3. Arbitrary Detention and Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances

“No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.” - Article 9, Universal Declaration of Human Rights

3.1 Background

3.2 Bomb Blasts in Rangoon

3.3 Denial of a Fair and Public Trial

3.4 Life of Prisoners

3.5 Reports from Burma’s Prisons

3.6 Political Prisoners in Poor Health

3.7 Death in Custody

3.8 Prolonged Detention

3.9 Release of Political Prisoners

3.10 Partial List of Activists, Opposition Forces and MP-elects Arrested and Sentenced in 2005

3.11 Arbitrary and Politically Motivated Arrests and Detention of Ethnic Minorities and Civilians

3.12 Arrest and Detention of Foreigners

3.13 Appendix I: Chapter XXXIX of the Criminal Procedure Code

3.14 Appendix II: List of MP-Elects Who Remained Imprisoned in 2005

3.15 Appendix III: List of Political Arrests in 2005

3.16 Appendix IV: List of NLD Members Released in 2005

 

In an attempt to maintain its power and suppress all dissent, the SPDC commands an extensive network of regime sanctioned actors to monitor and detain any individual suspected of expressing or holding opinions against the SPDC. Prior to the removal, arrest and replacement of Gen Khin Nyunt from the post of Prime Minister on 19 October 2004, the Office of the Chief Military Intelligence (OCMI), the National Intelligence Bureau (NIB) and Military Intelligence (MI) personnel played a pivotal role in this network. Following the ouster of Gen Khin Nyunt and widespread purge of agencies under his direction, the OCMI, the NIB and the MI disbanded on 22 October 2004 when the 1983 law on the NIB was annulled. Approximately 1,500 intelligence agents were forced to retire, nearly 2,500 were reassigned to infantry units and more than 300 senior MI personnel and those close to Gen Khin Nyunt were imprisoned and charged with economic crimes (source: “Criminal Charges Reportedly Filed Against Loyalists of Former Myanmar Leader,” AP, 16 January 2005). In April 2005, at least 40 senior MI officials were sentenced to prison terms ranging from 20 to over 150 years and on 22 July 2005, Khin Nyunt was handed a 44-year suspended sentence to be served under house arrest (sources: “Secret Myanmar Trials Hand Down Stiff Sentences,” AFP, 8 April 2005; “Former Myanmar PM Gets 44-Year Suspended Sentence,” AFP, 22 July 2005).

The changes in the leadership of the MI and the SPDC’s claim that the NIB is no longer appropriate for the well-being of the people, however, has not translated to an end to military intelligence in Burma. Rather the intelligence operations now function under the Office of the Military Affairs Security (OMAS) under the direction of the Directorate of Defense Services and SPDC Chairman Sr. Gen. Than Shwe (source: “New Spy Machine Starting From Scratch,” SHAN, 17 February 2005). The restructuring has been replete with the “retraining” of new cadre, which includes many former low-level members of the now dismantled intelligence unit. The new intelligence personnel have taken over the role of terrorizing the population with little deviation from the former crew assigned to the task. Throughout 2005, the people of Burma continued to be subject to intimidation, monitoring, interrogation and arbitrary detention for any act or opinion determined to be an expression of political dissent.

The military regime has enacted and enforced strict laws that curtail civil and political freedoms and enable regime sponsored personnel to eliminate any opposition. These laws suppress and criminalize rights to freedom of assembly, association, belief, expression and movement. The most frequently utilized laws for these purposes are the 1950 Emergency Provisions Act, the 1957 Unlawful Associations Act, the 1962 Printers’ and Publishers’ Registration Law, the 1975 State Protection Law and Law No. 5/96. Additional laws have been established to counter technological developments that allow for organizing or communicating through alternative means. Moreover, the people of Burma have been denied the right to privacy as SPDC officials frequently enter homes without warrants as well as monitor communication and movement.

Throughout 2005, SPDC personnel continued to arrest and detain individuals suspected of expressing political dissent, regardless of the fact that these activities were usually peaceful. Most detainees have been taken without the knowledge of family members. Political detainees have been subject to protracted interrogation sessions that are often accompanied by torture. (For more information see Chapter 4 Torture and Other Cruel, Inhumane and Degrading Treatment). During 2005, torture during pre-trial detention and interrogation was believed to be the cause of several deaths of political detainees, of which there were no independent investigations. While some detainees have been released after a few days or weeks, others have disappeared entirely. Many detainees have been held incommunicado without trial for extended periods of time under Article 10(a) and (b) of the 1975 State Protection Act, which allows for detention of up to 5 years without trial or charge. In 2005, some detainees were also held incommunicado after sentencing.

According to the Assistance Association for Political Prisoners (AAPP), a human rights advocacy organization, regime sanctioned personnel arrested and detained at least 144 activists during 2005 (source: AAPP, 2005). Thirty-four of those arrested are members of the NLD and five are Members of Parliament elected in the 1990 general elections, which have never been honored by the military regime (source: “Update on Latest Arrests of Political Prisoners in Burma,” NCGUB, 1 January 2006). Moreover, following a series of bomb blasts in central Rangoon on 7 May, it was reported that approximately 600 activists and former political prisoners were detained and interrogated for varying periods of time in an attempt to identify those responsible (source: “Dark Days Amid Relentless Junta Crackdown,” BP, 8 June 2005).

Furthermore, individuals who reported or attempted to report human rights abuses were also subject to arrest and detention during 2005, frequently on charges of spreading false information or slandering the authorities. For example, after villager Su Su Nway successfully sued local authorities in Htan Minaing and Mya Sinnai villages, Rangoon Division for perpetrating forced labor, she was countersued by the authorities under charges of “besmearing their reputation.” Following an unfair trial, Su Su Nway was sentenced to 18 months in prison on 13 October 2005. In detention, she has been subject to further abuses, including denial of necessary medicines and medical treatment (source: AAPP, 2005). Her arrest is argued to be a tactic to intimidate any future attempts to hold the authorities accountable for violating section 374 of the Penal Code and Order 1/99, which outlaw forced labor practices in Burma. Similarly, on 31 October, lawyer U Aye Myint was sentenced to 7 years in prison under Article 5(e) of the 1950 Emergency Provisions Act for dispersing false information, after representing farmers whose land was confiscated by the authorities and redistributed to SPDC organizations as well as assisting the farmers in contacting the Rangoon based ILO liaison officer, Richard Horsey (source: “Lawyer Jailed for Representing Dispossessed Farmers,” Irrawaddy, 1 November 2005). Furthermore, on 11 November, nine persons in North Okkalapa Township, Rangoon Division were sentenced to prison terms ranging from eight to 25 years for providing information to the ILO (source: “Nine People Given Lengthy Jail Terms for Contacting ILO in Rangoon,” DVB, 7 December 2005).

Arbitrary arrest and detention of civilians in the ethnic minority border areas also persisted in 2005. Villagers have been frequently arrested under accusations of supporting or having contact with armed resistance groups. Villagers arrested under these circumstances frequently endure abusive treatment, including torture. To gain their release, the military authorities often require payment of stiff fines as well as corroboration from fellow villagers or the village headman that the detainee had no connections with armed resistance groups. Various human rights organizations, such as the Karen Human Rights Group (KHRG), have argued that the current definition of “political prisoner” used in the context of Burma is too narrow and excludes the thousands of ethnic minority villagers who are routinely arrested, tortured and imprisoned under Section 17/1 (contact with illegal organizations) and Section 17/2 (rising against the State) of the 1908 Unlawful Associations Act.

Arbitrary arrests, detention and disappearances of persons also persisted throughout 2005. Civilians have been arrested and detained without any valid justification. During 2005, villagers not only were arbitrarily arrested but were also arrested for petty offenses, such as failure to pay inequitable taxes or possession of lottery tickets. In turn, these villagers have been sentenced to disproportionate prison terms. Soldiers and SPDC operatives have also used arrest and threat of arrest to extort money, food or supplies from villagers.

Villagers who are arbitrarily arrested have also been forced to serve as porters for the military on the frontlines or as laborers. Concurrently, the number of prisoner porters utilized by the military has reportedly increased over the past several years. Therefore, many observers have conjectured that the arbitrary arrest of villagers is a method of maintaining a supply of laborers. It is believed that by using prison labor, the SPDC is attempting to deflect criticism for the use of civilian forced labor (source: Enduring Hunger and Repression: Food Scarcity, Internal Displacement, and the Continued Use of Forced Labor in Toungoo District, KHRG, September 2004) (For more information see Chapter 1 Forced Labor, Portering, and Military Conscription).

In conjunction with the SPDC’s seven-point roadmap to democracy announced in late 2003, the National Convention (NC) reconvened once in 2004 and twice in 2005 from 17 February to 31 March and from 5 December through to 2006. Despite claims of embarking down a road of democratic transition, those who expressed anti-SPDC views continued to face harassment and arrest. Just ten days prior to the assembly of the NC in February 2004, approximately 30 ethnic Shan leaders and activists were arrested. Ten Shan leaders, including SNLD President and MP-elect U Hkun Htun Oo and Shan State Peace Council (SSPC) Chairman Gen. Hso Ten were sentenced to unreasonably lengthy prison terms in November 2005. The SNLD, like the NLD, boycotted the 2004 and 2005 sessions of the NC. At the same time, members of pro-democracy organizations and parties, such as the CRPP, were threatened with jail terms of up to 20 years under Law 5/96 if they spoke negatively of the NC to the foreign media. Those threatened included Zomi National Congress MP-elect and member of the CRPP, Pu Cin Sian Thang, and CRPP Secretary Aye Tha Aung (source: “What A Gag: 20 Years for Criticizing Burma Junta's Convention,” DVB, 16 December 2005).

To further intimidate political opposition in light of the 2004 and 2005 NC proceedings, the SPDC also arbitrarily extended the sentences of several prominent politicians, including Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, NLD Vice-Chairman U Tin Oo and several elected MPs. Both Daw Aung Suu Kyi and U Tin Oo have been held under Article 10(a) of the 1975 State Protection Act. On 13 February 2005, U Tin Oo's period of house arrest was extended for an additional year while Daw Aung San Suu Kyi's was extended for an additional six months on 27 November 2005. (Sources: “U Tin Oo Given One Year Extended Detention by Burma's SPDC,” DVB, 15 February 2005; NCGUB, 2006).

