[UA-119-2006: BURMA: Court appeal against lawyer jailed for helping farmers contact ILO headed for Supreme Court; UA-071-2006: BURMA: Two villagers jailed for reporting extortion; UP-054-2006: BURMA: Appeal again thrown out of one court; another ridiculous day in another]
———————————————————————
BURMA: Extortion; impunity; illegal detention; un-rule of law; attacks on human rights defenders
———————————————————————
Dear friends,
There have been numerous developments and growing international attention on the case of imprisoned Burmese human rights lawyer U Aye Myint since the recent appeal issued by the Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC). In May, his licence to practice law was revoked. On June 14 and 15 the issue of forced labour practices in Burma and attacks on complainants and their lawyers came before the annual conference of the International Labour Organisation (ILO). The ILO has now demanded action from the Burmese government by the end of July, including the release of Aye Myint, or it will refer the matter to the International Court of Justice. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court has accepted an application for appeal against Aye Myint’s imprisonment, and is due to hear the appeal within this month. It has also accepted an appeal from lawyers representing two farmers who were sentenced to prison in December 2005 for reporting extortion by local authorities.
CASE OF U AYE MYINT (UA-119-2005):
As noted in the original appeal, U Aye Myint helped a group of farmers in Daik-U Township of lower Burma lodge a complaint with the ILO in June 2005 over unfair allocation of pastureland for their cattle. Later they met the ILO staff in Rangoon. In August the authorities arrested Aye Myint and charged him with distributing false information. Although the evidence in court was overwhelmingly in favour of Aye Myint, he was convicted at the end of October and sentenced to seven years’ hard labour. The AHRC previously pointed to the numerous legal problems with the judgment.
On May 12 a notification was sent to Aye Myint stating that in view of his conviction, his licence to practice law has been revoked. However, according to some lawyers the action is in violation of Bar Council regulations.
On June 14 and 15 the case of U Aye Myint was discussed, among other issues, at the annual conference of the ILO. In 2003 Aye Myint had already been convicted of treason for having contact with the ILO, but the sentenced was commuted in 2004 and he was released in 2005.
In a report to the conference, the ILO makes clear that
“The policy [of the government in Burma] to prosecute persons involved in making ‘false allegations’ of forced labour has been stated and unambiguously reaffirmed by the authorities. Indeed, a number of persons are being prosecuted or have already been sentenced and imprisoned on this basis. The authorities cannot continue such a policy while at the same time pledging their continued cooperation with the ILO.” [ILC 95th Session Provisional Record No. 2, para. 19]
In conclusion, the conference decided that the government of Burma must release Aye Myint by the end of July and also by then give evidence that it has stopped prosecutions of persons complaining to the ILO. Otherwise it will proceed with steps to take the government to the International Court of Justice in The Hague.
Meanwhile, the Supreme Court has accepted an application to appeal against the conviction of U Aye Myint. The appeal is due to be heard during June. The AHRC will be among many groups following the outcome of this decision closely. In the event that U Aye Myint is found not guilty by the Supreme Court, his licence must also be automatically reinstated.
CASE OF U AYE MIN AND U WIN NYUNT (UA-071-2006; UP-054-2006):
As told previously, U Aye Min and U Win Nyunt were sentenced to two years in prison each on 2 December 2005 after informing the township authorities that their village council in Bogalay Township, part of the western delta region, had been illegally taking money on the pretence of managing an agricultural loan programme.
As in the case of U Aye Myint and other cases involving human rights defenders, the lower courts have summarily thrown out appeals submitted against the decision.
On June 10, the Supreme Court in Rangoon accepted an application to hear the men’s appeal. The hearings are expected to begin in July.
For sample letters and full details of both of these cases, visit the original appeals.
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:
These recent developments follow the sudden release of human rights defender and village-level forced labour activist Ma Su Su Nwe from prison on 6 June 2006, just before the ILO conference (UP-119-2006). The ILO has welcomed her release but said that it is not sufficient. For all the details of Su Su Nwe’s case, visit her webpage: http://www.ahrchk.net/susunwe.
For other ongoing cases on farmers’ concerns and forced labour in Burma see for instance, the jailing of U Tin Nyein for complaining about destruction of his crops (UA-155-2006) and the Aunglan forced labour death case (UP-054-2006; UA-050-2006). For a broader discussion, see the 1999 Voice of the Hungry Nation report of the People’s Tribunal on Food Scarcity and Militarisation in Burma.
Thank you.
Urgent Appeals Programme
Asian Human Rights Commission (ahrchk@ahrchk.org)
