Dear friends,
The Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) has been following the case of a couple who were twice brutally assaulted in public by a gang led by a local council chief in Burma during September 2005. Ma Aye Aye Aung and her husband Ko Tint Zaw complained that they were beaten up illegally, but because the assailants are rich and powerful they paid off the police and fixed and intimidated witnesses. In December the chief accused was acquitted. Meanwhile, in a pattern familiar to cases of complaints against government officers in Burma, the accused have now reportedly lodged a counter complaint against Aye Aye Aung and her husband, and have taken other punitive steps against them.
Although the AHRC has followed reports on the case of Aye Aye Aung and her husband for some time, it has recently obtained detailed information.
According to that information, on 20 and 21 September 2005 the local council chairman of Myoma Ward 4 in Meikhtila Township, Mandalay division (northern Burma), Ko Zaw Maung, brought a gang of around fifteen persons to assault the couple, after Aye Aye Aung had argued with his wife about the location of her betel nut stall.
Aye Aye Aung had previously been allowed to sell the betel nut nearby the Manshwepyi bus stop. She also had three permits to sell betel nut and snacks in the township. Therefore she was working legally. However, she claims that the chairman’s wife, Ma Moe Thida told her not to sell there. Moe Thida is also the chairwoman of the local government-run Women’s Affairs Committee, and Maternal and Child Welfare Association.
As Aye Aye Aung ignored Moe Thida and continued to sell in the same place, at about 1:30pm on September 20 Zaw Maung came with a group from the adjacent Ngweilamin restaurant, which he owns, and led by Ma Thida’s brother, Ko Win Ko, the gang allegedly pulled Aye Aye Aung from her stall then punched her in the face and pummelled her hands with bricks. They then told her husband Tint Zaw to restrain her, after which they hit him from behind. They also smashed up the stall with the bricks and sticks.
Around 8pm the following night Aye Aye Aung and Tint Zaw were selling betel nut by handcart at the front of the Shwebonethar Pagoda, where there was a religious festival, when they were again savagely assaulted by the gang. According to the couple, they were threatened by Moe Thida, after which she went to get her husband and his thugs. Zaw Maung exhorted the others to hit, kick and punch them repeatedly, allegedly saying that, “I’m the council chairman. I’ll take care of it” [i.e., there would be no consequences for the attackers]. Although many festival goers saw the assault, they could do nothing to intervene due to the identities of the alleged perpetrators. Some onlookers said that police who had also been stationed at the pagoda for festival security watched on and did nothing.
The next day the couple lodged criminal complaints with the police against 15 persons, including Zaw Maung and Moe Thida for endangering life, public nuisance, verbal abuse, criminal intimidation and aiding and abetting the above (under sections 336, 427, 294, 506 and 114 of the Penal Code). But instead of opening an investigation the police allegedly conspired with the perpetrators. By the end of October, the police still had not investigated. Instead, local station commander Deputy Superintendent Yan Naing Htun (Meikhtila Township Police Station No. 1) could be seen drinking at Zaw Maung’s house. Meanwhile, by mid-November the township court had reportedly set a date for opening the case on nine separate occasions but none of the accused or the police bothered to turn up or offer any reason for their absences. In total, the complainants had to come to the court over 25 times to have case heard, during October, November and December.
This delay in proceedings gave the alleged perpetrators time to organise the case to their advantage. Zaw Maung reportedly paid witnesses to appear for him. He even managed to get a senior monk, Sayadaw U Oattara of Weyanbonelar Monastery, to testify on his behalf, allegedly by promising to give support to his temple.
By contrast, in the end, Aye Aye Aung and her husband were left without strong witness testimonies. Zaw Maung allegedly threatened Maung We Yan, a young witness for the complainant, causing him to move away. The victims also could not get key evidence into the court. For instance, the medical reports of their injuries were reportedly given to the police, not to them directly, but the police did not present these or other material evidence. The doctor who checked Aye Aye Aung and her husband also was not examined by the court. Zaw Maung also did not testify before the court. The public prosecutor, Maung Aung Myo, failed to do his duty to see the case properly represented.
On December 27 Judge U Thein Win found that Zaw Maung was not guilty. Moe Thida was ordered to pay 5000 kyat (USD 4) for verbal abuse. Two other accused were ordered to pay 5000 kyat each for verbal abuse, and three were ordered to pay 5000 each for being a public nuisance. The judgment does not contain any reasoning on the sentences.
The AHRC has also been advised by staff of the Burma Lawyers’ Council that due to the nature of the victims’ injuries the accused could have also been charged with causing hurt by dangerous weapons (sections 324 and 326 of the Penal Code), which carries up to ten years imprisonment. However, no explanation has been given as to why they were not so charged.
Meanwhile, Aye Aye Aung and her husband have been unable to resume their work selling and have had their permits revoked. As they had to pay money each time to go to court they also have fallen into debt, having to sell their possessions and move house.