Ignoring the calls of both domestic and international actors for the release of all political prisoners as a pre-requisite for any genuine political transition, the NC proceeded while over 1,100 political prisoners remained incarcerated in Burma's prisons. In his report to the sixtieth session of the UN General Assembly, the UN Special Rapporteur for Human Rights in Burma Paulo Sergio Pinheiro stated: “The immediate release of all 1,100 political prisoners would send a powerful signal to the people of Myanmar and the international community that the Government is seriously committed to a genuine process of reconciliation and to constituting a participatory democracy in Myanmar.” (Source: “Situation of Human Rights in Myanmar,” Sixtieth Session of the UN General Assembly, Item 73 (c) of the provisional agenda, 12 August 2005).

Following the removal of Prime Minister Khin Nyunt, the regime released a total of 19,906 prisoners during four mass releases in November and December 2004 as well as in January 2005. According to SPDC statements, those who were released had been imprisoned due to the “improper deeds” of the former NIB. Of those released, only 86 were reported to be political prisoners. On 6 July 2005, an additional 254 political prisoners were released in what was believed to be an attempt to divert international criticism of the military regime leading up to an ASEAN Ministerial meeting in Vientiane, Laos. In mid-December, rumors persisted of an impending release of political prisoners following an ASEAN statement calling for the realization of the SPDC’s proposed democratic reforms as well as the release of all political prisoners. The rumors were also the result of ASEAN Chairman and Malaysian Foreign Minister Syed Hamid Albar’s plan to visit Burma in early 2006 to press for both the release of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi as well as a concrete timeline for democratization. (Sources: “Rumors Spread of Political Prisoner Releases,” Mizzima, 14 December 2005; “ASEAN Delegation to Visit Burma in January,” Irrawaddy, 13 December 2004). However, by the end of 2005, the rumors had yet to materialize. According to the AAPP, the SPDC released a total of 361 political prisoners during the year (source: AAPP, 2005).

At the end of 2005, 1,131 political prisoners remained incarcerated. This number includes 13 MP-elect, 173 members of the NLD and 76 monks arrested for political reasons. The AAPP reports that at least two prisoners completed their sentences yet remained in detention under Article 10(a) of the 1975 State Protection Act. Moreover, approximately 58 political prisoners continued to suffer from poor health caused or exacerbated by unsanitary living conditions, torture and inhuman treatment, diet deficiencies, and limited access to inadequate medical care. Furthermore, by the end of 2005 the number of political prisoners who passed away either in custody or shortly after release, from the time of the 1988 pro-democracy uprisings to the present, stood at nearly 125 persons. (Source: AAPP, 2005).

Go to Top 

On 7 May 2005, bombs were detonated at the Dagon Center, Junction-8 Center and the Yangon Convention Center-3 in central Rangoon. According to SPDC reports, approximately 19 people were killed while 162 were injured. Other sources however reported the number of deaths to be significantly higher. The SPDC accused the KNU, the KNPP, the SSA-S, the NCGUB or individuals trained by “an internationally known organization of a superpower country” of being behind the bombings (source: “Myanmar Junta Blames Bomb Attacks on Foreign-Trained Terrorists,” AP, 15 May 2005). Others blamed former MI personnel or a new group of radical anti-regime activists. Further observers contended that the SPDC itself was responsible for orchestrating the attacks as a method of justifying action against opposition groups, prolonging political transition and securing an excuse for declining the chairmanship of ASEAN. (Sources: “Who Could Be Behind Rangoon Bomb Attacks,” Irrawaddy, 13 May 2005; Waiting to Explode, Altsean, 1 June 2005). (For more information see Chapter 12 Freedom of Assembly, Association and Movement).

Following the bomb blasts, security measures were heightened and the military authorities proceeded to detain and interrogate political activists and other civilians in an attempt to identify those responsible. According to one report, over 600 political activists were detained by August 2005 in connection with the Rangoon bombing (source: “Dark Days Amid Relentless Junta Crackdown,” BP, 8 June 2005). Former members of the ABSDF, former political prisoners and members of political parties including NLD members were detained and interrogated (sources: “Burmese Authorities Arresting Former Student Fighters,” DVB, 17 May 2005; “Former Burmese Political Prisoner Ko Ko Naing Released on Bail,” DVB, 4 June 2005). Relatives of political activists were also subject to the same fate. For example, the mother, brother and sister of Aung Din, co-founder of the Washington D.C.-based U.S. Campaign for Burma, were detained in an unidentified location for several days (source: “Dissidents and Activists Suffer After Bomb Blasts,” Irrawaddy, 2 June 2005).

Civilians in ethnic minority areas were also subject to arbitrary detention in the crackdown following the Rangoon bombings. In early June, it was reported that the military authorities detained at least 500 Muslims, the majority of whom were from Arakan State (source: “Dark Days amid Relentless Junta Crackdown,” Bangkok Post, 8 June 2005). Moreover, on 7 July 2005, troops from SPDC IB 93 encircled, forcibly entered and arrested nearly 100 ethnic Karen villagers in Tagu Seik village, Einme Township, Irrawaddy Division (source: “List of Detained Karen Villagers from Tagu Seik, Einme,” DVB, 18 August 2005). Initially, the reason for the arrests was thought to be suspicion of supporting the KNU by storing weapons. Later, however, it was reported that those arrested were suspected of being involved with the 7 May bombings. While those detained included two NLD members, Saw Myo Chit and Saw Poe Dye, NLD spokesman Myint Thein indicated that the arrests were focused on the villagers’ KNU connections as opposed to NLD connections. Villagers and visitors in neighboring villages were also subject to questioning. (Source: “NLD Members among 17 Arrested for Rangoon Bombings,” Irrawaddy, 18 August 2005).

Seventeen of those arrested from Tagu Seik village were transferred and detained in a special military interrogation center where they were subject to questioning and torture. Sixteen of the 17 arrested and detained included:

1.    Saw Myo Chit, male, Einme Township NLD organizing member;

2.    Saw Pho Dine, male, chairman of Tagu Seik village NLD;

3.    Saw Soe Lwin, male, chairman of Tagu Seik village;

4.    Naw Sa Phaw, female;

5.    Saw Talan Aing, male, Tagu Seik village authority;

6.    Saw Soe Naing, male, Einme resident;

7.    Saw Ngoyi, male, Tagu Seik villager;

8.    Naw Kapaw Htoo, female, Tagu Seik villager;

9.    Naw Rebecca, female;

10.  Saw Tapleh, male;

11.  Saw Yawya, male, Tagu Seik villager;

12.  Saw Taletset, male, Tagu Seik villager;

13.  Saw Toe Toe, male, Tagu Seik villager;

14.  Saw Wai, male, Tagu Seik villager;

15.  Saw Ko Ko Naing, male, health official from Athoke; and

16.  Unknown doctor from Athoke (source: “List of Detained Karen Villagers from Tagu Seik, Einme,” DVB, 18 August 2005).

On 15 August, 16 of the 17 detained were released after the authorities were unable to find evidence to implicate them in the 7 May bombings. Yet, one of the 17, Saw Stanford, a Karen schoolteacher, was killed as a result of electric shocks used during the interrogation sessions. (Source: “Rangoon Bombing Suspects Released,” Irrawaddy, 26 August 2005). (For more information see Section 3.7 Death in Custody).

 Go to Top

“Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.” - Article 10, Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

“Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.” - Article 11, Universal Declaration of Human Rights

“No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.” - Article 11, Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Although remnants of the British-era legal system remain in place in Burma and laws exist protecting the rights of the accused, the court system and its operation remain highly flawed, particularly in political cases. The unstable political nature of the country along with the existence of broadly worded legislation often results in detention and unfair trials. The 1950 Emergency Provisions Act was enacted shortly after independence from the British and is believed to have been created in response to increased armed-resistance within the country. Yet, the vague provisions of the law have allowed for the sentencing of numerous political prisoners who have spoken out against the authorities. Article 5(j) of this act allows for imprisonment for up to seven years if a person is believed to cause or intends to cause disruption to “the morality or the behaviour of a group of people or the general public, or to disrupt the security of the reconstruction of stability of the union.” The definition of disruptive behavior is not provided. In 1975, the Burmese Socialist Program Party enacted the State Protection Law to protect the State from destructive elements. Article 10(a) of this act allows for an individual to be detained for up to three years without a trial. In addition, those who are detained under this act may also be held incommunicado or in solitary confinement. Moreover, under the same article, authorities can immediately extend a prisoner’s sentence as soon as it has been completed if the detainee is determined to be a continued threat to the State

Throughout 2005, the SPDC continued to rule by decree without respect for any constitutional provisions for fair trials, due process or any other rights. While the law provides for the burden of proof to fall upon the prosecutors, in practice this is not the case. In addition, authorities often publicize the names of persons detained on the suspicion of engaging in opposition activities prior to trial and sentencing, thereby unfairly naming them as guilty parties prior to trial or sentencing (source: Travesties of Justice- Continued Misuse of the Legal System, AI, December 2005). Political prisoners are frequently forced to sign false confessions or provide testimony towards their guilt during pre-trial detention or interrogation periods. These confessions are often extracted through the use of torture. Political prisoners are usually denied the right to legal representation provided for under Section 340 of the Criminal Procedure Code. When legal counsel is permitted, rights to privacy, confidentiality and adequate preparation time are usually not provided. During the course of a trial, political defendants are usually denied their right under Article 208 of the Criminal Procedure Code to cross-examine prosecution witnesses or to call witnesses in their defense. Trials are usually held behind closed doors as Article 352 of the Criminal Procedure Code grants the “presiding Judge or Magistrate” the power to limit public access to the court as they deem necessary. Political trials are frequently held in the Special Court in Insein Prison, Rangoon Division. As a result, political defendants are often cut off from their families during the trial proceedings. Because political cases rarely receive copies of the court’s judgment or trial transcript, they are unable to exercise their right to appeal the court’s decision under Article 408, 409 and 410 of Chapter XXXI of the Criminal Procedure Code. Under Article 419 of the Criminal Procedure Code an appeal requires the submission of a petition for appeal along with a copy of the court’s judgment. (Source: Myanmar: Justice On Trial, AI, 30 July 2003).

Lack of independence of the judiciary also contributes to unfair trials for political detainees. Supreme Court judges are chosen and appointed by the SPDC. In turn, these judges then choose lower level court judges with the approval of the SPDC. Yet, as judges are not protected with tenure under the Judiciary Law of 2000, they are vulnerable to arbitrary removal if their rulings do not coincide with the political motives of the SPDC. Therefore, judges are rendered powerless to protect the rights of the oppressed, particularly in political cases where sentences are often dictated to judges. According to some political prisoners, judges read their sentences from a letter or a piece of paper in their pocket. These sentences are often the maximum possible under the law. In cases where a political defendant receives more than one sentence, they are usually forced to serve them consecutively as opposed to concurrently. As a result, many political cases receive sentences of such length that death prior to completion is almost inevitable. (Sources: Myanmar: Justice on Trial, AI, 30 July 2003; Country Reports on Human Rights Practices-2004, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, U.S. Department of State, 28 February 2005).

