Home / News / Urgent Appeals / UPDATE (Burma): Farmer released by Supreme Court

UPDATE (Burma): Farmer released by Supreme Court

February 9, 2007

UPDATE ON URGENT APPEAL UPDATE ON URGENT APPEAL UPDATE ON URGENT APPEAL

ASIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION - URGENT APPEALS PROGRAMME

Update on Urgent Appeal

9 February 2007

[RE: UA-155-2006: BURMA: Farmer jailed for complaining about destruction of crops]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
UP-018-2007: BURMA: Farmer released by Supreme Court

BURMA: Arbitrary and illegal detention; impunity; un-rule of law
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear friends,

The Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) is pleased to inform you that a farmer in Burma who was jailed for complaining that his crops were destroyed due to the negligence of local officials has been released after the Supreme Court upheld his appeal.

As reported in our original appeal (UA-155-2006), U Tin Nyein was jailed for two years on 29 March 2006 because the authorities sued him twice after he complained that his land was flooded as they demolished embankments that he had constructed. He was kept under illegal detention from February 6.

Tin Nyein appealed to the Supreme Court after lower courts had thrown out the appeal, and a divisional court had directed that he be charged for different offences from those originally posted against him.

According to information just received from the Yoma 3 news service (Thailand), Tin Nyein won his appeal in the Supreme Court on 25 January 2007. The court ordered that he be freed on February 1; however, he was not released until February 5, after the weekend.

Thank you for your support for this urgent appeal. However, please continue to give support to other cases (below) where the victims are still in jail.

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:

The AHRC has written often in recent times of the "injustice system" in Burma: the wrongful prosecution and detention of Tin Nyein being just one example of how ordinary persons are needlessly persecuted in the courts.

In a similar case, U Aye Min and U Win Nyunt (UA-071-2006 and UP-054-2006) were also sentenced to two years in prison in December 2005 for informing the authorities in the same township that local officials had been extorting money under the cover of an agricultural loan programme. Unfortunately, their appeal to the Supreme Court too was rejected (UP-228-2006).

See also the case of U Tin Kyi, a farmer jailed for supposedly insulting a local government officer (UA-292-2006).

The AHRC has also recently obtained documentation on the case of Daw Khin Win, who was jailed after lodging complaints against local authorities in Kawhmu Township, Rangoon, in November 2006, and will issue an appeal on her case shortly.

Further discussion on these and related topics can be found on the AHRC Burma homepage: http://burma.ahrchk.net, and in the 2006 Human Rights Report of the AHRC.


SUGGESTED ACTION:

Please write to the Minister of Home Affairs calling for compensation to be paid to U Tin Kyi for his wrongful detention, and for the release of persons jailed in other similar cases.

Please note that for the purpose of the letter, the country should be referred to by its official title of Myanmar, rather than Burma.

Sample letter:

Dear ___________,

MYANMAR: Supreme Court overturns conviction of U Tin Nyein in Bogalay Township Court Criminal Case No. 390/06 under sections 504/505(b) of the Penal Code

Name of victim: U Tin Nyein, 46-years-old, farmer, son of U Khwe, residing in Kwunthi Chaung village, Kyun village tract, Bogalay Township, Pyapon District, Ayeyawaddy Division
Convicted under: Sections 504/505(b) of the Penal Code, in Bogalay Township Court, Criminal Case No. 390/06, Judge U Bhyein Htun Aung presiding, decided on 29 March 2006, sentenced to two years in prison under each section (to be served consecutively)
Related actions: Appeal No. 75/2005, Pyapon District Court, decided on 23 December 2005, against Felony No. 1496/2005 lodged in the Bogalay Sub-township Court under section 211 of the Penal Code on 6 December 2005; Irrawaddy Sub-divisional Court appeal lodged on 14 February 2006; Supreme Court appeal decided on 25 January 2007
Names of persons involved in the case:
1. Police Superintendent Tin Htun, Bogalay Township Police Station, plaintiff in second case
2. U San Myint and five other workers assigned for land and water works in Kyun village tract, Bogalay Township, Pyapon District, Ayeyawaddy Division, respondents in original complaint

I am pleased to hear that the Supreme Court of Myanmar has released U Tin Nyein, who had been convicted of upsetting public tranquility in Bogalay Township after he complained that work done by government officers on 19 August 2005 caused damage to his crops. According to the information I have received, the Supreme Court decided in his favour on 25 January 2007. His release was ordered on February 1; however, he was not released from Pyapon Prison until February 5.

I now ask that U Tin Nyein be compensated for his eight months' wrongful imprisonment. Additionally, there should be an inquiry conducted into his alleged illegal detention prior to being jailed by the Bogalay Township Police. 

I also note that there are many other persons who remain in jail in Myanmar in similar cases, and call for their release. I note in particular the cases of: school headmaster U Aye Min and Union Solidarity and Development Association officer U Win Nyunt, also of Bogalay Township, who have likewise been sentenced to jail in Pyapon Prison for a period of two years due to their complaints of alleged corruption by local authorities (Bogalay Township Court, Criminal Case No. 1334/2005), which was summarily dismissed by Supreme Court on 20 November 2006; farmer U Tin Kyi, who in August 2006 was sentenced to four months in prison for insulting a government officer, despite the charges being based on hearsay (Kyaung Gone Township Court, Criminal Case No. 705/06); and, Daw Khin Win, who was sentenced to one year in jail in November 2006 for complaining about corruption by local government officials (Kunchankone Township Court, Felony No. 275/2006).

What is significant in all of these cases is the lack of independent channels for complaint and redress of the victims. While acknowledging recent initiatives by the Government of Myanmar to counter corruption and other abuses by government officers, I insist that these will not be effective until such a time that there exist truly independent channels for receipt and investigation of complaints such as those brought by the persons in these cases.

Yours sincerely

---

PLEASE SEND YOUR LETTERS TO:

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

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. U Aye Maung
Attorney General
Office of the Attorney General
Office No. 25
Naypyitaw
MYANMAR
Tel: + 95 67 404 090/ 092/ 094/ 097
Fax: + 95 67 404 146/ 106

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: Ms. Audrey Ryan
Room 3-090
OHCHR-UNOG
1211 Geneva 10
SWITZERLAND
Tel: + 41 22 9179 281
Fax: + 41 22 9179 018 (ATTN: SPECIAL RAPPORTEUR MYANMAR)

6. Mr. Leandro Despouy
Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers
Att: 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. Ms Leila Zerrougui
Chairperson
Working Group on arbitrary detention
OHCHR-UNOG
1211 Geneva 10
SWITZERLAND
Fax: +41 22 917 9006 (ATTENTION: WORKING GROUP ARBITRARY DETENTION)


Thank you.

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

Document Type :
Urgent Appeal Update
Document ID :
UP-018-2007
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.