (ATTN: SPECIAL RAPPORTEUR MYANMAR)
E-mail: lmeillan@ohchr.org

6. Mr. Leandro Despouy
Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers
Attn: Sonia Cronin
Room: 3-060
OHCHR-UNOG
1211 Geneva 10
SWITZERLAND
Tel: +41 22 917 9160
Fax: +41 22 917 9006 (ATTN: SPECIAL RAPPORTEUR INDEPENDENCE JUDGES & LAWYERS)

7. Mr. Ambeyi Ligabo
Special Rapporteur on the freedom of opinion and expression
Attn: J Deriviero
OHCHR-UNOG
1211 Geneva 10
SWITZERLAND
Tel: +41 22 917 9177
Fax: +41 22 917 9006 (ATTN: SPECIAL RAPPORTEUR FREEDOM EXPRESSION)

8. Ms. Leila Zerrougui
Working Group on arbitrary detention
OHCHR-UNOG
1211 Geneva 10
SWITZERLAND
Fax: +41 22 917 9006 (ATTN: WORKING GROUP ARBITRARY DETENTION)

Thank you.

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

Document Type :
Urgent Appeal Case
Document ID :
UA-150-2007
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.