Hkun Htun Oo and the 8 other Shan leaders have now been unjustly incarcerated for 2 years, with the sad passing of Myint Than in May of last year.  Despite an attempt by their lawyers in Burma to have the case reviewed by the high court in Rangoon, their appeal case was thrown out.  The persecution of these leaders by the regime has highlighted the issues of all that is wrong with the government of Burma – the lack of any independent and fair judiciary, the lack of any real attempt by the regime to reach a peaceful solution to the constitution of Burma, and the persecution of anyone who opposes the regime - especially Shan and other ethnic political groups seeking a truly federal constitution based on the spirit of the Panglong Agreement.  Outside Burma, there has been much hard work by freedom activists to highlight the case to the world community, and to demonstrate that the convictions are shamefully unjust.

Worldwide Shan activists raised the issue in 2006 with a signature petition, collecting over 2,000 signatures, mostly collected by Shan Youth in Thailand, and with an online petition collecting over 470 signatures from around the world.  The petition was sent to ASEAN and UN Security Council leaders calling for pressure on the regime to free Hkun Htun Oo and all political prisoners in Burma.  Delivery of the petition in Tokyo was accompanied by numerous speeches by many Burmese activist groups.  The petition certainly raised the issue among the Shan community and got the message through to international leaders.  The pity of course is that the international leaders have been unable to agree on any practical way of dislodging the intransigent regime. 

In January 2007, the Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) began a campaign against the convictions, with a suggested letter detailing the issues ready for posting to the Attorney General and the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court in Rangoon, and those international figures and observers interested in Burma’s human rights issues. The AHRC view is that there are at least 4 serious issues that invalidate the convictions; namely, (i) the charge of treason was against a constitutionally appointed state, which the regime is not, (ii) the trial was held by a tribunal outside of Shan State where the offence was alleged to have occurred - contrary to Burmese law, (iii) prosecution witnesses were not available for cross-examination, and (iv) photocopies of evidence was used in court and not the originals as required under law.  The AHRC view is that the trials were flawed in other ways too, and that these cases demonstrate the lack of the rule of law in Burma, as do many other cases.  The AHRC campaign letter demands that the men obtain their legal rights under Burmese law. 
 
In February 2007, the Burma Lawyers’ Council issued a lengthy document detailing the cases and the court’s decisions along with their own legal analysis of each of the charges made against the men.  As it is a highly important political case the BLC are making efforts to translate the document into several languages – it is already available in Burmese and English and they propose releasing copies in Shan, Karen, Kachin, Mon, Arakan, Palaung, Pa-o, and Chin, etc. 

In their recent statement regarding the illegal harassment by the SPDC against U Aung Shwe, Chair of the NLD, and U Aye Tha Aung, Secretary of the CRPP, the BLC stated that they will cooperate with and energetically support all efforts to bring about justice and protect human rights from the legal aspect, including one for the immediate and unconditional release of U Hkun Htun Oo and other Shan national leaders.  This attitude reflects that of many human rights workers worldwide, as stated in the BLC mission statement - "By vigorously opposing all unjust and oppressive laws, and by helping restore the principle of the Rule of Law, the Burma Lawyers' Council aims to contribute to the transformation of Burma where all the citizens enjoy the equal protection of law under the democratic federal constitution which will guarantee fundamentals of human rights."

The BLC analysis of Hkun Htun Oo’s case, and that of the other defendants, gives some brief background information to the Shan Federal Proposals, which have been active since 1947, and regarding the role of U Hkun Htun Oo in the SNLD, and of General Hso Ten of the SSA(N) in working with the regime for many years to re-establish the country in a genuine federal union by peaceful means.  The paper indicates the meetings that the defendants held in preparing to establish a Shan State Academics Consultative Committee (SSACC), which would help to present a unifying forum for existing diverse Shan State political groups.  Although the Shan leaders had ceased to attend the National Convention, as they were unable to exercise any influence over the content – it had been pre-written by the regime to only include what they want  - the group wished to further a peaceful solution to Burma’s political impasse. 

For holding these meetings, discussing the formation of the SSACC and distributing printed statements at these meetings for their own use, the group were charged under several laws including treason, sedition, disrespect for the National Convention (yes, there is a law that forbids criticism or belittling of the NC), formation of an unlawful organisation, printing unauthorised material, and charges related to the lawful teak business operations of the SSA(N). 

The BLC have obtained, at personal risk to many justice-loving people inside Burma, documents that detail the charges, the laws under which the men have been charged, and the court rationale for punishment.  In all cases, the men were found guilty in a closed court hearing at Insein prison, given the highest sentences available under the law to be served concurrently, - i.e. between 79 and 106 years prison terms with hard labour.  The BLC legal analysis for each charge is given; for instance, against the charge of treason, the BLC state that as the defendants did not wage war against the Union of Burma, nor was any evidence given that they did, they did not commit treason.  The Burmese court also claimed that the SSACC would in future create secession and undermine the Union of Burma.  This is of course political supposition, and was not supported by any evidence.  This is also the charge for which the law states that treason is committed against the Union “established by the Constitution” – and as the BLC point out, the regime has not been established by the Constitution – and this is one of the reasons that the regime is working to establish their own Constitution, to give themselves the legitimacy that they lack at present. 

As we might expect from an impartial legal analysis, each of the charges is dealt with by the BLC in a professional and careful manner, with strict adherence to the principles of the Rule of Law – the BLC show that each charge has been politically manipulated to achieve the result that the regime wanted – guilty of everything they wanted to throw at the men.  The BLC legal analysis shows that the men are not guilty of any of the charges – they are guilty of using their freedom of speech to speak their own views – they just happen to be different to those of the regime.  They also happen to represent the people of Shan State.  Since 1962, the Tatmadaw have used Shan desires for self-determination and a Federal Union as an excuse for taking and holding power.  As ever, the Shan political leaders are trying to work for a better future for the whole of Burma – a Shan State within the Federal Union of Burma.  The regime continues to abuse the Rule of Law to maintain their vice-like grip on total power.  According to U Nyunt Lwin’s testimony during the ‘trial’, the Shan statement issued at the meeting only called for all the organisations in Shan State to be united in working for Shan State.  Unity seems to be good for some, but not for others.  The Shan political leaders are now starting their third year behind bars.

 

Acronyms

AHRC - Asian Human Rights Commission
BLC - Burma Lawyers’ Council
CRPP - Committee Representing the People’s Parliament
NC - National Convention
NLD - National League for Democracy
SNLD - Shan Nationalities League for Democracy
SSA(N) - Shan State Army - Northern
SSACC - Shan State Academic Consultative Committee

 

Links

Amnesty International
http://www.amnesty.org/

Asian Human Rights Commission
http://www.ahrchk.net/

Assistance Association for Political Prisoners (Burma) – AAPPB
http://www.aappb.org/

Burma Lawyers’ Council
http://www.blc-burma.org/

DVB
http://www.dvb.no/

Who's Hso Ten
http://www.shanland.org/articles/politics/2005/Who_Hso_Ten.htm