Conversely, criminal defendants have been able to exercise a degree of their rights to due process of law. Criminal defendants are reportedly able to meet with legal defense representatives 15 days prior to their trials in order to prepare their defense and can request a 15 day delay in trial for the same reason. They are able to cross-examine prosecution witnesses and call witnesses for their defense. Defense lawyers reportedly serve primarily to plea bargain for the briefest viable sentence for their clients. (Source: Country Reports on Human Rights Practices-2004, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, U.S. Department of State, 28 February 2005). 

Go to Top

Of the 39 prisons in Burma, 20 detain political prisoners. In detention, both criminal and political prisoners endure harsh environments that violate their human dignity and threaten their physical well-being. Conditions of detention remain deplorable and fall far short of international standards, such as the Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners, the Basic Principles for the Treatment of Prisoners and the Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Forms of Detention or Imprisonment. The detention facilities also fail to meet the standards set out under the domestic laws of Burma, such as those enshrined in the Union of Myanmar Prison Manual. Political prisoners are often subjected to extra prohibitive and repressive measures not mentioned in the Prison Manual. For example, theoretically every prisoner has the right to parole. Chapter 11, Article 59(5) of the Union of Myanmar Prison Manual states: “A prisoner who has acted in accordance with prison regulation has the right to parole at least 60, 70 or 90 days a year.” In reality, however, political prisoners are almost always denied this right.

Prison conditions in Burma constitute cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment and are a danger to the health and well-being of prisoners. Three to four prisoners are often kept in small cells measuring 8 by 12 ft. (2.6 by 3 m.) for more than 20 hours per day. To intimidate and thwart any organizing efforts, political prisoners have been detained in the same cells as criminal prisoners. Prisoners typically must eat, sleep and defecate inside the cell, making conditions extremely unsanitary. Prisoners are provided with one mat for sleeping but do not always receive a mosquito net, rendering them vulnerable to disease carrying insects. Prison cells are often infested with insects and animals that carry disease-causing bacteria. Prisoners have reported the presence of a variety of creatures such as flies, lice, leeches, maggots, mice, rats, scorpions, snakes, spiders and worms. Prisoners are usually provided with one to two prison uniforms per year, which they are permitted to wash only once each week. The thin cotton uniforms deteriorate rapidly as prisoners are often forced to use pieces of their uniforms to compensate for the lack of supplies. Prisoners have reported inadequate provisions to contend with cold weather at prisons located in temperate areas. Prisoners are fed small portions of poor quality rice with bean or vegetable soup and fish paste, sometimes supplemented with a small piece of boiled beef, egg, fish or pork once a week. Former prisoners have reported that the food had little to no nutritional value and is often rotten or filled with rubbish and stones. (Sources: AAPP, 2004; The Darkness We See: Torture in Burma's Interrogation Centers and Prisons, AAPP, December 2005).

Prisoners are provided with inadequate healthcare in violation of sections 22 through 26 of the Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of All Prisoners. In early 2003, the Director General of the Prisoner Department and the Medical Officer reported to representatives of Amnesty International that all prisoners received free and equal access to medical care. Yet, most reports from prisons indicate that prisoners receive minimal to no medical treatment unless a medical condition has reached a critical stage. Many prisons do not have a sufficient number of trained medical personnel on staff. Several former political prisoners have reported that they only received outdated medicines for a myriad of conditions. The most common diseases and ailments among prisoners are those caused by the poor sanitation, unclean and partially cooked food and restrictions on water usage. These ailments include gastrointestinal diseases, jaundice, tuberculosis and skin diseases. Moreover, HIV/AIDS infection rates have reportedly increased “due to communal use of single syringes for injections and sexual abuse by other prisoners.” In addition, injections administered by prison authorities are done so with unsterilized needles. (Sources: Myanmar: Justice on Trial, AI, 30 July 2003; Country Reports on Human Rights Practices-2004, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, U.S. Department of State, 28 February 2005; The Darkness We See: Torture in Burma's Interrogation Centers and Prisons, AAPP, December 2005).

According to paragraph 670(6) of Burma’s Prison Manual, prisoners “may be allowed the use of books from the jail library, and also to read books and magazines from outside (purchased at their own expense), subject to the approval of the Superintendent.” Despite the legal provisions for access to reading materials, political prisoners have frequently been denied this right. In 1999, restrictions were eased and prisoners were permitted to read religious books and some periodicals. However, authorities have continued to withhold books and other reading materials in order to censor them. Prisoners who have received religious books from family members outside of prison have reported waiting weeks to months for the authorities’ approval or rejection. To obtain information from the outside world, some political prisoners have reported reading bits of newspaper salvaged from smoked cheroot (Burmese cigars) filters found in the rubbish. (Source: AAPP, 2004).

Political prisoners are also denied their right to write under paragraph 670(8) of the Jail Manual, which states that prisoners “may be allowed to write and receive one letter, once a fortnight.” Political prisoners are not permitted to maintain written communication with their families. Moreover, political prisoners found in possession of a writing device and/or paper have been punished severely with beatings, solitary confinement and other methods. Most prisoners rely on delegates of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), an international humanitarian assistance organization, to carry and deliver letters to and from their families. (Source: AAPP, 2001).

Prisoners are generally prohibited from receiving visitors until they have been sentenced. Because many political prisoners are detained for extended periods of time without trial, political prisoners are often isolated from their families. Once sentenced, family visits are permitted every 2 weeks for most political prisoners and limited to 15 minutes. These visits usually do not transpire without monitoring. Prisoners have reported being instructed to focus their conversations on family issues and not to speak about prison conditions or political matters. However, as a method of punishment and psychological torture, political prisoners are often placed in prisons in remote locations or at considerable distances from their place of origin or the residence of their families. In turn, visits become extremely costly, time consuming and difficult for a prisoner’s family. Deliberately detaining prisoners in locations far from his or her place of origin contravenes Principle 20 of the UN Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons Under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment, which states: “If a detained or imprisoned person so requests, he shall if possible be kept in a place of detention or imprisonment reasonably near his usual place of residence.” Without regular family visits, prisoners’ ability to procure necessary medicine, food and other supplies from family members is severely compromised. (Source: Myanmar: Justice on Trial, AI, 30 July 2003; The Darkness We See: Torture in Burma's Interrogation Centers and Prisons, AAPP, December 2005).

Prisoners who have complained or protested the intolerable conditions of incarceration have received brutal treatment as a penalty. Punishments have included beatings, reduction of food rations, shackling, transfer to remote prisons, and solitary confinement or confinement in a cell designed for kenneling dogs. (Source: Facing Political Imprisonment: Prisoners of Concern to Amnesty International, AI, 1 December 2004).

Since 1999, the ICRC has conducted monitoring visits to the prisons and labor camps of Burma with advanced notification provided to the SPDC. The ICRC also delivers medicine and letters to political prisoners and their families. The ICRC contends that their monitoring has helped improve prison conditions, specifically in terms of food quality, ability to leave cells and some aspects of sanitation. However, overall prison conditions remained deplorable throughout 2005. In addition, former political prisoners have indicated that the advanced notice required by the regime allows prison authorities time to temporarily improve conditions prior to ICRC visits. Moreover, contradicting the ICRC's standard procedure of operating independently, the USDA persisted in attempting to escort an ICRC visit to Tharawaddy Prison on 12 December 2005. The ICRC subsequently cancelled the visit, complained to the authorities and expressed positive feelings towards rectifying the “misunderstanding” (source: “Relief Agency Wants to Go Alone,” Irrawaddy, 21 December 2005).

According to the AAPP, 53 female political prisoners continued to languish in the prisons of Burma as of the end of 2005 (source: AAPP, 2005). Like male prisoners, women prisoners are not spared from torture, beatings, inadequate food and lack of medical care. Unlike their male counterparts, women prisoners also fear the overt threats of sexual harassment and assault during the interrogation and detention periods. Moreover, some women have been detained in the same cells as men, creating another environment for potential sexual assault. (Source: Women Political Prisoners in Burma, BWU and AAPP, September 2004).

Women also face hardships particular to their sex. Prison authorities do not provide any sanitary provisions for women during menstruation. Women must rely on either their families or other prisoners to obtain necessary items. Some former political prisoners reported not having extra clothing items such as underwear or sarongs to wear while washing soiled ones during their menstruation. (Source: Women Political Prisoners in Burma, BWU and AAPP, September 2004).

Pregnant women who are arrested and imprisoned also suffer from the lack of prenatal care. Women who give birth while in prison frequently are not allowed the assistance of a doctor and must rely on the assistance of other prisoners who may possess minimal to no experience at all. Lack of skilled physicians or birthing assistants often results in adverse health effects for both mother and child. Moreover, mothers must care for their babies within the same unsanitary and restrictive prison confines. Therefore, children and mothers alike suffer, leading to sickness and in some cases, death. (Source: Women Political Prisoners in Burma, BWU and AAPP, September 2004). (For more information see Chapter 6 Rights of the Child).

The majority of the population of Burma is Buddhist. Thus, the monkhood has played an integral and respected role in education and village life throughout the history of the country. Because monks are in daily contact with the people through religious ceremonies and ritual, they have frequently played a supportive role in Burma’s civil society. They have also been involved in the various political movements that have transpired in Burma since the time of British colonization. Of particular significance, monks across the country have engaged in a boycott against the regime since 1990. Through the boycott, monks refused to accept the donations of members of the military and their families. (For more information see Chapter 10 The Freedom of Belief and Religion).

Threatened by the prominence of the monkhood in the lives of the people of Burma and its potential influence over political affairs in the country, the regime enacted several laws aimed to dictate proper conduct, association and activities of monks in 1990. On 20 October 1990, the junta enacted Order 6/90 prohibiting all Sangha (Buddhist clergy) organizations aside from the nine sects approved by Gen. Ne Win in 1980. On 21 October 1990, the regime issued Order 7/90 granting military officials the power to bring monks before military tribunals if determined to be behaving in a manner “inconsistent with and detrimental to Buddhism.” In these tribunals, monks charged with participating in boycotts and demonstrations could be disrobed and punished with sentences ranging from a minimum of 3 years imprisonment up to the death penalty. The regime also enacted Order 20/90 on 31 October 1990, also known as the Sangha Organization Law, which delineates a code of conduct for Buddhist monks. Monks and novices found in violation of the law may be subject to criminal penalties. Monks have also been sentenced under security legislation such as Article 5(j) of the 1950 Emergency Provisions Act, charged with threatening the stability of the State. (Source: Burma: A Land Where Buddhist Monks Are Disrobed and Detained in Dungeons, AAPP, November 2004).

