The Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) is writing to you with regards to the recent arrest and charging of six workers’ rights advocates in Myanmar, with which you are already familiar. The six were among 33 persons arrested on 1 May 2007 after organising a discussion at the American Center in Yangon.
The International Labour Organisation (ILO) should be commended for its stern persistence in addressing the problem of forced labour in Myanmar, both through its work internationally and within the country, under extremely difficult conditions. The AHRC acknowledges the organisation’s good efforts and also expects that you fully appreciate the extent of problems in all areas of criminal justice and administration in that country and how despite the fact that your mandate is restricted to addressing a particular feature of these problems, ultimately the larger systemic issues must also be addressed to ensure any lasting change.
This particular case speaks to those problems, which relate both to the wider features of criminal investigation and judicial process in Myanmar, as well as basic notions of fundamental human rights and labour rights.
To begin with, the persons arrested were not doing anything illegal: on the contrary, they were simply holding discussions on the domestic and international standards which the government of Myanmar itself has undertaken to uphold.
In this respect, the case bears a resemblance to that of seven men in Pyi and Hinthada townships that were recently imprisoned ostensibly on grounds of upsetting public tranquillity and giving illegal tutorials respectively, but were in fact jailed because of their similar efforts to promote human rights instruments to which the government supposedly adheres.
However, after the persons arrested on May 1 passed through an interrogation centre (rather than ordinary police station) and were finally brought before a court in July, they were charged with much more serious offences than those in the abovementioned cases, including sedition and crimes relating to illegal associations.
These are, as you know, very grave charges for which they may be sentenced to life imprisonment. Indeed, this is highly plausible: last October nine men were sentenced from 85 to 106 years in prison on similar charges, without proper application of law or evidence. In that case, as in this, there was no basis for the charge of sedition: i.e. that the accused attempted “to bring into hatred or contempt, or excite or attempt to excite disaffection” towards the government or union. In that case, as in this, the trial was carried out within the central prison, in violation of the principle of open court that is acknowledged by the government of Myanmar by way of the Judiciary Law of 2000 (section 2[e]). In that case, lawyers were denied access to the accused; in the present case they were given access but after being subjected to constant harassment have withdraw from the case in protest. In that case too the court overlooked numerous breaches of criminal procedure in convicting the accused.
Thus the case is an extremely difficult one, yet it also is an important challenge for the ILO, as it is so thoroughly antagonistic to everything that your organisation represents. It likewise stands at the nexus between the relatively narrow mandate of the ILO in Myanmar and the wider failings of criminal law and justice in the country, which one way or another your organisation must somehow confront if it is to make significant headway in addressing the persistence of forced labour, the denial of rights to complain and the concomitant persistent abuses of virtually all workers’ rights there.
While cognisant that you will already be troubled by this case and taking steps to intervene where and however possible, the Asian Human Rights Commission wishes to reiterate our special concern for the fate of the detained persons, in particular in view of the ongoing work of the ILO in Myanmar, and offer whatever support is necessary to see not only that they are freed from the spurious allegations against them, but also that in so doing there may be greater informed discussion about the bigger institutional obstacles to proper criminal investigations, prosecutions, trials and sentencing there.
Yours sincerely
Basil Fernando
Executive Director
Asian Human Rights Commission, Hong Kong
CC: Professor Paulo Sergio Pinheiro, UN Special Rapporteur on human rights in Myanmar
