BURMA: Two men jailed for allegedly possessing video of army wedding

Dear friends,

The Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) has received detailed information about two men in Burma who have been imprisoned for allegedly possessing videos showing the wedding of the daughter of the country’s senior most army officer. Ko Than Htun and Ko Tin Htay were arrested separately in March and convicted in April of having intended to incite public fear and for violations of video censorship regulations. Although there was no evidence at all against Tin Htay, he was sentenced to two years’ imprisonment, and Than Htun to four and a half.

On the night of 20 March 2007, a team of police and local officials acting on a tip-off came to Ko Than Htun’s house in Nyaungdone, in the delta region west of Rangoon. They searched the premises and at the back found a parcel containing CD videos and other items. When they looked at the videos they found that they contained footage of the extravagant wedding of the daughter of Senior General Than Shwe, the country’s military ruler. The video had been edited to contrast the extraordinarily opulent lifestyle of the military elite with the ordinary people, including still images of children begging and other signs of widespread poverty. Different versions of the wedding video have reportedly been widely distributed throughout Burma.

(Watch footage of the wedding on You Tube: type “Thandar Shwe” into the search and then select any of dozens of uploads; or watch documentary version here: http://www.khitpyaing.org/ads/seinCnya_eng.php.)

In the daytime the police came back and confiscated all the CDs, saying that they had not complied with censorship regulations; then they took Than Htun to the police station where they charged him with possessing illegal videos. He obtained bail and was allowed to return home. But that night the police came and searched again and took Than Htun into custody for a while.

On the morning of March 22 the police came a third time, took Than Htun back to the police station and this time refused to release him.

Around midday on the same day (May 22) a police deputy superintendent entered the house of Ko Tin Htay, and searched for videos without a warrant, saying that the police had information from the case of Than Htun. (Tin Htay was formerly the chairman of the Democratic Party for a New Society, which supported the National League for Democracy in the 1990 general election.)

The police opened and viewed all the CDs in Tin Htay’s house but found only karaoke CDs. At around 2:30pm Tin Htay was called to the station for formalities. But when there the police accused him of being involved in politics and took down a signed statement from him to use as evidence, which is against criminal procedure law. He was also taken into custody and refused bail.

Initially, both of the two men were charged only under the video law. But on March 23 the local council met and decided that they should also be charged with seeking to incite unrest under the penal code. (In Burma there is no separation of the prosecution from government and local councils have the authority to give orders concerning legal cases.) At that time the head of the local police station also was given responsibility to take the case to court.

The case went to court on March 29. In court, the illegally obtained statement was used against Tin Htay. A photograph of General Aung San, the father of democracy leader Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and the leader of Burma’s independence struggle, was also produced to show that he is politically active. However, Aung San is an historical figure who is considered a national martyr; his story and images can be found everywhere, from children’s schoolbooks to the market named after him in central Rangoon. It is also still relatively common for his portrait to be hung in ordinary persons’ houses. So the use of the picture as evidence in the court is ridiculous.

On April 6, at the second hearing in the court the accused men’s lawyers sought bail but were refused as inciting fear among the public is a non-bailable offence. On April 9 and 10 the hearings continued.

On April 25 Than Htun was sentenced to four and a half years’ imprisonment; Tin Htay was sentenced to two years’ imprisonment, both with hard labour. They are expected to appeal against the sentences.

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:

Section 505(b) of the Penal Code is used indiscriminately in Burma against any persons considered to be doing anything contrary to the interests of the state or local authorities. Other cases where it has been used that the AHRC has reported in recent times include that of U Thein Zan (UA-078-2007), against whom charges were dropped under mysterious circumstances (UP-052-2007; see also “Politics & the price of eggs” at UPI Asia Online), and farmer U Tin Nyein (UA-155-2006), who was released after eight months’ imprisonment (UP-018-2007).

This case also bears a resemblance to that of U Aung Pe, a tuition teacher who was sentenced to three years’ jail for hanging a t-shirt bearing the image of democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi in class. In February 2007 Aung Pe reportedly went on a hunger strike to protest his continued imprisonment and poor treatment (UP-029-2007).

See also the 2006 AHRC Human Rights Report chapter on Burma, and visit the AHRC Burma homepage: http://burma.ahrchk.net.

______________________________

SUGGESTED ACTION:

Please write to the Attorney General to demand that the state file for a review of the case and have the two men released from imprisonment.

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 Rangoon as Yangon.

To support this case, please click here: SEND APPEAL LETTER