At the end of 2005, the AAPP reported that 76 monks remained in prison in Burma due to politically motivated arrests. Once under the custody of the authorities, monks are disrobed and forced to wear regular prisoner uniforms. Monks who have refused to disrobe have been severely beaten by prison authorities. Some monks have been placed under extreme duress and ordered to renounce their vows, essentially defrocking them of their monkhood. However, many monks refuse to comply with these orders. As prisoners, monks are subject to the same abusive conditions and inhuman treatment as criminal prisoners and are not given the respect generally accorded to monks. Prison personnel have reportedly slapped monks’ shaved heads and called them “ka-done,” which means “baldy.” In addition, monks who have been imprisoned under the Criminal Code are often sent to serve time in labor camps or as porters for the military. Many monks have died in prison labor camps due to the strenuous work, poor quality food, extreme conditions and inadequate medical care. Only monks sentenced under Article 5(j) of the Emergency Provisions Act are exempted from the labor camps. (Sources: AAPP, 2006; Burma: A Land Where Buddhist Monks Are Disrobed and Detained in Dungeons, AAPP, November 2004).

Although less common, Buddhist nuns are also subject to arrest and abuse by the SPDC. On 13 July 2005, the reorganized military intelligence arrested Buddhist nun Daw Thitsar Wadi under the accusation of having contact with illegal organizations in foreign countries. Specifically, Daw Thitsar Wadi was accused of having contact with exiled pro-democracy activists. At the time of her arrest, Daw Thitsar Wadi was staying in the International Theravada Missionary University in Maran Gon Township, Rangoon Division, yet she usually resides in Sri Lanka. (Source: “Buddhist Nun Arrested in Rangoon,” Narinjara News, 14 July 2005).

Go to Top

On 28 April 2005, at least 9 political prisoners commenced a hunger strike in protest of being held in the same area as criminal prisoners who were harassing and terrorizing the political prisoners. Amnesty International reported the following 22 political prisoners were subject to punishment for involvement in the strike:

1.    Aye Lwin ;

2.    Han Win Aung;

3.    Kyaw Kyaw

4.    Kyaw Moe;

5.    Kyaw Naing;

6.    Lwin Ko Latt;

7.    Myo Khin;

8.    Myo Win;

9.    Hla Moe;

10.  Htun Yin;

11.  U Naing Naing (NLD MP-elect);

12.  Myint Htay;

13.  Nanda Sit Aung;

14.  Nan Shin Mon (student);

15.  Ohn Than;

16.  U Rajadamma (monk);

17.  Zaw Min Oo;

18.  Myint Ye;

19.  Ne Kyaw;

20.  Myint Naing

21.  Soe Han (lawyer), and

22.  an unidentified monk. (source: Myanmar’s Political Prisoners: A Growing Legacy of Injustice, AI, 16 June 2005).

On 1 May 2005, Ko Han Win and Ko Lwin Ko Latt stopped drinking water as well. As a result, they were severely beaten and detained in the “dog cells,” which are used for training dogs for the military. The AAPP reported that Ko Han Win and Ko Lwin Ko Latt were both very weak and unable to walk. On 3 May, Myo Khin and Myo Thet were transferred to Prome Prison, some distance from their families as a punishment for the strike. Similarly, Nandar Sit Aung and Ne Kyaw were sent to Pa-an Prison while Soe Han and Myint Naing were relocated to Moulmein Prison. On 5 May, Win Hlaing Nyo was transferred to Mandalay Prison. It was reported that prior to being relocated, the prisoners were tortured. Meanwhile, the authorities tightened restrictions. On 6 May, it was reported that the authorities prohibited family visits for the striking political prisoners. The strikers were also denied their daily 15 minute period outside of their cells. By 16 May, the strike was reported to have ceased following sustained threats from the authorities and division of the strikers. When one wife visited her husband, a political prisoner, he reportedly told her that “the authorities told prisoners to stop the strike or their cremated ashes will be delivered to their homes.” (Sources: “Health Situation of Political Prisoners in a Hunger Strike,” AAPP, 6 May 2005; “Burmese Prisoners Transferred for Staging Hunger Strike,” DVB, 12 May 2005; “Hunger Strike in Rangoon Insein Jail Ends,” DVB, 16 May 2005).

In August and September 2005, members of the Scorpion Gang were responsible for several brutal beatings of political prisoners in Insein Prison. The Scorpion Gang is comprised of wealthy criminals and children of elite SPDC ministers, including the grandson of the former dictator Ne Win. The gang members often terrorize political prisoners with impunity and bribe the prison authorities for special privileges. On 24 August 2005, members of the Scorpion Gang, including Pyone Maung Maung (aka Pyone Cho), Htet Naing Min, Nwar Gyi and Myat Min, beat and stepped on the neck of political prisoner Tun Tun. As a result, Tun Tun was seriously injured and admitted to the Insein Prison hospital. The authorities denied Tun Tun’s request to receive medical care at a public hospital. While members of the Scorpion Gang have frequently clashed with convict prisoners, this was the first reported incident involving a political prisoner since the relocation of political prisoners into wards with criminal prisoners. (Source: “Political Prisoner Harshly Beaten by Gang Members in Insein Prison,” AAPP, 19 September 2005).

Again, on 30 September 2005, members of the Scorpion Gang attacked political prisoner U Aung Pe and destroyed his personal belongings. U Aung Pe is a private tuition teacher who was arrested following Union Day on 12 February 2005, which commemorates the signing of the Panglong agreement establishing a federal union in Burma. In honor of the holiday, U Aung Pe saluted the Independence Monument and taught his students about Gen. Aung San. On 25 August 2005, he was sentenced to 3 years imprisonment under section 23 of the Private Tuition Law. It was reported that the prison authorities did not take any action regarding the incident with the Scorpion Gang. (Source: “Gang Members in Insein Prison Continuously Attack Political Prisoners,” AAPP, 5 October 2005).

Starting in January 2005, Mandalay Prison authorities punished political prisoner U Shwe Maung, a goldsmith who was imprisoned for making a replica of peasant’s hat, which is also a symbol the NLD. U Shwe Maung was punished for “complaining about the quality of food, requesting that his scheduled release transpire, and refusing to perform pounzan (a squatting position where prisoners must to put their clenched hands on their knees) when instructed to do so by prison authorities.” From January to at least April, he was detained in a cell with no light. In addition, he was subject to shackling, beating, and refusal of family visits. In April 2005, a relative interviewed by the DVB reported that “He was dragged out of his cell and stripped off. His head was covered with a black hood and they beat him up severely. That group beat him up quite severely. His chest was also slammed with knees. And, prison officials also kicked him with shoes. At the moment, he is being manacled systematically.” (Source: Myanmar’s Political Prisoners: A Growing Legacy of Injustice, AI, June 2005).

On 8 March 2005, political prisoners Ko Myo Min Zaw, Maung Maung Myat and Ko Kyaw Nyunt in Mandalay Prison, complained to the jail wardens about the quality of the bean curry or dahl, which is one of their regular meals. In response, the jail authorities did nothing about the dahl but sent the 3 political prisoners to solitary confinement and prohibited family visits as punishment for complaining about the food. (Source: “Burmese Prisoners Sent to Isolation Cells for Complaining,” DVB, 5 April 2005).

On 26 March 2005, prison authorities sent political prisoners Ko Bo Bo and Ko Ye Htun Kyaw to solitary confinement as punishment for not assuming the correct ponzan position. The prison authorities also prohibited family visits for the 2 political prisoners and denied their families entrance to the prison on 30 March. (Source: “Five Political Prisoners Have Been Sent to Solitary Confinement and Refused Family Visits in Mandalay Prison,” AAPP, 5 April 2005).

In late September 2005, an outbreak of diarrhea among prisoners in Tharawaddy prison was reported. Unclean drinking water as well as meals of rotten beans and rice were identified as the cause of the outbreak. Poor sanitation was also believed to have contributed to the spread of the diarrhea. Yet, following an inspection of the prison, the Superintendent of Tharawaddy, U Myint Shwe, deemed that the diarrhea was caused by the meat provided to the prisoners and not the beans or water. Thereafter, U Myint Shwe banned families of prisoners from providing fried fish paste, fried beef and fish. Without food supplements provided by families, prisoners lost access to good quality and nutritious food. Concurrently, the prison authorities reportedly took little action to treat the diarrhea outbreak. Although specialist doctors from Tharawaddy General Hospital were brought to the prison, medicine and resources for treatment remained inadequate. As of 27 September 2005, 7 prisoners had died and approximately 80 were in the prison hospital due to the diarrhea outbreak. The political prisoners in Tharawaddy were not affected. (Source: “Outbreak of Diarrhea at Tharawaddy Prison,” AAPP, 27 September 2005).

Go to Top

As of the end of 2005, at least 58 political prisoners in Burma were suffering from poor health in prison (source: AAPP, 2006). While some political prisoners developed health concerns while serving their prison sentences, others entered prison already suffering from certain ailments. Medical care is inadequate, if provided at all. Lack of proper medicines, misdiagnosis, unskilled or scarce medical personnel and facilities all lend to the decline of prisoners' health conditions. While prisoners are sometimes able to receive proper medication from relatives or sources outside of the prison, the authorities often arbitrarily prohibit prisoners from receiving them. Poor health conditions are further aggravated and recovery prolonged by unsanitary and overcrowded living conditions, lack of nutritious food as well as torture and other cruel and inhuman treatment. Common health conditions among political prisoners include amoebic hepatitis, anemia, depression, diabetes, diarrhea, dysentery, gastric ulcers, heart attack, HIV/AIDS, hypertension, impairment of vision, malaria, piles, skin infections, stroke, severe psychological problems and tuberculosis. Concerned about the rapidly failing health of political prisoners, the AAPP issued an appeal for the release of all ill political prisoners in mid-February 2005. (Sources: AAPP, 2005; “AAPP Urges Burma Junta to Release Ill Prisoners,” DVB, 14 February 2005).

Aung Kyaw Oo, a political prisoner in Tharawaddy Prison, was arrested in December 1991 and sentenced to 12 years imprisonment for suspected contact with the ABSDF. When the regime issued order 1/93 in 1993, his sentence was reduced to 10 years. However, he was sentenced to an additional 7 years when he collaborated with 23 other political prisoners to prepare and submit a report reflecting the situation of human rights in Insein Prison to the UN Special Rapporteur for Human Rights in Burma.

