Home / News / Urgent Appeals / BURMA: Two men illegally arrested & jailed for petition to government
 

BURMA: Two men illegally arrested & jailed for petition to government

November 2, 2006

URGENT ACTION URGENT ACTION URGENT ACTION URGENT ACTION URGENT ACTION

ASIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION - URGENT APPEALS PROGRAM

2 November 2006

---------------------------------------------------------------------
UA-358-2006: BURMA: Two men illegally arrested & jailed for petition to government

BURMA: Illegal arrest; denial of fair trial; denial of free expression; threats to human rights defenders; un-rule of law
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear friends,

The Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) has received information from a number of sources about the illegal arrest and jailing of two men in Burma who helped to collect signatures for a petition to the government seeking the release of political prisoners. The two men, Ko Win Ko and Phyoe Zaw Latt, were arrested at a train station on October 6. The arrest and detention procedure did not follow either domestic or international law. The two were falsely charged with different offences. Ko Win Ko has been sentenced to three years in jail. Tomorrow, November 3, a special tribunal is due to hear the case of Phyoe Zaw Latt. The tribunal also is contrary to the national law, as the accused has been charged with ordinary criminal offences, not special offences.

According to the information currently available, on October 6, Ko Win Ko, 38, and Phyoe Zaw Latt, 23, were travelling by train from Minhla, near their home township of Moenyo, in central Burma, to Rangoon. The two were carrying signatures for a petition to the military government calling for the release of a group of democracy activists who were arrested on September 27 (UA-333-2006). The campaign was launched by colleagues of the arrested persons in October, and reportedly has over half a million signatures from around the country. The two men had over 400 signatures from two villages with them at the time, which they planned to deliver and then go home.

However, at Letpadan station they were stopped by a group of around ten police and members of a government mass movement organisation, the Union Solidarity and Development Association (USDA). They were searched, and when the petitions were uncovered the two USDA personnel produced illegal lottery ticket stubs and claimed that they found them in Ko Win Ko's bag.

The two men were taken back to Letpadan Township Police Station where Ko Win Ko was charged with resisting arrest and illegal gambling, and the sheets of signatures were confiscated.

Ko Win Ko's trial date was set for October 19, and as he is a member of the National League for Democracy (NLD) the group sent a lawyer to represent him in court. However, upon arrival the lawyer and other persons found that the trial had already been conducted on October 18 and Ko Win Ko had been sentenced to three years in prison.

On October 25 the lawyer sought access to Ko Win Ko in prison but was told to wait some more days as the prison chief also is new. He left after getting reassurances that approval to visit the prisoner would be granted within a couple of days after receiving the necessary documents through the prisons department. The lawyer has said that he intends to assist Ko Win Ko to appeal the decision of the first court. 

Meanwhile, Phyoe Zaw Latt was kept in illegal detention at Letpadan without charge. On October 22 he was released on a good behaviour bond, but did not reach his home before being taken back into custody by police from his home township and charged with deceit and forgery. He has since been kept in prison and faces a possible sentence of 16 years if found guilty. He is due to go before a special tribunal inside the prison on November 3, apparently also without having access to a lawyer, as he has been held incommunicado and has therefore not been able to authorise any lawyer to act on his behalf. 

After hearing of her son's arrest, Phyoe Zaw Latt's mother, 58-year-old Daw Yin Shwe fell sick, and at about 1pm on October 23 she died. Persons close to the family have said that she was in good health before hand and that she died out of grief. Her son was not given permission to come to her funeral.

VIOLATIONS OF LAW:

There have been many violations of domestic law, to say nothing of international law, in the handling of the arrest, detention and prosecution of Ko Win Ko and Phyoe Zaw Latt. They include the following:

1. The correct search and arrest procedure was not followed. The police--not USDA officials, who are not state officers--should have searched the men. Also, two witnesses are required to observe the search, but apparently this was not done.

2. The defendants have not had any access to lawyers or opportunities to defend themselves. The date of the hearing of Ko Win Ko was changed apparently to thwart plans to represent him, and Phyoe Zaw Latt has not been given any access to a lawyer since his arrest.

3. The good behaviour bond placed on Phyoe Zaw Latt was patently illegal. It should only be used for habitual offenders or where there is clear evidence of intent to commit a felony, neither of which applied in his case.

4. The special prison tribunal for Phyoe Zaw Latt also is irregular and illegal. Such tribunals are normally reserved for special "national security" cases, whereas in this instance there are only normal criminal charges, which should be heard in an open court.

Additionally, on October 10 the state-controlled newspapers published a short report on the arrest of Ko Win Ko on charges of carrying illegal lottery tickets. These reports, which are unusual in Burma's tightly-controlled media, had the effect of declaring him guilty before even going to court.

