Dear friends,
The Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) has received information regarding the arrest of three activists whowere involved in a network to support for farmers whose land was confiscated by the armyin central Burma. Thelocal authorities have lodged charges against all three of them for failing to register their network as an organization, and against one for conducting a solo demonstration without first requesting permission from the police.
CASE NARRATIVE:
In May and June 2013, on two separate occasions police in Nattalin Township of Pegu Region, north of Rangoon, took action against people doing no more than trying to exercise their democratic rights to speak out in the interests of rural people.
On the first occasion, on the evening of17 May 2013,a young man named Thant Zin Htet came to the highway north from Rangoon at Takuntaing Village and held aloft a placard with a variety of demands, including to amend the 2008 Constitution, for the right of freedom of association, for village development, to amend the Right to Peaceful Assembly and Procession Law, and for the government to protect the prosperity and liberty for the farmers who are 70 percent of the national population through land reform. After he began his solo demonstration, police and administrators arrived on the scene. They took him to the police station where they charged him with conducting a demonstration without requesting permission from the authorities. The case against him has already opened in court.
On the second occasion,on the morning of10 June 2013, three members of the People’s Assistance Network, Daw Myint Myint Aye, Daw Khin Mi Mi Khaing, both middle-aged women, and Thant Zin Htet came to join with farmers at Pemagan Tract who demonstrated for return of their land confiscated by the army almost two decades ago by plowing some of the land, and give them support. The demonstration attracted some media attention. Thereafter, on 11 June 2013 the police called them to the township station and after interrogation reportedly charged them for being part of an unlawful organization. They transferred the three to prison on the same day; they have reportedly been denied bail and are now awaiting trial.
Both of the cases are in violation of domestic law, to say nothing of human rights. In regards to the first, the charge against Thant Zin Htet can only apply to groups of people, not an individual. In fact, Thant Zin Htet had applied four times to hold an assembly and procession with a group of people on the same issues but that he had been denied a permit by the police on each occasion, and therefore specifically in order to stay within the confines of the domestic law he had demonstrated alone.
As for the case against all three accused, the charge of belonging to an unlawful organization can only apply if the president has declared the said organization unlawful. It cannot apply to any organization of the police’s choice. So far as the AHRC is aware, the network to which the three activists belong has not been declared unlawful. If it has been, then the declaration would be nonsensical, as the network is not a formal organization but a movement, like the occupy movement and others of its type around the world today that rely on social media and other methods of communication to organize and act. It has no formal membership or structure.
Further details are provided below in the sample letter as usual.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
The two laws used in these cases clearly are in breach of international law. The first sets needless requirements on persons wanting to exercise rights to assemble and speak to obtain permission from authorities; permission that can be arbitrarily withheld without proper explanation, as Thant Zin Htet learned. The second is an antiquated and anti-democratic law introduced by the British colonial regime to police colonial subjects, and it is an embarrassment and an eyesore for Myanmar that at a time of democratization, after so many years of military dictatorship, that it is not only still on the books but also still being put to use by police.
Despite the political changes in Burma of the last couple of years, the AHRC has expressed repeated concern over the continued prosecution of activists and others under laws like those used in these cases for doing no more than exercising democratic rights. In a recent statement it noted that the president’s commitment to free all political prisoners would not mean much unless new arrests of persons for political reasons stop (AHRC-STM-135-2013). It has also highlighted the prosecution of activists involved in the Letpadaung mine dispute and non-prosecution of police who carried out a brutal incendiary attack on protestors (AHRC-STM-108-2013, AHRC-STM-082-2013).
For many more cases and issues concerning human rights in Burma, visit the AHRC’s country homepage: http://www.humanrights.asia/countries/burma.
SUGGESTED ACTION:
Please write to the persons listed below to call for the charges against the human rights activists to be reviewed and for them to be released without delay. 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 Pegu, Bago.