In late August 2004, Aung Kyaw Oo was sent to the guarded-ward of Rangoon General Hospital to receive medical attention for liver and kidney problems. According to Zaw Htun, a former political prisoner who had been arrested alongside Aung Kyaw Oo, his liver and kidney problems were the result of lack of treatment for malaria. As of the end of 2005, it was reported that Aung Kyaw Oo was still suffering from multiple health complications including liver and kidney diseases. (Sources: AAPP, 28 August 2004; Travesties of Justice-Continued Misuse of the Legal System, AI, 12 December 2005).

Aung Loo and Nai Yekkha, both members of the NMSP, were arrested in July 2003 along with 5 other persons including First Eleven editor Zaw Thet Htway and lawyer Aye Myint. Initially, they were all handed death sentences accused of, among several other charges, treason. After much international outcry and pressure, the sentences were reduced to life imprisonment in May 2004. In 2005, both Aung Loo and Nai Yekkha remained incarcerated in Insein Prison.

In 2005, both men were suffering from severe health problems. In September, it was reported that Aung Loo was administered emergency treatment in the prison clinic and was diagnosed with HIV. Nai Yekkha was enduring an acute stomachache and low blood pressure, compounded by the insufficient nutrition of the prison diet. His ailments rendered him weak and subject to frequent collapses. (Sources: “Health Conditions of Two Mon Prisoners in Rangoon,” DVB, 14 September 2005; “Mon Political Prisoner at Risk of Low Blood Pressure,” Kaowao News, 6 September 2005).

Khin Khin Lei, a teacher, was arrested on 3 December 1999 along with her 3-year-old daughter, Thaint Wunna Khin. She is married to Kyaw Wanna, a noted political activist and member of the ABFSU. When the authorities were unable to locate and arrest Kyaw Wanna for his role in planning a peaceful demonstration, they arrested his wife and daughter instead. While her daughter was released, Khin Khin Lei was sentenced to life imprisonment under Article 5(j) of the 1950 Emergency Provisions Act and Section 17/1 of the Unlawful Associations Act. (Source: AAPP, 2005).

At the end of 2005, Khin Khin Lei was serving her sentence in Insein Prison while suffering from dysentery, a lung disease and rheumatoid arthritis (source: Travesties of Justice – Continued Misuse of the Legal System, AI, 12 December 2005).

Khin Maung Lwin was arrested in 1998 after he allegedly wrote a letter to the regime’s advisory committee on religious affairs in which he called for the committee to put an end to poverty in the country (source: Travesties of Justice- Continued Misuse of the Legal System, AI, 12 December 2005). He received a 21 year sentence on political charges. In 2005, he was serving his sentence in Puta-o Prison in Kachin State. As his family lives in Rangoon, they were unable to regularly visit him. (Source: “Conditions of Prisoners at Burma Remote Areas Not Good,” DVB, 13 May 2005).

In May 2005, it was reported that Khin Maung Lwin was suffering from bloody stools. He was also reportedly suffering from heart disease, hypertension and malaria. (Sources: AAPP, 2005; “Conditions of Prisoners at Burma Remote Areas Not Good,” DVB, 13 May 2005).

Ko Oo, secretary of the Thayet Township NLD and chief organizing committee member of the Magwe Division NLD, was arrested in 2000 and sentenced to 9 years imprisonment on charges of employing his children. In 2005, he was serving his sentence in Thayet Prison.

In September 2005, it was reported that the state of Ko Oo's health was in considerable decline and he was suffering from both arthritis and a gastric related ailment. Although he was receiving treatment at the clinic in Thayet Prison, he had become thin and weak. He was no longer able to digest solid food and was limited to a liquid diet. According to his son who visited him on 8 September, Ko Oo's body weight had reduced by approximately one third. (Source: “Burmese Prisoner Ko Oo's Condition Deteriorates,” DVB, 8 September 2005).

Ko Thet Naung Soe was arrested in August 2002 after conducting a one-man protest in front of the Rangoon City Hall. He was sentenced to 14 years in prison under Articles 5(j) and 5(e) of the 1950 Emergency Provisions Act. In 2005, he was serving his sentence in Insein Prison.

In early 2005, it was reported that he was suffering from scabies and psychological distress. Ko Thet Naung Soe reportedly was unable to identify himself or recognize his cell mates and relatives. (Source: “Burmese Political Prisoners' Health Conditions,” DVB, 19 January 2005).

Thet Win Aung took part in the 1988 pro-democracy movement as one of the leading members of his high school student union in Tarmwe Township, Rangoon Division. In 1989, he was elected as the vice general secretary of the Basic Education Student Union (BESU). He was dismissed from his school for his political involvement in student demonstrations and later jailed for 9 months for aiding in forming the student union. In 1994, the MI tried to arrest him again after he published ABFSU pamphlets and organized student demonstrations to commemorate the 32nd anniversary of the 7 July Affair, when the military regime killed hundreds of university students by dynamiting the student union building at Rangoon University. Although he escaped, his home was frequently searched and his family was constantly harassed while he was on the run. In 1996, he participated behind the scenes in the student demonstrations. In 1998, he assisted in organizing student protests against the poor quality of education and students’ rights. In October 1998, he was arrested and sentenced to 52 years imprisonment, which was later increased to 60 years. Initially, he was detained in Kale Prison, Sagaing Division, but later transferred to Mandalay Prison. (Source: AAPP, February 2005).

In May 2005, it was reported that Thet Win Aung was unable to walk without the assistance of a walking device and was extremely weak. In October, it was reported that he was confined to a wheelchair (source: “Burmese Prisoner Thet Win Aung's Condition Has Not Improved,” DVB, 14 October 2005). At the end of 2005, he was also suffering from both mental illness as well as malaria (source: AAPP, 2005).

Ko Nyan Win was first arrested in 1989 and sentenced to 20 years imprisonment under Article 122/1 of the High Treason Act for participating in the writing and publishing of a book entitled, “History of Student Movements in Burma.” In addition, he was accused of having contact with opposition groups along the Thai-Burma border. His sentence was reduced to 10 years as a result of the 1993 amnesty. He was released in 1997. In 1998, he was arrested and sentenced again. He has been serving his sentence at Tharawaddy prison.

In March 2005, it was reported that he was suffering from serious health problems including a kidney disease as well as a swelling of the intestines and urinary organs. As a result of his health condition, he was unable to eat prison food. Moreover, he was forced to cover the costs of his medicine and medical treatment. (Source: AAPP, 22 March 2005).

Rangoon Division NLD Chairman Soe Han was arrested in conjunction with an NLD statement that called for the regime to relax restrictions on the party. He was sentenced to 21 years in prison in 2000 under Article 5(j) of the 1950 Emergency Provisions Act as well as Article 17/20 of the 1927 Printers and Publishers Act. He has been serving his sentence in Moulmein Prison. (Source: Travesties of Justice- Continued Misuse of the Legal System, AI, 12 December 2005)

In 2005, Soe Han was suffering from an extreme form of an eye disease. In September 2005, he requested permission to receive medical attention and a necessary operation outside of the prison. While the authorities agreed to the surgery, they required that Soe Han remain shackled while undergoing treatment. As Soe Han did not want to endure the embarrassment of remaining shackled, he chose to forego the treatment. As a result, his condition grew worse. (Source: “Burmese Prisoner Soe Han's Health Deteriorates,” DVB, 10 October 2005).

Than Maung, age 59, was arrested in 2001 for directing an anti-Muslim riot in Toungoo, Pegu Division. He was sentenced to 14 years imprisonment. Although he was initially detained in Toungoo Prison, he was relocated to Myaungmya Prison in 2004.

In 2005, he was suffering from diabetes, kidney disease and tuberculosis. He was sent to the local hospital in April 2005 when his condition worsened and he was unable to drink, eat or walk. His condition remained serious although he was receiving medical attention at the hospital. (Source: “Burmese Prisoner Given Medical Treatment Too Late,” DVB, 26 May 2005).

Ye Kyaw Zwa was first arrested in 1990 when he was a high school student. He was sentenced to 3 years imprisonment and released in 1992. Again in 1996, he was arrested for his connections with the student movement in Rangoon and sentenced to 19 years in prison. Since 23 April 2005, he has been serving his sentence at Myingyan Prison in Magwe Division, which is approximately 396 miles from Rangoon.

Since 2004, he has been suffering from serious depression. Although the Myingyan prison contains a small clinic, there are no psychiatric specialists on staff. Meanwhile, the authorities have ignored repeated requests by his family to have Ye Kyaw Zwa transferred to Insein Prison, which is closer to their residence. As a result of the lack of medical attention and his isolation from family, Ye Kyaw Zaw’s mental health situation has continued to deteriorate. (Source: AAPP, 23 April 2005).

Zaw Lin Tun, a Dagon University Student, was arrested along with 6 other students after “distributing anti-military junta leaflets” in 2003. In February 2004, he was sentenced to 20 years imprisonment and was serving his sentence in Insein Prison.

In early April 2005, it was reported that Zaw Lin Tun was suffering from gastric ailments coupled with heart disease. Furthermore, his family was unable to visit him in prison and he was reportedly suffering from depression. (Source: “Prisoners in Rangoon Insein Jail in a Bad Shape,” DVB, 7 April 2005).

Dr. May Win Myint participated in the 1988 nationwide democracy uprising. She became an active high-ranking member in the NLD. In the 1990 general elections, she was elected as a MP for Mayangone constituency (2), Rangoon Division. On 28 October 1997, she and other NLD leaders including Daw Aung San Suu Kyi met to create a local NLD youth wing in Mayangone Township, however, the authorities did not allow them to hold the meeting and forced them to disperse. Later that night, MI personnel arrested Dr May Win Myint and 7 other NLD members. The authorities accused them of disrupting the peace and stability of the country. They were each sentenced to 7 years imprisonment under Article 5(j) of the 1950 Emergency Provisions Act. At the time of her arrest, she was also in-charge of the NLD Central Women’s Wing. Despite having completed her sentence, she has remained in detention under Article 10(a) of the 1975 Emergency Protection Act. On 2 February 2005, the authorities extended her sentence for an additional year. She has been serving her sentence in Insein Prison. (Sources: AAPP, 2005; “Jail Terms of NLD Representative Extended,” DVB, 9 February 2005).

At the end of 2005, Dr. May Win Myint was suffering from a heart disease, high blood pressure, a gastric ulcer, rheumatic arthritis and a stiff shoulder (sources: AAPP, 2005; Travesties of Justice – Continued Misuse of the Legal System, AI, 12 December 2005).