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:

The AHRC has reported on many cases in the past that speak to the un-rule of law in Burma. Not only are international laws ignored there, but the police, prosecutors and judges routinely violate or ignore domestic law where necessary to obtain the "right" result for the state. Some such cases include:

UA-292-2006: U Tin Kyi was jailed for insulting government authorities in a case based wholly on hearsay.

UA-285-2006: Nyi Nyi Htun was sentenced to jail for selling illegal lottery tickets without any evidence, by a judge without the authority to convict him.

UA-155-2006: U Tin Nyein was charged under a wrong law because he complained that government authorities destroyed his crops through their negligence.

UA-110-2005: A court in Rangoon refused to proceed with an inquest into the torture killing of Aung Hlaing Win despite having testimony from doctors and medical records to prove it.

UA-021-2004: A child, Chan Thar Kyaw, was sentenced to jail under laws intended for adults.

The use of illegal gambling as a pretext for arrest and detention is also reportedly commonplace: see for instance the case of Ko Sein Win, UA-175-2004.

Also see the case of human rights defender Ma Su Su Nwe: http://campaigns.ahrchk.net/susunwe

For further commentary, see the AHRC Burma homepage: http://burma.ahrchk.net
______________________________

SUGGESTED ACTION:

Please write to the Attorney General to demand that the accused men obtain their legal rights. In particular, that the conviction of Ko Win Ko is reviewed, and that Phyoe Zaw Latt is entitled to a trial in an open court with a lawyer. In Burma, this is no guarantee of success; however, it will at least allow persons to document proceedings and advocate for the case outside of the court, at home and abroad.

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 that same other place names also are changed. 

To support this appeal, please click:

Sample letter:

Dear ___________,

MYANMAR: Illegal arrest, prosecution and imprisonment of two men in Bago Division

Details of victims:
1. Ko Win Ko, aged 38, resident of Yethabhyar village, Hteindaw village tract, Moenyo Township, Minhla District, Bago Division, an NLD member; imprisoned at Paungte Prison
2. Phyoe Zaw Latt (a.k.a. Ko Wa Toat), aged 23, resident of Yethabhyar village, Hteindaw village tract, Minhla District, Moenyo Township, Bago Division; detained awaiting trial in Tharawaddy Prison
Alleged perpetrators:
1. Personnel from Letpadan Township Police & Moenyo Township Police
2. U Than Myat Soe, Executive, Union Solidarity and Development Association (USDA), Letpadan Township
3. U Than Zaw Win, Member, USDA, Letpadan Township
4. Judge U Khin Maung, Letpadan Township Court
Date of arrest: 6 October 2006, 10am
Place of arrest: Letpadan Train Station

I am writing to express my grave concern about the violations in legal process in the arrest, prosecution and imprisonment of Ko Win Ko and Phyoe Zaw Latt, both of Yethabhyar village in Moenyo Township, Bago Division.

According to the information I have received, both men were stopped by members of the Letpadan Township Police and Union Solidarity and Development Association at Letpadan Train Station on 6 October 2006. While searching the two, the officials found over 400 signatures for a petition calling for the release of political prisoners. U Than Myat Soe, USDA Executive, and U Than Zaw Win, USDA Member, then produced stubs of illegal lottery tickets that they claimed to find in Ko Win Ko's bag. The allegation that the stubs had been produced was published in the Mirror and Light of Myanmar newspapers on October 10.

The two men were taken back to the Letpadan Township Police Station, where Ko Win Ko was charged under Penal Code section 353(2) and the Gambling Act sections 15(a) and 16(a). Phyoe Zaw Latt was apparently not charged immediately, but kept in illegal detention.

On October 19 when senior lawyer U Khin Maung Yin came to the Letpadan Township Court to represent Ko Win Ko, he was told that he had already been heard, convicted and sentenced to three years' imprisonment on October 18 (Criminal Case Nos. 652/06, 653/06). On October 25 the lawyer tried to gain access to his client at Paungte Prison but was reportedly told by prison director U Myint Aung to wait some more days.

On October 22 Phyoe Zaw Latt was reportedly released from police custody by the Letpadan Township Court on a six-month good behaviour bond on 22 October 2006 under section 5(1)(f)(g) of the 1961 Restriction and Bond Act. However, he was also reportedly rearrested by the Moenyo Township Police and charged under Penal Code sections 420, 465 and 468. He is now awaiting trial in Tharawaddy Prison.

