Dear friends,
The Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) has received information from the Yoma 3 news service (Thailand) that the appeal of two villagers in the Irrawaddy Delta region of Burma against being jailed after reporting the corruption of local authorities was thrown out of court. Meanwhile, the trial of a number of persons who helped lodge a complaint of forced labour with the International Labour Organisation (ILO) has again been postponed.
Please refer to the original appeals for sample letters and addresses.
Case of U Aye Min and U Win Nyunt (UA-071-2006)
As reported in our previous appeal, U Aye Min and U Win Nyunt were sentenced to two years in prison each on 2 December 2005 after informing the township authorities that their village council in Bogalay Township, Irrawaddy Division (delta region), had been illegally taking the money for on the pretence of managing an agricultural loan programme. Although the township authorities ordered the village council to stop doing this, the higher up district council later ordered that the two men be arrested for giving “false information”. The first appeal of the men against the decision was also struck down by the district court.
According to the information the AHRC has now received, on 8 March 2006 the case came before the Irrawaddy Division Court in Pathein. However, in a familiar pattern, the case was summarily dismissed by Assistant Judge U Kat Za Khote. The men’s lawyer has indicated that an appeal will be made to the Supreme Court.
Case of U Thein Zan, Ko Zaw Htay & U Aung Than Htun (UA-050-2006)
U Thein Zan, Ko Zaw Htay and U Aung Than Htun are facing charges under section 182 of the Penal Code for giving false information to a public servant because they helped the family of a man killed while doing forced labour to lodge a complaint with the International Labour Organisation representative in Rangoon. The case is going on in the Aunglan Township Court, Magwe Division (central Burma). The defendants petitioned a higher court that the case is illegal as the complainant is the district police commander, Sein Win, when according to law it should be staff of the Ministry of Labour. The petition was rejected.
The case has been constantly postponed, usually because the district police commander has not come to the court, and for procedural reasons. The defendants have tried without success to have the case stopped because the complainant has failed to come to the court.
On March 22 the district police chief was represented in court by the township police chief. The defendants argued that this too is a violation of the law, because it must be the party to the case–not a representative–present before the court. Nonetheless, Judge Daw Khin Khin Swe ignored their argument and allowed the complainant to be represented by the township police chief.
The hearings were then again postponed, to April 20.
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS
As noted previously, these cases are indicative of how when ordinary citizens in Burma attempt to make a complaint on virtually any grounds against government officials they are themselves made targets. After a complaint made against officials is struck down, a counter-complaint is lodged and the original complainants are punished, and made an example to others. They are also indicative of the tendency of courts at all levels in Burma to summarily throw out cases of this nature. These patterns are found in cases across the entire country, speaking to the management of the administrative and judicial system in Burma for persecution of victims, rather than redress of wrongs committed, even in ordinary criminal cases.
Other cases following the same pattern include those of
Ma Aye Aye Aung & Ko Tint Zaw, Meikhtila Township, Mandalay Division: UA-80-2006
U Aung Pe, Twente Township, Rangoon Division: UP-030-2006; AHRC-PL-012-2006
Ma Su Su Nwe, Kawmhu Township, Rangoon Division: UP-017-2006; www.ahrchk.net/susunwe
The pattern of prosecution of complainants has been confirmed as government policy by the Minister of Labour. According to the latest report of the ILO representative in Rangoon
“As regards the question of prosecutions, the Minister strongly insisted that the situation in Myanmar was different from that of other countries in view of the fact that political forces were taking full advantage of issues such as forced labour to politicize the situation and tarnish the reputation of the Myanmar authorities. This is why the authorities were determined to use the relevant provisions of the Penal Code to deter such political manipulation.” (GB.295/7, March 2006)
As a result of this position, the ILO is no longer able to advise and support victims of forced labour to make complaints, because the inevitable consequence will be that the complaint is deemed “false” through a fraudulent judicial process and the victims then punished.
The AHRC is obtaining details of further cases following this pattern and will issue appeals on these in due course.
Thank you.
Urgent Appeals Programme
Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) (ahrchk@ahrchk.org)
To support this case, please click here: SEND APPEAL LETTER
SAMPLE LETTER