Please note that the AHRC is writing separate letters to the UN Special Rapporteurs on Myanmar and the UN Special Representative on human rights defenders, the Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association and to the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression.
To support this case, please click here: SEND APPEAL LETTER
SAMPLE LETTER
Dear ___________,
MYANMAR: Drop charges and release three farmers’ land right activists
Names of accused:
1.Daw Myint Myint Aye, f, 55, resident of Nat Shin Naung Street, Outer Eastern Ward, Meiktila Township, Mandalay Region, Myanmar
2. Daw Khin Mi Mi Khaing, f, 45, resident of Mahawthada Street, Ward 40, North Dagon Township, Yangon Region, Myanmar
3.Thant Zin Htet, m, 19, resident of Zimingwin Village, Ywathagone Tract, Nattalin Township, Bago Division, Myanmar
Names of officials involved:
1.U Zaw Lwin, Head, Nattalin Township Administration, complainant
2. Inspector Htay Kyaw, Serial No. La/119578, Station Chief, Nattalin Township Police Station
3. Sub-Inspector Ye Lwin, Serial No. La/168875
4. Police Corporal Myo Zaw Oo
5.Police Corporal Hla Htay
6. Police Corporal Zaw Min Tun, Serial No. La/056861
7. Police Lance Corporal Than Zin, Serial No. La/165285
8. Police Lance Corporal Zaw Moe Kyaw, Serial No. La/116409
9. Police Lance Corporal Win Aung, Serial No. La/168161
10. Police Lance Corporal Aung Zaw Tun, Serial No. La/218636
All of Nattalin Township Police Station
Date of incidents:17 May 2013,10 June 2013
Place of incident:Nattalin Township, Bago Region, Myanmar
Charges:
1. Criminal Case No.385/2013 under section 18 of the Right to PeacefulAssembly and Procession Law,2011 (against Thant Zin Htet only), before Township Judge Tin MaungMyint
2. Criminal Case No. 417/2013, under section 6 of the Unlawful Organizations Law, 1988 (against all three accused)
I am writing to voice my deep concern regarding the arrest and charging of threefarmers’ land rights activists in Myanmar whose only so-called crimes appear to have been to encourage people to participate in democratic life and stand up for their rights at a time that the country’s government claims to be engaged in a political transition.
The arrest and charges relate to two separate events. In the case of the first, around 5pm on 17 May 2013, Thant Zin Htet came to the Yangon-Pyay Highway at Takuntaing Village in Nattalin Township and held aloft a placard calling to amend the 2008 Constitution, for the right offreedom of association, for village development, to amend section 18 of the Right to Peaceful Assembly and Procession Law, and for the government to protect the prosperity and liberty for the farmers who are 70 percent of the national population through land reform. After he began his solo demonstration, Inspector Htay Kyaw leading a team of police and the township administrative head arrived on the scene. They took him to the police station where they charged him with conducting a demonstration without requesting permission from the authorities. The case against him has already opened in court.
In the second event, around 8.30amon 10 June 2013, three members of the People’s Assistance Network, Daw Myint Myint Aye, Daw Khin Mi Mi Khaing and Thant Zin Htet came to join with farmers at Pemagan Tract who demonstrated for return of their land confiscated by the army almost two decades ago by plowing some of the land, and give them support. The demonstration attracted some media attention. Thereafter, on 11 June 2013 the police called them to the township station and after interrogation reportedly charged them with violating the Unlawful Organizations Law, for failure to register their network. They transferred the three to prison on the same day; they have reportedly been denied bail and are now awaiting trial.
Whether viewed from the standards of domestic or international law, the trials against these persons are patently in violation of their rights, and I call for their release without delay.
So far as domestic law is concerned, I am advised that section 2(c) of the Right to Peaceful Assembly and Procession Law is explicit that the law relates only to instances of “more than one” person: because an individual cannot be an assembly or procession, the case against Thant ZinHtet is utterly groundless. In any case, he was doing nothing other than exercising his rights as set out in section 354(a) of the 2008 Constitution of Myanmar, that he express freely his convictions and opinions if not contrary to law–which in this case his demonstration was not.
