Dear friends,
The Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) has obtained details of the charging, sentencing and imprisoning of a man in Burma for helping farmers to lodge complaints about confiscation of land in the central part of the country. Ko Zaw Htay was found guilty of giving out official secrets and sentenced to ten years’ jail on 23 January 2009 because he had allegedly arranged someone to take footage of the land that was confiscated and send it abroad.
CASE DETAILS
In 2005 the Burma army in Natmauk, Magwe Division confiscated more than 5000 acres of land that was legally registered to farmers, who paid taxes and otherwise complied with government regulations in order to use it. Then the army demanded 50,000 Kyat and 20 baskets of physic nuts (used for biofuel under a government scheme) per acre to any farmer wanting to use the land on a permit system.
In 2008, some 50 farmers lodged a complaint about this matter with the International Labour Organisation (ILO) representative in the country. After that, the army unit called four villagers and interrogated them about the complaint. Thereafter, three were illegally arrested on 20 October 2008 without prior authorisation from a court, and then Ko Zaw Htay was arrested on October 29. The army personnel allegedly tortured and illegally detained the four inside their compound. The four were not brought to a court in 24 hours as required by law. Finally, only one of the first three, U Hla Soe, and Zaw Htay were held and the other two were released. After that they were again allegedly tortured at the police station in Aunglan and forced to make confessions. They were only produced and charged before a judge in December.
According to the case lodged against the two accused, Hla Soe illegally entered the area that the army had confiscated and took video footage that was sent to an overseas media group, which then broadcast the images. Zaw Htay allegedly did no more than give him the camera and train him to use it. Because of the contents of the footage they were accused of breaching the official secrets law. The army officer responsible for the unit concerned insisted that there were no unlawful payments to the unit and that the growing and giving of physic nut was on mutual agreement.
After Hla Soe agreed to testify for the prosecution against Zaw Htay, the charges against him were dropped and only the latter was prosecuted.
Aside from what has been described above, there were many other wrong procedures in the lodging of the case against the accused and hearing evidence in court. The accusations about the footage sent abroad, such that it included images of bunkers that would jeopardize army security, did not match the contents of the footage presented to the court, which was of fields, a pass for villagers to work on the confiscated land, and some signboards. The camera on which it was allegedly shot also could not be produced before the court and the CDs with the footage given in evidence were not taken directly from the accused but were copied from the television broadcast. There were no eyewitnesses that either of the two accused men were responsible for the alleged offence but only that they had supposedly admitted to the crime when in police custody, an admission that anyway by law cannot be accepted by the court. Nor was there any evidence to show that either of the accused had been in contact with overseas media, either through email or post.
Notwithstanding, on January 23 Zaw Htay was found guilty of the offence and sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment. (Please see the footage which can be viewed with narrative in Burmese at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_m-nZQoYAQ)
According to media reports, the ILO office in Burma has acknowledged that it is working on the case but at this stage is unable to comment further.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
While this case was going on, one of the lawyers representing the accused, U Phoe Phyu, 30, was himself arrested. Phoe Phyu said that when he went to Magwe to attend hearings in this case in early January he was taken to the local council and questioned by police and councillors while they searched his belongings. Then in the morning of January 15 Special Branch and township officials arrested him after he again went to Magwe in order to give case files to another lawyer, after he had already boarded a bus to go back home.
Meanwhile, the farmers who had made the complaint to ILO had reportedly in December been denied access to the land and the army was harvesting their produce in their stead.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Evidently the case against Zaw Htay was launched as retribution for the complaints that he has initiated with farmers to the International Labour Organisation. This is not illegal, as the ILO is there for the purpose of receiving such complaints, although its mandate concerns forced labour and child soldiers rather than land issues. The government itself also encourages the making of complaints about the wrongdoing of government officials, through advertisements in newspapers and other media.
Zaw Htay had previously also been accused in a similar case of sending false information to the ILO over the alleged death of a villager at the end of 2004 during forced labour on a road in Aunglan, along with two other men. The case was constantly postponed and finally it was closed thanks in part to ILO interventions (AHRC UP-054-2006).
At least four other lawyers representing many persons accused of antigovernment offences in Burma have also in recent months been prevented from doing their jobs and have themselves been imprisoned, including two who have been jailed for contempt of court, U Aung Thein and U Khin Maung Shein, whose case the AHRC has highlighted in a new campaign page.
See also the comprehensive report on Burma: “Burma, political psychosis and legal dementia” issued by the AHRC’s sister organisation and the 2008 AHRC Human Rights Report chapter on Burma.
SUGGESTED ACTION:
Please write to the persons listed below to request the immediate release of Ko Zaw Htay from prison. Please note that for the purpose of the letter, the country should be referred to by its official title of Myanmar, rather than Burma.
Please be informed that the AHRC is writing a separate letter to the UN Special Rapporteurs on Myanmar and independence of judges and lawyers as well as the UN Special Rapporteur on human rights defenders, the UN Working Group on arbitrary detention, the regional human rights office for Southeast Asia and the representative of the ILO in Burma calling for interventions into this case.
To support this case, please click here: SEND APPEAL LETTER
SAMPLE LETTER
Dear ___________,
MYANMAR: Man wrongfully jailed over complaint of land confiscation by army
Convicted person: Ko Zaw Htay, 43, residing in Setyone Ward, Aunglan Township, Magwe Division, Myanmar
Primary officials involved:
1. Captain Phyoe Way Myint, Army Serial No. Kyi/44448, 23, armoury unit commander, Natmauk Township
2. Superintendent San Ngwe, 54, Police No. La/114920, Station Commander, Natmauk Township Police 3. Police Captain Thet Tin Htun, Police No. La/112691, Natmauk Township Police
4. Police Sergeant Htein Lin, Police No. La/145774, Natmauk Township Police
Charge and trial: Charged under section 3(1)(a) and (c) of the Official Secrets Act (No. 19/1923) with approaching a prohibited place and obtaining and communicating secret official information to others; Felony Case No. 53/2008, Magwe District Court, heard by Judge U Soe Win, sentenced to ten years on 23 January 2009
I am writing to express my deep distress at learning that a man who had worked to bring alleged illegal confiscation of land to the attention of the authorities in Myanmar and has been rewarded with a jail sentence, and to call for your intervention to see that he is promptly released.