It has also been reported that Zaw Maung has now initiated legal action against Aye Aye Aung and her husband, in a familiar pattern of retribution against persons in Burma trying to complain about any kind of abuses by the authorities there. The AHRC is informed that the same public prosecutor who took the original case will act in that case against Aye Aye Aung. We are at present awaiting further details on this and other aspects of the case.
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:
The AHRC has in recent times heard of a growing number of cases of police officers and/or local government officials in Burma seriously assaulting, and sometimes killing, local people. Some earlier reported cases include UA-058-2006, UP-029-2006, UA-044-2006, UP-071-2005 and UA-111-2004. However, as in all other cases of abuses committed by state officers in Burma, it is extremely difficult for victims and their families to bring complaints and withstand the subsequent threats and coercion to withdraw their statements: see further AS-015-2006.
The present case is indicative, as it shows the extent to which local authorities in Burma hold unrivalled power over the heads of local citizens. It is exceptional because of the determination of the victims to press the case, despite the overwhelming odds against them. Another similar case that the AHRC is following closely is the alleged rape of Ma Soe Soe by two police in 2005: UP-008-2006. An update on that case, which is now being deliberately delayed in the court, will be released shortly.
SUGGESTED ACTION:
Please write to the Attorney General calling for an appeal against the acquittal of most alleged perpetrators in this case, including the chairman of the local council, and an investigation of the substandard work done by the local public prosecutor. Please also urge that the Minister of Home Affairs send a special team to investigate the case, and look into the alleged wrongdoing of the local police. And ask that protection be given to the victim and family to prevent possible further harassment.
Please note that for the purpose of the letter, the country should be referred to by its official title of Myanmar, rather than Burma.
To support this case, please click here: SEND APPEAL LETTER
SAMPLE LETTER
Dear U Aye Maung
MYANMAR: Trial of Ko Zaw Maung, Chairman of Myoma Ward 4 Peace & Development Council and others for assault, Meikhtila Township Court Criminal Case No. 6865/2005
Names of victims: Ma Aye Aye Aung (a.k.a. Ma Nyo Nyo Aung) & Ko Tint Zaw, wife and husband, betel nut vendors, Myoma Ward 4, Meikhtila Township, Mandalay Division
Names of alleged perpetrators:
1. Ko Zaw Maung, Chairman, Myoma Ward 4 Peace & Development Council, & Chairman, Union Solidarity & Development Association, Meikhtila Township, Mandalay Division
2. Ma Moe Thida, wife of Ko Zaw Maung; Chairwoman, Women's Affairs Committee and Myanmar Maternal and Child Welfare Association, Myoma Ward
3. Thirteen other accused: Ko Win Ko, brother of Ma Moe Thida; Ko Khwepu; Ko Khin Maung Than, security official, Myoma Market; U Tin Win; U Win Tin; Ma Khin Mar Kyi; Ko Aung Myo; Ko Kyaw Zaw; Ko Khin Maung Win; Ma Hlari; Naing Win Thu, son of Ko Zaw Maung; Ma Khin Hla; Ma Myo Khaing
Dates of incident: 20 & 21 September 2005
Place of incident: Nearby Manshwepyi bus stop and Shwebonethar Pagoda, Myoma Ward 4, Meikhtila Township, Mandalay Division
Alleged perpetrators charged under: Penal Code sections 336, 427, 294, 506 and 114
Case: Meikhtila Township Court Criminal Case No. 6865/2005, decided 27 December 2005, Judge U Thein Win presiding, Maung Aung Myo appearing for the complainant
I am disappointed to learn that Ko Zaw Maung, Chairman of the Myoma Ward 4 Peace and Development Council in Meikhtila Township, Mandalay Division, has been acquitted after allegedly organising the assault of two local residents on 20 and 21 September 2005.
According to the information I have received, Ko Zaw Maung brought a gang of around fifteen persons to assault Ma Aye Aye Aung and her husband, Ko Tint Zaw, after a dispute between Aye Aye Aung and his own wife, Ma Moe Thida. On September 20 at about 1:30pm Zaw Maung allegedly came with a group from the Ngweilamin restaurant, which he owns, and led by Ma Thida's brother, Ko Win Ko, the gang allegedly pulled Aye Aye Aung from her stall then punched her in the face and pummelled her hands with bricks. They then told her husband Tint Zaw to restrain her, after which they hit him from behind. They also smashed up the stall with the bricks and sticks. The same group again assaulted the couple at around 8pm the following night at the front of the Shwebonethar Pagoda, during which time Zaw Maung allegedly said that, "I'm the council chairman. I'll take care of it" [Ngar ya-ya-ka oakkata, shin-mei]. Some onlookers reportedly said that police stationed at the pagoda for festival security watched on and did nothing.
