Home / News / Urgent Appeals / UPDATE (Burma): Villagers who complained about corruption lose final appeal
 

UPDATE (Burma): Villagers who complained about corruption lose final appeal

December 13, 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 Appeal

13 December 2006

[RE: UA-071-2006: BURMA: Two villagers jailed for reporting extortion & UA-050-2006: BURMA: More human rights defenders face jail terms; no justice or compensation for forced labour death; UP-054-2006: BURMA: Appeal again thrown out of one court; another ridiculous day in another]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
UP-228-2006: BURMA: Villagers who complained about corruption lose final appeal

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

Pyithu Hittaing Vol. 1. No. 8 OUT NOW
http://burma.ahrchk.net 

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

Dear friends,

The Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) regrets to inform you that two villagers in Burma who appealed against jail sentences for reporting about the corruption of local authorities have had their final appeal thrown out of court. U Aye Min and U Win Nyunt will now serve out their terms until the end of 2007 unless sufficient pressure can be brought on to the authorities to secure their early release.

As reported in our original appeal and update (UA-071-2006 & UP-054-2006), 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, Irrawaddy Division (delta region), had been illegally taking the money for on the pretence of managing an agricultural loan programme. Although the township authorities ordered the village council to stop doing this, the higher up district council later ordered that the two men be arrested for giving "false information". The first appeal of the men against the decision was also struck down by the district court.

According to the information the AHRC has now received, on 20 November 2006 the case was thrown out without a hearing by the special appeals bench of the Supreme Court, as it had been in every lower court since the two were convicted.

There are now no further judicial avenues for appeal left and the only way that the two could be released early is through heavy external pressure and executive intervention, as has happened in other cases during 2006, notably those of labour activists and human rights defenders Ma Su Su Nwe (UP-119-2006) and U Aye Myint (UP-139-2006).

Please see previous appeals and updates on cases of other villagers and farmers needlessly jailed for making legitimate complaints about the wrongdoing of local authorities in Burma, including farmers U Tin Nyein (UA-155-2006) and U Tin Kyi (UA-292-2006). For more, also visit the AHRC Burma homepage: http://burma.ahrchk.net 


SUGGESTED ACTION:

Please write to the Minister for Home Affairs calling for an investigation into the allegations of the two jailed men, and for their release from detention.

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 Irrawaddy as Ayeyarwaddy.

To support this appeal, please click:

Sample letter:

Dear ___________,

MYANMAR: Wrongful conviction of U Aye Min & U Win Nyunt in Bogalay Township Court Criminal Case No. 1334-2005 under section 211 of the Penal Code

Names of victims:
1. U Aye Min, primary school headmaster, son of U Than Maung, Kwinpauk village, Kyisu-Kyonephar village tract, Bogalay Township, Pyapon District, Ayeyarwaddy Division; currently inmate of Pyapon Prison
2. U Win Nyunt, organiser, Union Solidarity and Development Association, son of U Thar Gyan, Kwinpauk village; currently inmate of Pyapon Prison
Convicted under: Section 211, Penal Code, in Bogalay Township Court, Criminal Case No. 1334-2005, Judge U Bhyein Aung; appeal summarily dismissed by Supreme Court on 20 November 2006

I am saddened to have received news that two men who brought complaints about alleged extortion by the members of the Kyisu-Kyonephar Village Tract Peace & Development Council in Bogalay Township have had their appeals against two-year jail sentences summarily dismissed by the Supreme Court.

According to the information I have received, U Aye Min and U Win Nyunt, both respected figures of Kwinpauk village in Bogalay Township, put their names at the head of a list of eight men who complained to the Bogalay Township Peace and Development Council in writing on June 30 and August 5 of 2005 that they were among 56 farmers in the locality who were ordered to pay 3000 kyat each "extra" on agricultural loans for the forthcoming 2005-06 planting season. Additionally, they were allegedly ordered to pay 400 kyat each for costs in construction of the Kwinchaung council office. They were not issued receipts. They also reported that the Kyisu-Kyonephar Village Tract Peace & Development Council had since 2002 demanded money for various local tasks without explaining to the local villagers how it would be used.

After receiving the complaints, the Township Peace and Development Council summoned U San Shwe, Chairman of the Village Tract Peace and Development Council, with council members, and reportedly warned them to return the extorted money to the farmers and not continue with the practice.

However, San Shwe and his council members accused the farmers of having falsely reported them. On September 12, Pyapon District Peace and Development Council Chairman U Ye Htut ordered the township authorities to take action against the farmers for giving false information (letter no. 2-1-2 Oo-4). On December 22 the Township Peace and Development Council sent a follow-up letter (no. 2-10-2 Oo-6) to the Village Tract Peace and Development Council, informing it to proceed with action against the farmers. As a result, the village council did not return the money that it had allegedly extorted, and began legal action against the complainants for making false allegations under section 211 of the Penal Code.

During the hearings in the Bogalay Township Court (Criminal Case No. 1334-2005), the village council members said that they only collected money in accordance with their duties. However, 28 of the farmers involved submitted affidavits to the court that the original complaint was genuine, and other farmers that had put their names on the complaint testified before the court in defence of the two accused. Members of the school committee also spoke in defence of Aye Min.
Nonetheless, Judge U Bhyein Aung found that the two men were guilty and sentenced them to the maximum term of two years with hard labour on December 2. I am informed that an appeal to the Pyapon District Court was summarily dismissed in early February 2006. A further appeal to the Ayeyawaddy Divisional Court in Pathein also failed, as did an appeal to the Supreme Court and then, finally, to the Special Appellate Bench of the Supreme Court on 20 November 2006.

All of these appeals were summarily dismissed, speaking to the fact that the appellants were not allowed their legal rights to a full and fair hearing. Unfortunately, this case is only one among many of which I have been informed in which the courts in Myanmar appear to be operating as nothing more than tools for the exercise of executive prerogatives.

I am also aware that the government of Myanmar has made it a priority to eliminate corruption, and that it has indicated that no person should be above the law. Unfortunately, this case is among many others that show that the local government officials in Myanmar are capable of taking all forms of retribution against persons who attempt to complain of wrongdoing, even where the complainants are themselves holding offices as public servants or as members of government-sponsored agencies.

I call on you to order a full inquiry into the allegations of the original complainants against the village council members in this case. Additionally, please take immediate steps to see the men released from prison. More generally, I call on your government to make amendments to the law, and specifically section 211 of the Penal Code, in order that it is not used to convict persons making legitimate complaints.

Finally, I wish to remind you of the many concerns felt in the international community regarding the lack of effective remedies for persons wronged by state authorities in Myanmar. I urge your government to ratify the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights without delay. This Covenant is the central plank in the international human rights regime and for so long as Myanmar remains outside its provisions there will continue to be many questions regarding the enjoyment of fundamental human rights in your country.

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
Signal Pagoda Road
Yangon
MYANMAR
Tel: + 95 1 372 681
Fax: + 95 1 652 624

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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

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. 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)

7. 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)

8. 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-228-2006
Countries :
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.