Home / News / Urgent Appeals / UPDATE (Burma): Human rights lawyer released, defiant; district court rejects other case

UPDATE (Burma): Human rights lawyer released, defiant; district court rejects other case

July 10, 2006

[NOTICE: To facilitate your intervention of the urgent appeals issued by the AHRC, we have developed a new automatic letter-sending system using the "button" below. However, in this appeal, we could not include e-mail addresses of many of the Burmese authorities. We encourage you to send your appeal letters via fax or post to those people. Fax numbers and postal addresses of the Burmese authorities are attached below with this appeal. Thank you.]

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

ASIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION - URGENT APPEALS PROGRAMME

Update on Urgent Appeals

10 July 2006

[UA-119-2006: BURMA: Court appeal against lawyer jailed for helping farmers contact ILO headed for Supreme Court; UA-071-2006: UA-155-2006: BURMA: Farmer jailed for complaining about destruction of crops; UP-125-2006: BURMA: Human rights lawyer's licence revoked; ILO steps up pressure; cases go to Supreme Court]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
UP-139-2006: BURMA: Human rights lawyer released, defiant; district court rejects other case

BURMA: Extortion; impunity; illegal detention; un-rule of law; attacks on human rights defenders
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear friends,

We are pleased to inform you that after strenuous international pressure and attention imprisoned Burmese human rights lawyer U Aye Myint was released on Saturday, July 8. The International Labour Organisation (ILO) had given the authorities in Burma until the end of July to release Aye Myint, who had helped lodge a complaint to ILO staff, or face strong international legal action. Aye Myint has said that he will continue to take up rights-related cases, but it is unclear at this stage whether his licence to practice law will be returned to him or not. Meanwhile, a district court on June 25 summarily rejected an appeal against imprisonment by U Tin Nyein for complaining that government authorities negligently flooded his fields. 
 
U Aye Myint was on Saturday freed from prison after serving 11 months of a seven year sentence for helping a group of farmers to lodge a complaint with the ILO in June 2005 over unfair allocation of pastureland for their cattle (UA-119-2005; UP-125-2006). Aye Myint was released under the same provision of law that allowed for the release of Ma Su Su Nwe in June (UP-119-2006): section 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

Before being released Aye Myint was required to sign a document that if he commits any further offence in the remaining period of his sentence (six years and one month) then he will be returned to prison and required to serve out the full term.

However, the release of Aye Myint has left a number of unanswered questions. Among them:

1. The Supreme Court was due to decide on Aye Myint's appeal against his imprisonment. By releasing him under section 401 the authorities have avoided the obligation to give a judicial statement on whether or not his detention was valid. Although Burma's courts are completely controlled by the military government, still it has left the question of whether or not similar complaints will be prosecuted likewise.

2. Aye Myint had his licence to practice law revoked on May 13 (not May 12 as previously reported) due to his conviction. Had he been acquitted by the Supreme Court, it would have to have been automatically returned to him. However, as the authorities have aborted the judicial process, it is not clear as to whether or not he will get his licence back. Although Aye Myint has said that he will press on with his work regardless of whether or not he has his licence, if he cannot practice his profession it is bound to have an effect on his livelihood.

In telephone interviews with shortwave radio stations after his release, Aye Myint sounded defiant and determined to continue as a human rights defender. On a Radio Free Asia broadcast on Sunday, July 9 he told interviewer U Thein Htaik Oo that:

"I am not going the way of party politics or national politics. I am going the way of people's politics. I am just submitting that where the country's enacted laws are destroyed people are persecuted... I want the people to know that if the state violates enacted law and causes ill-treatment, come to U Aye Myint. Although I've lost my licence, I will write letters of complaint. I will endeavour to deliver them to those in charge. If you say that they won't do anything that's up to you. I'll go to jail [again]... I fight within the limits of the law. I'll carry on."

Meanwhile, according to the Yoma-3 news service (Thailand) U Tin Nyein, a farmer who in August 2005 complained that the authorities destroyed his crops by breaking open embankments on his land (UA-155-2006), had his appeal quashed in the district court. It will now proceed to the divisional court. However, Tin Nyein's family is struggling to pay the costs of the case.


SUGGESTED ACTION:

Please write to the Attorney General, who in Burma is also the head of the Bar Council, calling for the immediate restoration of U Aye Myint's licence to practice law. A suggested letter follows. Please note that for the purpose of the letter, the country should be referred to by its official title of Myanmar, rather than Burma.

To support this appeal please click:

Sample letter:

--------------

Dear __________,

MYANMAR: Restore licence of Supreme Court lawyer U Aye Myint (no. 4821)

I am pleased to note that Supreme Court lawyer U Aye Myint was released from prison on 8 July 2006 under section 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code after his seven-year conviction in Serious Criminal Case No. 960, Daik-U Township Court, Judge U Mya Han presiding, of 31 October 2005, under section 5(e) of the 1950 Emergency Provisions Act for having helped a group of farmers complain to the International Labour Organisation (ILO), which was summarily dismissed by the Bago District Court on 2 January 2006 (Judge Daw Khin Win Myint presiding) and Bago Divisional Court on 2 March 2006 (Assistant Divisional Judge Daw Khin Saw Nyunt presiding).

However, I remain concerned that U Aye Myint's licence to practice law (no. 4821) was revoked on 13 May 2006 in meeting no. 1/2006 of the Supreme Court judges pursuant to the matter taken up by the Bar Council of Myanmar in accordance with regulation 10(1).
 
In view of the fact that U Aye Myint has been released without further conditions and given that he has maintained his innocence throughout and had proceeded with an appeal to the Supreme Court, I urge you to take the necessary steps so that his licence to practice law is at once restored to him.

As this case has received an enormous amount of international attention, in particular through the ILO, if the authorities in Myanmar only go so far as to release U Aye Myint but not restore his means to practice his profession and earn a livelihood then this will be only a partial resolution of this case and as such it should continue to receive special attention.

---


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. U Aung Toe
Chief Justice
Office of the Supreme Court
101 Pansodan Street
Kyauktada Township
Yangon
MYANMAR
Tel: +951 372 249 / 253 066

2. 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

3. Maj-Gen. Maung Oo
Minister for Home Affairs
Ministry of Home Affairs
Corner of Saya San Street and No 1 Industrial Street,
Yankin Township
Yangon
MYANMAR
Tel: +951 250 315 / 374 789
Fax: +951 549 663 / 549 208

4. Mr Richard Horsey
Liaison Officer (Myanmar)
International Labour Organization (ILO)
4, route des Morillons
CH-1211 Geneva 22
SWITZERLAND
Fax: +41 22 798 8685
E-mail: horsey@ilo.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. Ms. Hina Jilani
Special Representative of the Secretary General for human rights defenders
Attn: Chloe Marnay-Baszanger
Room 1-040
OHCHR-UNOG
1211 Geneva 10
SWITZERLAND
Tel: +41 22 917 93 88
Fax: +41 22 917 9006 (ATTN: SPECIAL REPRESENTATIVE HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENDERS)
E-mail: cmarnay-baszanger@ohchr.org


Thank you.

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

Document Type :
Urgent Appeal Update
Document ID :
UP-139-2006
Countries :
Issues :
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.