I am aware that Ma Aye Aye Aung and Ko Tint Zaw lodged criminal complaints with the police against 15 persons, including Zaw Maung and Moe Thida, which were recorded under sections 336, 427, 294, 506 and 114 of the Penal Code. However, by mid-November the Meikhtila Township Court had reportedly set a date for opening the case on nine separate occasions but none of the accused or the police bothered to turn up or offer any reason for their absences. In total, the complainants had to come to the court over 25 times to have case heard, during October, November and December. This situation caused hardship for the complainants, who are street vendors, and allowed the accused time to threaten and coerce witnesses.
Additionally, I am informed that vital evidence was not presented to the court. The police failed to produce materials that had been used in the assault (sticks, bricks, etc.), as well as a medical report of the complainants' injuries, which was reportedly submitted to them by the hospital. The key defendant, Ko Zaw Maung, also reportedly did not testify before the court, and nor did the doctor who examined the victims after being assaulted.
On December 27 Judge U Thein Win found Ko Zaw Maung not guilty, but fined Ma Moe Thida and three other accused, without giving reasoning for the judgment.
I am further informed that Ma Aye Aye Aung and her husband have been unable to resume their work as vendors and have had their permits revoked as revenge for their taking the case to court. I am aware that Ko Zaw Maung may have initiated counter legal action against them, and that the same public prosecutor who took the original case will act in that case.
In view of the above, I am urging you to order an appeal against the decision in this case in accordance with section 9(l) of the Attorney General Law 2001. In particular, regard should be had to the failure of the police investigation and dissatisfactory performance of the law officer assigned to represent the complainant. In particular, I am very concerned by the alleged failure to bring a great deal of important evidence into the court, and allegations that the defendants coerced, bribed and threatened witnesses and police through their offices and wealth. I urge you to recommend to the Minister of Home Affairs that he order a special team from outside of the township to reinvestigate, with a view to laying fresh charges under sections 324 and 326 of the Penal Code. The team should also investigate the alleged withholding of evidence by the police, which violates section 18(f) of the Myanmar Police Force Disciplinary Law, an offence carrying a jail term of up to three years. I urge you to personally investigate the alleged negligence of the law officer Maung Aung Myo, for failing to do his duty to see the case properly represented and all the necessary evidence brought before the court.
I also am seeking your assurance that the necessary steps will be taken to protect the complainants from intimidation, in accordance with section 3(i) of the Attorney General Law. These should include, where necessary, offers of protection, and guarantees that no punitive actions will be taken against any of them by local authorities, as has already been alleged. I urge you to instruct the staff of the Meikhtila Township Law Office accordingly.
Finally, I wish to remind you of the many concerns felt in the international community regarding the lack of effective remedies for persons complaining against state authorities in Myanmar. I urge you to recommend to the Government of Myanmar that it 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:
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
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. Maj-Gen. Maung Oo
Minister for Home Affairs
Ministry of Home Affairs
Corner of Saya San Street and No 1 Industrial Street,
Yankin Township
Yangon
MYANMAR
Tel: +951 250 315 / 374 789
Fax: +951 549 663 / 549 208
3. Professor Paulo Sergio Pinheiro
Special Rapporteur on Myanmar
Attn: Ms. Audrey Ryan
Room 3-090
c/o OHCHR-UNOG
1211 Geneva 10
SWITZERLAND
Tel: + 41 22 9179 281
Fax: + 41 22 9179 018 (ATTN: SPECIAL RAPPORTEUR MYANMAR)
E-mail: aryan@ohchr.org
4. Professor Manfred Nowak
Special Rapporteur on the Question of Torture
Attn: Mr.Safir Syed
c/o OHCHR-UNOG
1211 Geneva 10
SWITZERLAND
Tel: +41 22 917 9230
Fax: +41 22 9179016 (ATTN: SPECIAL RAPPORTEUR TORTURE)
E-mail: ssyed@ohchr.org
5. Mr. Leandro Despouy
Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers
Att: Sonia Cronin
Room: 3-060
OHCHR-UNOG
1211 Geneva 10
SWITZERLAND
Tel: +41 22 917 9160
Fax: +41 22 917 9006 (ATTN: SPECIAL RAPPORTEUR INDEPENDENCE JUDGES & LAWYERS)
E-mail: scronin@ohchr.org
6. Ms. Yakin Erturk
Special Rapporteur on Violence against Women
c/o Ms Vernonica Birga
Room 3-042
c/o OHCHR-UNOG
1211 Geneva 10
SWITZERLAND
Tel: +41 22 917 9615
Fax: +41 22 917 9006 (ATTN: SPECIAL RAPPORTEUR VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN)
Email: vbirga@ohchr.org (please also cc: rrico@ohchr.org)
Thank you.
Urgent Appeals Programme
Asian Human Rights Commission (ahrchk@ahrchk.org)
