Home / News / Urgent Appeals / UPDATE (Burma): Two human rights defenders given long jail sentences
 

UPDATE (Burma): Two human rights defenders given long jail sentences

December 4, 2006

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

ASIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION - URGENT APPEALS PROGRAMME

Update on Urgent Appeal

4 December 2006

[RE: UA-358-2006: BURMA: Two men illegally arrested & jailed for petition to government]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
UP-219-2006: BURMA: Two human rights defenders given long jail sentences

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

Pyithu Hittaing Vol. 1. No. 7 OUT NOW
http://burma.ahrchk.net

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

Dear friends,

The Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) has received updated information from a number of sources on the jailing of two human rights defenders in Burma who were arrested with signatures as part of a petition to have the government release political prisoners (UA-358-2006). The two men, Ko Win Ko and Phyoe Zaw Latt, were reportedly sentenced to 14 years in jail each on November 9. Up to now, neither of them has been allowed to meet with a lawyer and only one has met his family.

As we reported previously, on October 6, Ko Win Ko and Phyoe Zaw Latt were arrested at Letpadan train station as they 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 (UP-208-2006). Ko Win Ko was charged with possession of illegal lottery tickets and on October 18 he was sentenced to three years in jail. The date of his trial was changed so that he could not have a lawyer present. Phyoe Zaw Latt was kept in illegal detention at Letpadan without charge before being released on a good behaviour bond--an inapplicable legal measure on this case. He was rearrested before arriving home. His mother died of grief shortly thereafter.

On November 9 both Phyoe Zaw Latt and Ko Win Ko were tried in Tharawaddy Township Court for deceit and forgery. Neither was represented by a lawyer and nor were families or friends informed of the hearing. Both were summarily sentenced to 14 years in prison.

After the sentencing, the two men were repeatedly moved. They had already been kept in Paungte Prison and were then being held at the Tharawaddy Prison. Subsequently, when the family members and lawyers went to the latter prison they were unable to obtain access to the two. It was later found out that they had again been transferred after the sentencing, on November 12 spending one night at Pyi Prison before again being moved, this time to Taungoo Prison, which is far from the residences of their families and friends. It is highly unusual for prisoners to be moved around with such frequency and the persons involved in the case have speculated that it was a method to prevent family and lawyers gaining access to the two men.

Finally, on November 29 family members of Phyoe Zaw Latt were able to meet him and give him food inside the prison, for the first time since the men’s arrest. The family of Ko Win Ko were refused entry on a technicality, while neither of the two has yet been able to meet with a lawyer.?

Please see the original appeal for comments on the illegality of the case, under both domestic and international law, and also for additional comments on the "un-rule of law" in Burma: UA-358-2006.


SUGGESTED ACTION:

Please write to the Attorney General to demand that the conviction of the two accused men be reviewed, and especially that they be given access to lawyers.

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 some 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, 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), 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
5. Presiding judge at Tharawaddy 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. Subsequently Ko Win Ko was charged under the same sections.

On November 9 both Phyoe Zaw Latt and Ko Win Ko were tried in Tharawaddy Township Court on the above charges. Neither was represented by a lawyer, to which they are legally entitled. Nor were families or friends informed of the hearing. Both were sentenced to 14 years in prison in what was patently an unfair trial.?

I am also concerned that before and after sentencing the two men have been repeatedly moved. They had already been kept in Paungte Prison and were then being held at the Tharawaddy Prison at time of the trial. Subsequently, when the family members and lawyers went to the latter prison they were reportedly unable to obtain access to the two. It was later found that they had again been transferred after the sentencing, on November 12 spending one night at Pyay Prison before again being moved, this time to Taungoo Prison, which is far from the residences of their families and friends. I see no other reason for the constant transferring of the two men than an attempt by the authorities concerned to deny their families and lawyers the right to meet with them. It was only on November 29 that family members of Phyoe Zaw Latt were able to meet him and give him food inside the prison, for the first time since the men’s arrest. The family of Ko Win Ko was again apparently refused entry, while neither of the two has yet been able to meet with a lawyer.?

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).

Accordingly, I urge you to do the following urgently:

1. Instruct the relevant township law offices to file for a review of the convictions, in accordance with section 9(l) of the Attorney General Law 2001.

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

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

I note with special concern the recent internationally-broadcast news that the Government of Myanmar has further restricted the activities of the International Committee of the Red Cross in Myanmar. This news bodes very ill for your country, and above all, for all of the persons in prisons in Myanmar who are currently denied the opportunity to meet with this very important international body. I trust that the Government of Myanmar will also take the time to review this decision, realise the extent of the negative repercussions that it will have for your country, and retract it immediately.

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
E-mail: wynnm@mpf.gov.mm or mone@mpf.gov.mm

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)

Thank you.

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



Document Type :
Urgent Appeal Update
Document ID :
UP-219-2006
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.