Dear friends,
The Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) has already issued an open letter on the case of Dr. Wint Thu and eight other people who in December 2009 were given long jail terms for alleged offences against the state in Burma after they were tortured into giving confessions that the police used in court. In this appeal we bring you the full details of the cases that were fabricated against them.
CASE DETAILS:
As we wrote in the open letter to the UN Special Rapporteur on torture, Dr. Wint Thu and eight others were arrested in September 2009 over alleged plans to commemorate the 2007 monk-led uprising and other activities deemed ‘anti-government’: for instance, that they had distributed CDs showing footage of the protests and had had contact with–and received money from–unlawful groups abroad. They were illegally detained until perfunctory and unlawful trials were held against them in December, when confessions extracted during torture were used against them in court. Details of the torture are in the sample letter below.
The trials were themselves held contrary to law, inside a special room of a prison in Mandalay Division. There was no public access and the accused were only able to have a defence lawyer appear for them when they gave their own testimonies, not when the prosecutor presented his arguments. This prevented the lawyer from cross-examining the police and other witnesses for the prosecution: in the past, defence lawyers have quickly shown all the embarrassing errors and illegalities in cases with foregone conclusions like these.
Each one of the accused denied the confessions and testified that they were innocent, but the judge bizarrely reversed the burden of proof–which requires that the prosecution prove the case–and said that because they didn’t have evidence that they were innocent then they must be guilty. The confessions were also used illegally, since they were obtained during police interrogation and should not have been used in evidence; but without the confessions the police had no basis for any of the charges.
The sentences are very lengthy, from 11 to 71 years, because although the offences should have been combined into two or three charges, the police separated them into multiple cases and the judge gave maximum terms. After the sentences, as an additional form of punishment that is common for prisoners of conscience in Burma, all accused were transferred to remote prisons, separate from one another and far from their families and friends, on whom prisoners depend to bring food and medicine and give other types of support that are needed to survive in Burma’s jails.
Details of charges and officials involved are provided in the sample letter below, as usual.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
The AHRC has in recent times issued a number of statements and appeals on the use of torture in Burma, as well as the open letter on this case. Please see further: AHRC-STM-220-2009; AHRC-STM-199-2009; AHRC-UAC-004-2010; AHRC-UAC-137-2009; AHRC-UAC-110-2009; AHRC-UAU-019-2009
All urgent appeals on Burma can be accessed by going to the appeals homepage and typing ‘Burma’ or ‘Myanmar’ into the search box: http://www.ahrchk.net/ua/. See also articles and special reports on the article 2 website: http://www.article2.org/search.php — again search for Burma, and see the 2009 annual report on Burma: http://material.ahrchk.net/hrreport/2009/.
The AHRC Burmese-language blog,Pyithu Hittaing, is updated constantly for Burmese-language readers, and covers the contents of urgent appeal cases, related news, and special analysis pieces.
SUGGESTED ACTION:
Please write to the persons listed below to call for the immediate release of Dr. Wint Thu and these other eight accused persons. Please note that for the purposes of the letter Burma is referred to by its official name, Myanmar.
Please be informed that the AHRC is writing separate letters to the UN Special Rapporteurs on Myanmar, torture, and the independence of judges and lawyers, the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, and the regional human rights office for Southeast Asia calling for interventions into this case.
To support this case, please click here: SEND APPEAL LETTER
SAMPLE LETTER
Dear ___________,
MYANMAR: Nine persons imprisoned on confessions obtained through torture
Details of accused, cases, sentences & prisons where reported held:
1. Dr. Wint Thu, resident of Myinchan, Mandalay; Case Nos. 211, 212 & 213/09; 28 years, Bhamo Prison, Kachin State
2. Ko Myo Han, resident of Mandalay; Case Nos. 192, 196, 197, 211, 212 & 213/09; 51 years, Taunggyi Prison, Shan State
3. Ko Hla Myo Kyaw, resident of Mandalay; Case No. 211/09; 14 years, Shwebo Prison, Sagaing Division
4. Soe Yaza Phyu, resident of Mandalay; Case No. 211/09; 14 years, Kale Prison, Sagaing Division
5. Wei Hpyoe (arrested in Yangon, transferred to Mandalay); Case No. 213/09; 11 years, Kale Prison, Sagaing Division
6. Ko Ko Naing, resident of Mandalay; Case No. 192/09; 28 years, Monywa Prison, Sagaing Division
7. U Nandawuntha, a monk, civilian name Naing Oo, residing at Sunlungu Monastery, Myinchan, Mandalay; Case Nos. 192, 196, 197, 211, 212 & 213/09; 71 years, Lashio Prison, Shan State
8. Than Htaik Aung, resident of Mandalay; Case Nos. 211 & 213/09; 38 years, Taunggoo Prison, Bago Division
9. Kyi Soe, resident of Mandalay; Case Nos. 196, 197, 211 & 213/09; 22 years, Myitchina Prison, Kachin State
Investigating Special Branch police:
1. Police Major San Pe (Case No. 197/09)
2. Police Major Zaw Lin (Case Nos. 196, 211 & 212/09)
3. Police Captain Maung Maung Lwin (Case Nos. 192 & 213/09)
4. Police Major Thet Wei
5. Sub-Inspector Hsan Lin
6. Sub-Inspector Hkun Min Thein
7. Sub-Inspector Kyaw Htoo Naing
8. Sub-Inspector Aung Thwin
9. Sub-Inspector Win Myint Htun
10. Sub-Inspector Kyaw Myo Hlaing
11. Sub-Inspector Soe Aung
12. Sub-Inspector Win Myint
Charges & trials: Mandalay District Court, Judge Moe Myint presiding, trial conducted inside Ohboe Prison, Mandalay; sentenced on 31 December 2009 under various laws including —
1. Unlawful Associations Act 1908, section 17(1) (Criminal Case Nos. 192 & 213/09)
2. Television and Video Law 1996, section 32(b) (Criminal Case No. 196/09)
3. Penal Code, section 505(b) (public mischief) (Criminal Case No. 197/09)
4. Printers and Publishers Registration Act 1961, sections 17 & 20 (Criminal Case No. 211/09)
5. Organizations Law 1988, sections 6 & 7 (Criminal Case No. 212/09)
I am shocked to hear that at the end of 2009, eight men and a monk in Myanmar were sentenced to extremely long jail terms for alleged offences against the state on the basis of confessions that were obtained through the use of torture.