Furthermore, I am advised that Thant ZinHtet had applied four times to hold an assembly and procession with a group of people on the same issues but that he had been denied a permit by the police on each occasion, and therefore specifically in order to stay within the confines of the domestic law he had demonstrated alone. This fact in itself speaks, in my opinion, to the scrupulous effort that he has taken to comply with the law while exercising his rights under the constitution at a time that the government of Myanmar claims to be democratizing.
On the case against all three accused, I am informed that the Unlawful Organizations Law section 16 requires that, “If the President of the Union is of opinion that any organization interferes of has for its object interference with the administration of the low of with the maintenance of law and order, or that it constitutes an danger to the public peace, the President of the Union may, by notification in the Gazette, declare such organization to be unlawful.” I am not aware of the president issuing any such order against the People’s Assistance Network, nor would it make any sense were he to do so, because the network is not a formal organization but like other networks of its sort around the world it is a movement that anyone interested to join and help out to advance social causes. The networkers communicate through mobile phones and online technology, and have no official membership or structure. Therefore, the charge brought against the three so far as the network is concerned also is legally devoid of merit and also empty of common sense.
These aspects of the case go to larger issues of human rights and international law, which are that under any circumstances, the arrest and charging of these persons is a violation of their rights to freedom of association, opinion, speech and assembly. Were the domestic law in these cases in fact a basis for their imprisonment, then the only conclusion we could reach is that the domestic law is in breach of international standards.
In fact, the two laws used in these cases clearly are in breach of international law. The first sets needless requirements on persons wanting to exercise rights to assemble and speak to obtain permission from authorities; permission that can be arbitrarily withheld without proper explanation, as Thant Zin Htet learned. The second is an antiquated and anti-democratic law introduced by the British colonial regime to police colonial subjects, and it is an embarrassment and an eyesore for Myanmar that at a time of democratization, after so many years of military dictatorship, that it is not only still on the books but also still being put to use by police.
Therefore, I call for the release from charges and from detention of these three persons at once, and for recognition of their struggle to participate in a democratic society in accordance with the expressed goals of the government of Myanmar. Furthermore, I call for the revocation of these two laws, to enable people in Myanmar to enjoy their democratic rights in accordance with international standards.
Yours sincerely,
—————-
PLEASE SEND YOUR LETTERS TO:
1.U Hla Min
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. U Thein Sein
President of Myanmar
President Office
Office No.18
Naypyitaw
MYANMAR
3. U Tun Tun Oo
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. Dr. Tun Shin
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. U Kyaw Kyaw Htun
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
6. Thura U Aung Ko
Chairman
PyithuHluttaw Judicial and Legislative Committee
Office of the PyithuHluttaw
Naypyitaw
MYANMAR
7. U AungNyein
Chairman
PyithuHluttaw Judicial and Legislative Committee
Committee for Public Complaints and Appeals
Office of the PyithuHluttaw
Naypyitaw
MYANMAR
8. Daw Aung San Suu Kyi
Chairwoman
PyithuHluttawRule of Law and Tranquility Committee
Office of the PyithuHluttaw
Naypyitaw
MYANMAR
9. U Win Mra
Chairman
Myanmar National Human Rights Commission
27 Pyay Road
Hlaing Township
Yangon
MYANMAR
Tel: +95-1-659 668
Fax: +95-1-659 668
10. Ko Ko Hlaing
Chief Political Advisor
Office of the President
Naypyitaw
MYANMAR
Tel: +95 1 532 501 ext-605 / +95 1 654 668
Fax: +95 1 532 500/ +95 1 654 668
Thank you.
Urgent Appeals Programme
Asian Human Rights Commission (ua@ahrc.asia)