Dr. Than Nyein served as the vice-chairman of the NLD Rangoon Division Organizing Committee and participated in the 1988 uprising. He was first arrested and detained for failing to pay the registration fees for a private clinic he ran in Thakayta Township, Rangoon Division. He was charged under Article 9(1c) of the 1972 People's Health Affairs. The authorities released him after he paid a fine. The NLD stated that the authorities had targeted him and did not arrest or charge other clinic owners. In the 1990 general elections, he was elected as a MP for the Kyauktan constituency. On 28 October 1997, Dr. Than Nyein was arrested again following an attempt by the NLD to create an NLD youth group in Mayangone Township, Rangoon Division. The military authorities blocked the NLD members and leaders, including Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, from holding the meeting. Many NLD members were forced into waiting vehicles and deposited near townships outside Rangoon. At midnight of the same day, the military authorities arrested Dr. Than Nyein along with 7 other members. All detainees were given 7 years imprisonment under Article 5(j) of the 1950 Emergency Provision Act on 10 December 1997. In July 2004, he completed his sentence however the military authorities extended his detention by 60 days under Article 10(a) of the 1975 State Protection Act. His sentence was again extended another 60 days on 19 September 2004. On 18 January 2005, Dr. Than Nyein completed the third 2-month extension since his official sentence had been completed. Instead of being released, his sentence was extended for an additional year. (Sources: AAPP, 29 September 2004; “Jailed MP Moved to Rangoon Hospital,” Irrawaddy, 28 September 2004; “Burma Extends Jail Term of Ailing Democracy Party Representative,” DVB, 23 January 2005).

Dr Than Nyein has been suffering from ankylosing spondylitis, liver disease, nerve damage and gastric ulcers. Following the second extension of his sentence, he commenced a hunger strike in Insein Prison to protest his prolonged detention. The hunger strike exacerbated his poor health and on 26 September 2004 he was admitted to Rangoon General Hospital. (Sources: AAPP, 29 September 2004; “Jailed MP Moved to Rangoon Hospital,” Irrawaddy, 28 September 2004). Despite his recent hospitalization, the SPDC authorities transferred him to Tharawaddy Prison in 2004. In January 2005, he was transferred again to Prome Prison in Pegu Division, which lacks a medical facility (source: “Dr Than Nyein Sent to Hospital after Hunger Strike in Prison,” DVB, 26 September 2004). On 18 February, a physician alerted the authorities that Dr. Than Nyein was in need of urgent treatment however he continued to be denied medical attention (source: “Burmese MP, Dr. Than Nyein Still Not Allowed to Receive Medical Treatment,” DVB, 27 March 2005).

In the 1990 general elections Dr Zaw Myint Maung was elected as a MP for Amarapura constituency in Mandalay Division. He was arrested in November of the same year for attending meetings regarding the formation of a provisional government. He was sentenced to 25 years imprisonment under Article 122/1 of the Penal Code on 30 April 1991. On 27 November 1991, the Election Commission dismissed him from Parliament and banned him from running for a position in future elections. While he was serving his sentence in Insein Prison in March 1996, an additional 7 years was added to his sentence under Article 5(e) of the 1950 Emergency Provisions Act for producing, in collaboration with other political prisoners, a magazine commemorating the 75th anniversary of Rangoon University. The magazine was called New Blood Wave. He was also sentenced to another 7 years under Section 17/20 of the Printers and Publishers Act. As of the end of 2005, he was serving his sentence in Myintkyina Prison.

During 2005, it was reported that he was suffering from low blood pressure and had many black spots on his face. Amnesty International meanwhile indicated that he was suffering from hepatitis. (Sources: AAPP, February 2005; Travesties of Justice-Continued Misuse of the Legal System, AI, 12 December 2005).

During the 1988 uprising, U Aung Soe Myint served as a member of the Central General Strike Committee of the Toungoo District People’s Liberation Alliance. In the 1990 democratic elections, he was elected as a MP for the Toungoo constituency in Karen State and boycotted the NC in December 1995. U Aung Soe Myint was arrested on 31 August 2003 in connection with a traffic accident. He was charged with possessing and operating an unlicensed motorcycle. He was sentenced to 7 years in prison.

While initially detained in Toungoo Prison and then Thayet Prison, he was transferred to Insein in early January 2005 due to his declining health. U Aung Soe Myint has been suffering from diabetes, heart disease, high blood pressure and eye problems. (Sources: AAPP, 2005; “Family Members Express Concern Over Their Loved Ones in Prisons,” DVB, 11 January 2005).

Go to Top

At least nine persons died while under the custody of the SPDC authorities during 2005, four of whom died under dubious circumstances during the period of pre-trial detention. Two of those who died were former affiliates of Gen. Khin Nyunt who were arrested following the ouster of Gen. Khin Nyunt from the prime minister post. Torture, inhuman treatment and inadequate medical care have been cited as the causes for the nine deaths. At the end of 2005, the total death toll of political prisoners since the 1988 nationwide pro-democracy uprising who passed away while in the regime’s custody or shortly after release amounted to nearly 125. (Sources: AAPP, 2005; Myanmar’s Political Prisoners: A Growing Legacy of Injustice, AI, June 2005).

Aung Hlaing Win, age 30 and member of the Hlaing Township NLD, was arrested on 1 May 2005 by plain-clothes military personnel. The reason for his arrest was unknown and his family was not notified of his whereabouts. When they inquired with local police, they were unable to obtain any information. On 7 May, Aung Hlaing Win died at the interrogation center and military authorities cremated his body before informing his family of the death. On 10 May, a group led by Col. Min Hlaing informed Aung Hlaing Win’s family that he had died from a heart attack during interrogation. The group went further as to offer the family 10,000 kyat in return for their silence. As Aung Hlaing Win’s family believed the cause of death to be torture, they reported the incident to Mayangone Police Station on 18 May.

On 1 June 2005, the Mayangone Township court heard the case during which Aung Hlaing Win’s wife and her legal representative were unable to testify. Conversely, Capt. Sai Aung Win and Capt. Zaw Min Kyaw, who were responsible for detaining Aung Hlaing Win, testified that Aung Hlaing Win was arrested on 6 May as opposed to 1 May 2005. Four medical doctors from North Okalapa Hospital also provided testimony regarding the condition of Aung Hlaing Win’s body when it was brought to the hospital. Their testimony revealed that Aung Hlaing Win died prior to arriving to the hospital. Three of his ribs were fractured and a fourth was broken that bruised his lung. He had 24 external wounds on his body as well as bruising around his throat and trachea. Finally, there was evidence of decay in the colon and stomach. Despite this evidence, one of the doctors, Dr. Zaw Zaw, provided testimony that Aung Hlaing Win died as a result of a liver disease. The court ruled the cause of death to be liver disease and not torture. In response, Aung Hlaing Win's family filed an appeal to have the case further investigated. In early September, the appeal was rejected. (Source: NCGUB, 2005).

Schoolteacher Saw Stanford was arrested by soldiers from SPDC IB 93 on 7 July 2005 when they raided Tagu Seik village, Einme Township, Irrawaddy Division. Saw Stanford was arrested along with 16 other Karen villagers under suspicion of holding weapons for the KNU and having connections with the 7 May Rangoon bombings. Saw Stanford died as a result of electric shocks used during interrogations. The troops left the village one month later after finding no evidence of weapons and the surviving detainees were released. The troops required the villagers to sign an agreement indicating that they would not reveal any information regarding the raid of the village. In addition, the military authorities reportedly offered 300,000 kyat in compensation to the family of Saw Stanford. In response, Saw Stanford’s family officially filed a complaint about his death, requesting that action be taken against the perpetrators. (Source: “Dead Karen Teacher’ Relatives Lodge Complaint to Burma Junta,” DVB, 1 September 2005).

Min Tun Wai, age 40 and a NLD member from Kyaikmayaw Township, Mon State was arrested on 27 or 28 May 2005 for unknown reasons. The Kyaikmayaw Township court sentenced him to 7 years imprisonment. Shortly after being sentenced, he was moved to Moulmein Prison. On 30 May, he died at Moulmein Prison and the authorities buried his body on the same day prior to notifying his family of his death. On 31 May, the authorities notified Min Tun Wai’s family of his death. In response, his wife sent a complaint requesting an investigation into the cause of death and disappearance of Min Tun Wai’s body. As of mid-September, the authorities had not taken any action. (Source: “Another Prisoner’s Corpse Disappeared in Burma,” DVB, 12 September 2005).

Htay Lwin, a 30-year-old man from Nyaungkweh Ward, Aungmye Tharzan Township, Mandalay Division, was arrested and detained by local Chairman Ba Tint, USDA members and other local authorities at 4:00 pm on 3 October 2005. The reason for his arrest was related to a lost water pump. Chairman Ba Tint along with USDA member Tun Min Latt reportedly interrogated and beat Htay Lwin while they detained him. At 10 pm, Htay Lwin was transferred to the No. 4 Police Station. An hour later Htay Lwin's wife, Aye Aye Khaing, attempted to see him and bring him some food yet the authorities denied her access to her husband. At midnight, Htay Lwin's body was transferred from the police station to Mandalay General Hospital. In the morning of 4 October, Aye Aye Khaing was contacted by the chief hospital administrator, instructed to bury Htay Lwin's body without delay and informed that the USDA and police would cover the costs of the funeral. Initially, Aye Aye Khaing refused to follow the demand and insisted on retrieving her husband's body. Under further intimidation by the authorities, Aye Aye Khaing complied and police indicated that they would provide her with 30,000 kyat in compensation. Aye Aye Khaing reported the incident to Chief of Police Khin Yi, the Ministry of Internal Affairs and the Women's Affairs Committee. (Source: “Another Burmese Killed by Authorities during Interrogation,” DVB, 23 October 2005).

Aung Myint Thein, a 37-year-old human rights activist from Shwepaukkan New Town, Rangoon Division, was arrested on 2 July 2005 charged with having contact with the exiled FTUB. He was charged under Article 5(j) of the 1950 Emergency Provisions Act and Section 17/1 of the 1957 Unlawful Associations Act in a closed-door trial. On 6 November, just prior to sentencing, Aung Myint Thein died while in Insein Prison in Rangoon. According to the authorities, Aung Myint Thein died as a result of dysentery and cholera. His family members, however, were not permitted to see or bury his body, causing them to remain dubious over the cause of death (source: “Another Burmese Political Prisoner Dies in Detention,” DVB, 9 November 2005). According to the AAPP, Aung Myint Thein’s death was the result of severe lung disease, which was exacerbated by lack of medical treatment, poor conditions of the prison and possible torture (source: “Burmese Human Rights Activist Aung Myint Thein Dies in Custody,” Asian Tribune, 10 November 2005).