According to the information that I have received, Dr. Wint Thu and eight others were arrested in September 2009 over alleged plans to commemorate the 2007 monk-led uprising and other activities deemed ‘anti-government’, including that they had distributed CDs showing footage of the protests, and had had contact with–and received money from–unlawful groups abroad. They were illegally detained until perfunctory and unlawful trials were held against them in December, when confessions extracted from them during torture were used against them in court.
Regarding the torture, I am informed that officers including Sub-inspectors Aung Thwin, Hsan Lin and Win Myint Htun allegedly forced Than Htaik Aung to stand with toothpicks inserted into his heels, to drink putrid drain water, and allegedly also came into his cell and urinated. Officers including Police Captain Zaw Lin and Sub-inspectors Thet Wei, Kyaw Myo Hlaing and Kyaw Htoo Naing allegedly forced U Nandawuntha to stand throughout two days of interrogation and then forced him to kneel on sharp gravel while an officer jumped up and down on his calves. If he didnt give him the answers that they wanted then they hit him on the head with a wooden rod. Dr. Wint Thu and Ko Myo Han were also both allegedly forced to stand throughout interrogations of two and four nights respectively.
Four officers at the Aungthapyay interrogation facility in Yangon Division, including Sub-inspectors Win Myint and Soe Aung allegedly dripped candle wax onto the genitalia of co-accused Wei Phyoe, splashed him with boiling water and tied him to metal bars then assaulted him with bamboo rods. They also applied a stinging substance to his open wounds.
The trials were held contrary to the Judiciary Law 2000, which states that hearings should be conducted in open courts, but these were conducted inside a special room of the Ohboe Prison in Mandalay. The accused were only able to have a defence lawyer appear for them when they gave their own testimonies, not when the prosecutor presented his arguments. This prevented the lawyer from cross-examining the police and other witnesses for the prosecution and showing up the multiple illegalities and errors in the case against his clients.
Each one of the accused denied the confessions and testified that they were innocent, but the judge unlawfully reversed the burden of proof and said that because they didn’t have evidence that they were innocent then they must be guilty. The confessions were also used illegally, because they were obtained during police interrogation and were used contrary to the terms of the Evidence Act.
I am told that the police had no firm evidence on which to lay the charges, which were patently flawed. For instance, the allegation that they had had contact with an unlawful association abroad is baseless because the government at no time declared as unlawful the group in question, which is a prerequisite for prosecution under this offence.
Furthermore, the allegations relate to the same incidents and should have been compounded under section 234(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, which allows for up to three like offences within a year to be tried as a single case, but the police separated them into multiple cases and the judge gave maximum terms, hence the excessive sentences.
According to reports, as an additional form of punishment all accused have been transferred to remote prisons, separate from one another and far from their families and friends. This will affect not only their mental health but physical health as well, because prisoners in Myanmar rely on people from outside bringing food and medicine in order to survive the appalling conditions inside the country’s jails.
In light of the above, I urge that these nine persons be released without delay. I note that the UN Special Rapporteur on human rights in Myanmar has recently called for all prisoners of conscience in Myanmar to be released in advance of the general election scheduled for later in the year, lest the election be seen as nothing more than a farce, and I share his concern and join in his call.
I also ask that the Ministry for Home Affairs and Myanmar Police Force conduct inquiries in this case to investigate the allegations of torture by the abovementioned Special Branch personnel so that criminal charges can be brought against them. In this respect, I note that Myanmar does not have a law to prohibit torture and has not joined the UN Convention against Torture and I urge that it does so.
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, in accordance with its globally recognized mandate, without any further delay.
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: +95 67 412 439
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 (AHRC) (ua@ahrchk.org)