According to the information I have received, in 2005 the Myanmar Armed Forces in Natmauk Township of Magwe Division confiscated more than 5000 acres of land that was legally registered to farmers in the Ywapun Village Tract, including land of farmers in Myetyekan, Kyaungywale, Ywathit and Nyaungpauk villages, who paid taxes and otherwise complied with government regulations in order to use it. Then the army demanded 50,000 Kyat and 20 baskets of physic nuts per acre to any farmer wanting to use the land on a permit system.
In 2008, some 50 farmers lodged a complaint about this matter with the International Labour Organisation (ILO) representative in the country. After that, the army unit called four villagers, U Hla Soe, U Sein Maung, U Tin and U Aung Htay Hlaing, and interrogated them about the complaint. Thereafter, three villagers, U Hla Soe, U Ne Lin Htet and U Sein Sa Tin were illegally arrested on 20 October 2008 without prior authorisation from a court, and then Ko Zaw Htay was arrested on October 29. The army personnel allegedly tortured and illegally detained the four inside their compound. The four were not brought to a court in 24 hours as required by law (Criminal Procedure Code [CrPC] section 61). Finally, only Hla Soe and Zaw Htay were held and the other two were released. After that the remaining two detainees were again allegedly tortured at the police station in Aunglan and forced to make confessions. They were only produced and charged before a judge on 11 December 2008, such that each man was held for over six weeks outside of the legal process.
According to the case lodged against the two accused, Hla Soe illegally entered the area that the army had confiscated and took video footage that was sent to an overseas media outlet, the Democratic Voice of Burma, that broadcast the images on 10 October 2008 at around 8pm.
Aside from what has been described above, there were other wrong procedures in the lodging of the case against the accused and hearing evidence in court, such that the court should not have admitted the evidence of the prosecution but still it did, in violation of section 200 of the CrPC mandating that the prior authorisation of a court be given and in breach of laws on the keeping of records and signatures of the accused. The accusations about the footage sent abroad, such that it included images of bunkers that would jeopardize army security, did not match the contents of the footage presented to the court, which was of fields, a pass for villagers to work on the confiscated land, and some signboards. The camera on which it was allegedly shot also could not be produced before the court and the CDs with the footage given in evidence were not taken directly from the accused but were copied from the television. There were no eyewitnesses that either of the two accused men were responsible for the alleged offence but only that they had supposedly admitted to the crime when in police custody, an admission that anyway by law cannot be accepted by the court. Nor was there any evidence to show that either of the accused had been in contact with overseas media. Finally, the prosecution witnesses testified that the accused had confessed orally to the crime in the police station, even though this is inadmissible as evidence (CrPC section 162, Evidence Act section 24).
Notwithstanding, on January 23 Zaw Htay was found guilty of the offence and sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment.
Given that the economic and food conditions in Burma are dire, I wouldn’t expect that government authorities would devote their energies to taking over of productive land being used by villagers and obstructing their work activities. However, I am informed that such incidents are widespread in Burma and are in fact one of the contributors to the hunger and malnourishment that millions of people living there face daily.
Accordingly, in view of the patent flaws and lack of material evidence in this case, I call for the Minister of Home Affairs and the Attorney General and other concerned officials to review it promptly with a view to seeing the accused persons released without delay. There must also be a thorough investigation into the allegations of torture of the accused both in the army camp and police station concerned, as well as concerning the original complaint of confiscation of land among farmers in the region.
I also note with concern that a lawyer for the accused has himself been imprisoned in recent weeks and urge that he also be released without delay and that there be no further harassment of lawyers in Myanmar who are simply trying to do their jobs.
Finally, I take this opportunity to remind the Government of Myanmar of the need to allow the International Committee of the Red Cross access to places of detention so as to ascertain the conditions of imprisonment for persons like the accused in this case and others and ensure that they are held humanely and in accordance with minimum international standards.
Yours sincerely
—
PLEASE SEND YOUR LETTERS TO:
1. Maj-Gen. Maung Oo
Minister for Home Affairs
Ministry of Home Affairs
Office No. 10
Naypyitaw
MYANMAR
Tel: +95 67 412 079/ 549 393/ 549 663
Fax: +951 549 663 / 549 208
2. Lt-Gen. Thein Sein
Prime Minister
c/o Ministry of Defence
Naypyitaw
MYANMAR
Tel: + 95 1 372 681
Fax: + 95 1 652 624
3. U Aung Toe
Chief Justice
Office of the Supreme Court
Office No. 24
Naypyitaw
MYANMAR
Tel: + 95 67 404 080/ 071/ 078/ 067 or + 95 1 372 145
Fax: + 95 67 404 059
4. U Aye Maung
Attorney General
Office of the Attorney General
Office No. 25
Naypyitaw
MYANMAR
Tel: +95 67 404 088/ 090/ 092/ 094/ 097
Fax: +95 67 404 146/ 106
5. Brig-Gen. Khin Yi
Director General
Myanmar Police Force
Ministry of Home Affairs
Office No. 10
Naypyitaw
MYANMAR
Tel: +95 67 412 079/ 549 393/ 549 663
Fax: +951 549 663 / 549 208
Thank you.
Urgent Appeals Programme
Asian Human Rights Commission (ua@ahrc.asia)