Nai Ong Lorn, age mid 40s, was arrested in July 2003 along with 8 other men accused of treason, including NMSP leader Nai Yekkha. Nai Ong Lorn was serving a life sentence in Insein Prison when on 28 September 2005 at 9:00 am he passed away. According to one source, the cause of death may have been related to a disease. (Source: “Mon Political Prisoner Dies in Prison,” IMNA, 29 September 2005).

Aung Zaw Latt

Aung Zaw Latt was arrested in September 1999 following his participation in the 9999 uprising. As a result of his political activities, he was handed an 8-year sentence under Article 5(j) of the 1950 Emergency Provisions Act and Section 17/1 of the 1957 Unlawful Association Act. On 16 December 2005, Aung Zaw Latt passed away while serving his sentence in Pegu Prison. He had been suffering from tuberculosis prior to his death for which he had not received sufficient medical treatment. (Source: “Death Camp Burma: Another Political Prisoner Dies in Detention,” DVB, 20 December 2005).

Brig. Gen. Myint Aung Zaw was the head of the administration department at the Office of the Chief of Military Intelligence. He was arrested in the wake of the ouster of Prime Minister Khin Nyunt in late 2004. In January 2005, it was reported that he died while in detention in Insein Prison. While not considered to be a political prisoner, it was believed that his death was caused by torture during interrogation and the authorities clandestinely cremated his body. (Source: “Heads of Military Intelligence Detained and Tortured,” Irrawaddy, 25 January 2005).

Arrested in late 2004 in the wake of the Khin Nyunt ouster, local immigration head U Toe Paing was posted in Muse, Shan State. On 17 January 2005, he died while serving a 15-year sentence in Puta-o Prison in Kachin State. While not considered to be a political prisoner, U Toe Paing was reported to be ill around the time of his death and it was unclear whether his death was caused by illness or torture. (Source: “Burmese Border Official Died in Prison,” DVB, 21 January 2005).

Go to Top

In his report to the 60th session of the UN General Assembly, the UN Special Rapporteur for Human Rights in Burma Paulo Pinheiro expressed that he remained “very concerned at the practice of administrative detention” (source: “Situation of Human Rights in Myanmar,” Sixtieth session of the UN General Assembly, Item 73 (c) of the provisional agenda, 12 August 2005). The ruling military regime has frequently employed Law No. 11/91, an amendment to Article 14 of the 1975 State Protection Act, to unfairly extend the term of detention of prisoners. Law No. 11/91, also known as the Law Amending the Law Safeguarding the State from the Danger of Destructionist Elements, allows for a period of detention to be extended by three to five years without trial or cause. While a prisoner has the right to appeal under Article 19 of the same act, it is not a judicial appeal but an executive appeal to the Minister of Home Affairs. The inability to appeal to the judicial branch contravenes international standards (source: Myanmar: Justice On Trial, AI, 30 July 2003). As of the end of 2005, Dr. May Win Myint and Dr. Than Nyein, elected NLD MPs of Mayangone and Thakayta Townships, respectively remained imprisoned beyond the completion of their sentences (source: AAPP, 2005).

Go to Top

Over 361 political prisoners were released from Burma's prisons during 2005. Among those released was Ko Zaw Min, a well-known leader of the 1988 student movement imprisoned for over 14 years and released in early March. In addition, Ko Ko Gyi, deputy chairman of the ABFSU, was released on 16 March after 13 years of imprisonment (see Section 3.16 Appendix IV: List of NLD Members Released in 2005). Yet, despite the releases, the military authorities continued to arrest political activists and those who voiced peaceful opposition to the military regime. Moreover, NLD Gen. Sec. Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, NLD Vice-Chairman U Tin Oo and an estimated 1,131 political prisoners remained in detention at the end of the year. (Sources: “Myanmar Student Activist Freed After 14 Years in Prison,” AFP, 8 March 2005; “Myanmar Releases Prominent Student Activist,” AP, 17 March 2005; AAPP, 2005).

The military regime often releases prisoners when it is necessary to consolidate their power within the country or improve their image abroad. On 3 January 2005, a month before the NC was to resume and on the eve of Independence Day, the SPDC released 5,588 prisoners from prisons throughout the country. The mass release was similar to three prior mass releases, which transpired during November and December 2004 during which 14,318 prisoners were reportedly released. The mass releases of 2004 came following the removal of Prime Minister Khin Nyunt and the dissolution of the NIB, arguably to divert international attention and criticism. According to the SPDC, those who were released in 2004 had been wrongly detained due to the “improper conduct” of the NIB intelligence agents. In addition, junta run media sources reported that the reason for the 3 January 2005 release was based on humanitarian grounds in conjunction with Independence Day. According to the AAPP, only 86 political prisoners were among the 19,906 prisoners released during the 4 mass releases. (Sources: “Myanmar to Release 5,500 Prisoners on Eve of Independence Anniversary,” AFP, 3 January 2005; “AAPP Urges Junta to Release Ill Prisoners,” DVB, 14 February 2005; AAPP, 2005).

Again on 6 July 2005, the SPDC released approximately 400 prisoners under what was an alleged special amnesty. According to SPDC sources, all 400 released were political prisoners. Yet, according to the AAPP, only 253 were reported to be actual political prisoners. Those released included NLD MP-elects Dr Khin Zaw Win and U Sein Hla Oo. In addition, rumors persisted regarding the release of 75 year-old journalist and NLD political advisor, U Win Tin. Yet, these rumors were rendered false and U Win Tin remained incarcerated throughout 2005 (sources: “More Than 250 Political Prisoners Released,” Irrawaddy, 6 July 2005). As this mass release occurred only a few weeks prior to the 25-29 July ASEAN Ministerial meeting in Laos, some observers believed that the release was again an attempt to ease international criticism as Burma approached its opportunity to assume the chairmanship of ASEAN in 2006 (source: Burma's Withdrawal from the ASEAN Chair: Retreat or Defeat?, Altsean, 13 September 2005).

Political prisoners who are offered early release and have their sentences suspended are frequently required to sign a document relating to Section 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which attaches conditions to their release. Conditions of release frequently include refraining from all political activities. Under Section 401/3, “If any condition on which a sentence has been suspended or remitted is, in the opinion of the President of the Union, not fulfilled, the President of the Union may cancel the suspension or remission, and there upon the person in whose favor the sentence has been suspended or remitted may, if at large, be arrested by any police officer without warrant and remanded to undergo the un-expired portion of the sentence.” Therefore, the prisoner is vulnerable to re-arrest at any time if the authorities determine the conditions of the release unmet. In this case, the prisoner must serve the unfinished sentence with the possibility of a new sentence attached. Due to the unstable political climate of Burma and constant crackdowns on those perceived to be threats to the regime, prisoners who sign this agreement remain in precarious situations and vulnerable to the arbitrary decisions of the authorities. (Source: Myanmar: Justice on Trial, AI, 30 July 2003).

Once released, former political prisoners and their families are often subject to ongoing monitoring, harassment and interference by the authorities. Some political prisoners have also reported that authorities visit their homes to question them and ensure non-participation in political activities. Family members are also subject to questioning and monitoring regarding their own or their relative’s movements and activities. Visits from authorities have reportedly been as frequent as once a week. During politically sensitive times, such as opposition or national anniversary dates, former political prisoners have been detained and interrogated without reason. In late December 2004, the recently released chairman of the ABFSU, Min Ko Naing, was harassed and monitored by military intelligence agents during a visit to his uncle’s house outside of Rangoon. Intelligence agents reportedly visited the home twice in the middle of the night to question and intimidate Min Ko Naing’s friends and relatives (source: “Myanmar Military Harassing Freed Student Leader: US Group,” AFP, 21 January). Again, in November 2005, Min Ko Naing was subject to increased harassment and monitoring perpetrated by intelligence personnel and state-run media. This harassment was partly due to Min Ko Naing's attempt to encourage humanitarian aid and development in the country through his newly formed organization, 88 Generation Students. (Source: “Student Leader Faces Harassment,” Irrawaddy, 10 November 2005). (For more information see Chapter 9 Rights to Education and Health).

In addition, many former political prisoners have reported that intelligence personnel threaten or thwart employers who hire former political prisoners or their family members. As a result, maintaining stable employment and livelihoods is extremely difficult. Authorities often prevent former political prisoners from pursuing educational opportunities or from obtaining travel and identification documents. In July 2005, immigration authorities in Insein Township, Rangoon Division reportedly would not grant former political prisoner Dr. Ne Win a new national ID card, after he had lost his original one, unless he signed a form indicating that he would refrain from political activities. As Dr. Ne Win refused to sign, he was unable to obtain a new ID and rendered unable to travel in Burma (source: “Burmese Ex-Political Prisoner Not Given National Identity Card,” DVB, 9 July 2005). Moreover, both former political prisoners and their families are usually denied passports. By limiting their education and economic opportunities, the military authorities attempt to further marginalize ex-political prisoners from society.

See Section 3.15 Appendix III: List of Political Arrests in 2005.

On 14 February 2005, authorities arrested Aung Pe, a 40-year-old school teacher from Rangoon, a day after he hung a photograph of Gen. Aung San on 13 February, Gen. Aung San’s birthday, saluted and sang a song in his honor with his students. On 25 August, his case was heard by the Rangoon Twante Township Court where he was represented by a lawyer named Myint Thaung. Despite presenting compelling evidence, the court sentenced Aung Pe to 3 years imprisonment. Reportedly with the approval of the prison authorities, a prison gang attacked Aung Pe in Insein Prison on 30 September. U Aung Pe filed an appeal that was summarily rejected by the court on 24 October. (Sources: “Burmese Tuition Teacher Gets Three Years for Saluting National Hero,” DVB, 25 August 2005; “District Court Throws Out Appeals by Burmese Human Rights Defender and Teacher,” AHRC, 15 November 2005).

On 28 February 2005, it was reported that Daw Aung San Suu Kyi's former body guard and NLD Youth member, Tun Lin Kyaw, was handed a 7 year prison sentence for conducting a one-man demonstration in front of Rangoon City Hall in protest of the extension of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi's detention. (Source: “NLD Youth Sentence to Seven Years for Solo Protest,” DVB, 28 February 2005).

On 15 March 2005, Maymyo Township NLD member, U Salin, was arrested and handed a 2 year prison sentence for purportedly yelling defamatory remarks at members of the junta sponsored USDA. He was sent to serve his sentence in Mandalay Prison. A local resident indicated that U Salin's arrest may have been the result of his participation in Daw Aung San Suu Kyi's trip to southern Shan State in 2002. (Source: “Another NLD Member Arrested and Imprisoned,” DVB, 20 March 2005).