The actions against these men are patently illegal under your own domestic law, to say nothing of international standards. Here are just a few of the evident illegalities and irregularities:

1. Police officers, not USDA officials, should have searched the men in the presence of two witnesses (Criminal Procedure Code section 103).

2. The defendants are entitled to lawyers and open trial (Judiciary Law 2000 section 2).

3. There were no grounds for applying a good behaviour bond to Phyoe Zaw Latt, who was neither a habitual offender nor someone evidently about to commit a felony (Restriction and Bond Act 1961 section 5).

Sufficient time to study all of the details of the case would no doubt reveal many other grave irregularities. However, these men do not have the luxury of time. While Ko Win Ko is languishing in jail, Phyoe Zaw Latt is reported to go before a special tribunal inside Tharawaddy Prison tomorrow. As his is an ordinary criminal case, I fail to understand the reason that such a tribunal would be convened, other than to thwart the dim prospects that he has right now for justice.

Accordingly, I urge you to do the following urgently:

1. Instruct the Letpadan Township Township Law Office to file for a review of the conviction of Ko Win Ko, and to review the placing of a good behaviour bond on Phyoe Zaw Latt, in accordance with section 9(l) of the Attorney General Law 2001.
 
2. Instruct the Moenyo Township Law Office to investigate the case of Phyoe Zaw Latt and ensure that he is prosecuted in an open court.

3. Ensure that both of the accused obtain access to a lawyer or lawyers and obtain a full legal defence in accordance with the law.

4. Urge the Ministry of Home Affairs to investigate the circumstances that led to the two men's illegal arrest and detention.

In conclusion, I bring to your attention the comments of the UN Special Rapporteur on Myanmar, Professor Paulo Sergio Pinheiro, to the Human Rights Council on September 27, in which he said that

"The capacity of law enforcement institutions and the independence and impartiality of the judiciary have been hampered by sustained practices of impunity. I am also very concerned by the continued misuse of the legal system, which denies the rule of law and represents a major obstacle for securing the effective and meaningful exercise of fundamental freedoms by citizens. Grave human rights violations are indulged not only with impunity but authorized by the sanction of laws. In that respect, I consider especially as a matter of grave concern the criminalization of the exercise of fundamental freedoms by political opponents, human rights defenders and victims of human rights abuses."

These views about your legal system are widely held abroad. The fact is that your courts and laws will continue to lack all credibility until you demonstrate a commitment to the basic principles of the rule of law, not merely the artifices of the law. I again urge you to do so in these two cases.

Yours sincerely

---

PLEASE SEND YOUR LETTERS TO:

U Aye Maung
Attorney General
Office of the Attorney General
101 Pansodan Street
Kyauktada Township
Yangon
MYANMAR
Fax: + 95 1 371 028/ 282 449 / 282 990


PLEASE SEND COPIES TO:

1. Lt-Gen. Soe Win
Prime Minister
c/o Ministry of Defence
Signal Pagoda Road
Yangon
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. Brig-Gen. Khin Yi
Director General
Myanmar Police Force
Saya San Road
Yankin Township
Yangon
MYANMAR
Tel: + 95 1 549 196/ 228/ 209

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 Ibrahim Gambari
Undersecretary General for Political Affairs
United Nations
S-3770A
New York
NY 10017
USA
Tel: +1 212 963 5055/ 0739
Fax: +1 212 963 5065/ 6940 (ATTN: UNDER SECRETARY GENERAL POLITICAL AFFAIRS)
E-mail: gambari@un.org

6. 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

7. 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 JUDGES & LAWYERS)

8. Ms Leila Zerrougui
Chairperson
Working Group on arbitrary detention
Attn: Mr Miguel de la Lama
OHCHR-UNOG
1211 Geneva 10
SWITZERLAND
Fax: +41 22 917 9006 (ATTENTION: WORKING GROUP ARBITRARY DETENTION)

9. Ms. Hina Jilani
Special Representative of the Secretary General for human rights defenders
Att: Melinda Ching Simon
Room 1-040
C/o OHCHR-UNOG
1211 Geneva 10
SWITZERLAND
Tel: +41 22 917 93 88
Fax: +41 22 917 9006 (ATTN: SPECIAL REPRESENTATIVE HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENDERS)

10. Mr. Ambeyi Ligabo
Special Rapporteur on the right to freedom of opinion and expression
c/o J Deriviero
OHCHR-UNOG
8-14 Avenue de la Paix
1211 Geneva 10
SWITZERLAND
Tel: +41 22 917 9177
Fax: +41 22 917 9006 (ATTN: SPECIAL RAPPORTEUR FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION)


Thank you.

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


Document Type :
Urgent Appeal Case
Document ID :
UA-358-2006
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.