On 17 March 2005, at midnight, police officers went to the Rangoon home of MP-elect U Kyaw Min and instructed him to accompany them for questioning. Initially, his family did not know where he was being held. U Kyaw Min is an ethnic Rohingya, member of the National Democratic Party for Human Rights (NDPH), a member of the CRPP and MP-elect for No. 1 constituency of Buthidaung Township, Arakan State. (Source: “Two MPs Arrested by Junta,” Kaladan News, 19 March 2005). On 29 July, a court inside Insein Prison sentenced U Kyaw Min to 47 years in prison under the Immigration and National Security Act. U Kyaw Min was denied legal representation during his trial. Moreover, it was reported that U Kyaw Min's wife, Daw Ti Zar, 2 daughters, Ma Khin Khin Nu and Ma Wai Wai Nu, and his son, Ko Nu Man were all sentenced to 17 years in prison on unknown charges. (Source: “Elected MP U Kyaw Min Sentence to 47 Years Imprisonment,” Narinjara News, 30 July 2005).

On 17 March 2005 around 11:00 pm, authorities arrested MP-elect U Kyaw Hsan, 73 year-old chairman of the Sagaing Division NLD and a retired lieutenant colonel, for having material from the DKBA in his house. The material belonged to friends of his son. U Kyaw Hsan was put into detention in Insein Prison. (Source: “Sagaing Division NLD Chairman U Kyaw San Detained,” DVB 17 March 2005). Kyaw San had been recently released in November 2004 after serving nearly ten years in prison. In protest of his arrest, U Kyaw Hsan engaged in a hunger strike for 26 days until his wife convinced him to eat something. His request to be released on bail was rejected. Charged under Article 51 and 53 of the Penal Code for overseas trade and for “aiding and abetting trade activities,” respectively, his trial commenced on 22 April. He was represented by NLD lawyer U Thein Nyunt. (Source: “NLD MP Kyaw San Taken to Court in Rangoon amid Hunger Strike,” DVB, 13 April 2005). On 6 June, the Insein Township Court sentenced U Kyaw Hsan to 7 years in prison (source: “Detained NLD, U Kyaw San Sent to Prison Again by Burmese Junta,” DVB, 6 June 2005). On 29 July, the Rangoon Division Court rejected an appeal filed for U Kyaw Hsan's case (source: “Burma Sagaing U Kyaw San Appeal Rejected,” DVB, 13 August 2005).

On 30 March 2005, an Indaw Township police officer as well as an officer from the Criminal Intelligence Department arrested U Saw Hlaing, a 49-year-old NLD MP-elect from Indaw Township Constituency, Sagaing Division. U Saw Hlaing was reportedly taken to Katha jail. Although the reason for his arrest was initially unknown, the authorities confiscated U Saw Hlaing's personal computer from his home. (Source: “Authorities Said to Detain a Burmese Pro-Democracy MP,“ DVB, 2 April 2005). On 26 May, a court in Katha Township handed U Saw Hlaing a 12-year prison sentence for possessing “unlicensed second-hand computers” (source: “NLD MP Sent to Prison by Burmese Court for Keeping Broken Computers,” DVB, 26 May 2005). This is the fifth time that U Saw Hlaing has been arrested.

On 12 May 2005, authorities arrested Shwe Kyin Township NLD Chairman Bo Kyi and NLD member Pe Tin in Pegu Division for handing out leaflets to local NLD members which included some of Gen. Aung San's speeches regarding democracy. The 2 were accused of handing out propaganda. On 27 May, the Shwe Kyin Township Court sentenced the 2 men to 7 years imprisonment. Following sentencing, appeals were lodged and rejected by the district and division level courts. On 31 August, NLD legal supporters filed an appeal with the High Court in Rangoon. (Source: “NLD Lawyers Lodge Appeal to Burma's High Court for Prisoners,” DVB, 31 August 2005).

On 26 May 2005, police and military personnel reportedly entered the village of Yan Thi in Mrauk-U Township, Arakan State in the middle of the night where they arrested VPDC Chairman U Kyaw Hla along with 6 members of the NLD. The 6 NLD members were all ethnic Rakhine, one of whom was U Kyaw Hla, an active NLD member. All 7 were taken to the army camp where their family members were prohibited from seeing them. The arrest was allegedly caused by suspicion of involvement with the 7 May bombs in Rangoon. (Source: “NLD Members Arrested in Arakan State,” Kaladan News, 21 June 2005).

On 13 June 2005, a special court in Insein jail sentenced 4 NLD members and one pro-democracy activist to life imprisonment. The following 5 were arrested and detained in Insein Prison in December 2004 and were prohibited from receiving visits from their relatives as well as from having legal representation:

1.    U Ba Myint, Ahlone Township NLD chairman;

2.    U Ba Tint, Ahlone Township NLD member;

3.    Ko Aung Myo San, Kamayut Township NLD member;

4.    Ko Khin Kyaw, Kamayut Township NLD member;

5.    Ko Thet Naing Aung, pro-democracy activist. (Source: “NLD Members Given Life Sentence by Burma Junta,” DVB, 13 June 2005).

On 15 June 2005, special police personnel arrested 6 members of the Labor Solidarity Organization under accusations of having contact with illegal organizations. All 6 were former political prisoners, 2 of whom, Ko Myint Soe and Ko Tun Tun Naing, had only been released 2 months prior to this arrest. The 4 others arrested were Arr Kar Hein (aka, U Zaw Nyunt), Ko Nay Lin and 2 unidentified persons. (Source: “Six Labour Solidarity Organization Members Reportedly Arrested in Burma,” DVB, 23 June 2005). On 4 July, the 6 were released after authorities concluded that they had no connections with U Maung Maung, chairman of the exiled FTUB (source: “Six Detained Burmese Labour Union Members Released,” DVB, 5 July 2005).

On 6 July 2005, NLD Chairman of Kin-U Township Dr Win Aung, Soe Win and Khin Maung Win were arrested for watching a video of Aung San Suu Kyi's campaign tour to Mogok and Monywa in Dr Win Aung's home in Sagaing Division. On 8 July, the 3 men were sentenced to prison terms under the Video Act and Print Act. Both Dr Win Aung and Soe Win were sentenced to 10 years imprisonment while Khin Maung Win was sentenced to 3 years. On 20 October, the divisional court in Monywa rejected an appeal filed on behalf of the Dr Win Aung. (Sources: “Three Receive Prison Terms for Watching Suu Kyi Tape,” Irrawaddy, 11 July 2005; “NLD Dr Win Aung's Appeal Rejected by Burmese Court,” DVB, 2 November 2005).

On 27 August 2005, authorities rearrested 55-year-old lawyer Aye Myint who represented farmers whose land was confiscated and redistributed to SPDC sanctioned organizations such as the USDA in a court in Pegu Division. Aye Myint also assisted the farmers in contacting Richard Horsey, the Rangoon-based ILO representative. Aye Myint was previously arrested in July 2003 along with 8 other men and sentenced to death in November 2003 under accusations of treason. After much international outcry and pressure, the sentences were reduced in May 2004. Aye Myint was released from prison in 2005, several months prior to his rearrest. On 31 October 2005, the Daik-U Township Court sentenced Aye Myint to 7 years in prison under Article 5(e) of the 1950 Emergency Provisions Act for dispersing false information. At the end of 2005, he was serving his sentence in Pegu Prison. (Source: “Lawyer Jailed for Representing Dispossessed Farmers,” Irrawaddy, 1 November 2005).

On 15 September 2005, police removed and arrested Hlaing Thaya Township NLD member Hla Aye from Hlaing Thaya Hospital where he was being treated for a stroke. His son, Than Zin Myo, an NLD youth member, was also arrested. On the same day, the township court sentenced both father and son to 2 years and 1 month in prison under Article 332 of the Penal Code for threatening civil servants and thwarting them from completing their responsibilities. The case was reportedly rooted in an incident in 2004 when Hla Aye and Than Zin Myo refused to pay an unfair fee to firefighters leading to a scuffle. Following the incident, the 2 were reportedly “targeted.” (Source: “Ill Burma NLD Member Dragged Out of Bed and Sent to Prison,” DVB, 19 September 2005).

On 13 October 2005, the Kawmoo Township Court sentenced Su Su Nway, an NLD member from Htan Minaing village in Rangoon Division, to 18 months in prison under Section 506 and 294B of the Criminal Code. Su Su Nway had brought charges against the village authorities in both Htan Minaing and Mya Sinnai villages for forced labor practices. On 31 January, the Kawmhu Township court ruled in Su Su Nway’s favor determining 4 local authorities to be guilty and sentencing them to prison terms ranging from 8 to 16 months. This was a precedent setting case as it was the first occasion that SPDC officials were found guilty of violating section 374 of the Penal Code and Order 1/99 which prohibit forced labor practices. At the same time, Su Su Nway was subject to ongoing harassment and monitoring both during and after the trial. (Source: “Political Prisoner Su Su Nway's Case Submitted to the UN,” AAPP, 17 October 2005). Following the verdict, local authorities brought charges against Su Su Nway for “besmearing their reputation.” The AAPP reported that Su Su Nway's trial was conducted without proper procedural protections. The judge, Htay Htay Win, failed to verify evidence and reports presented by the authorities. Moreover, court clerks were reportedly discovered attempting to alter Su Su Nway's plea from innocent to guilty. On 3 November 2005, NLD legal representatives, Kyi Win and Myint Thaung, filed an appeal with the Southern Rangoon District court. On 4 November, the following day, the court summarily rejected the appeal. As of the end of 2005, Su Su Nway was serving her sentence in Insein Prison. Su Su Nway suffers from a heart condition and in November, it was reported that the authorities prohibited her from receiving the necessary medication for her condition. In addition, the prison doctor was reportedly reticent about administering treatment to her. As a result, Su Su Nway's health was deteriorating. (Sources: “Su Su Nway's First Appeal Lodged by NLD Lawyers,” DVB, 3 November 2005; “Su Su Nway's Appeal Rejected by Rangoon District Court,” DVB, 4 November 2005; “Su Su Nway Not Allowed to Receive Medications,” DVB, 2 November 2005).

On 29 October 2005, local authorities arrested 45-year-old Ye-U Township NLD supporter Kyaw Hlaing in Sagaing Division. On 31 October, he was charged with gambling, a criminal offense. According to Aung Zaw Zaw, Kyaw Hlaing's son, he was targeted because of his activities with the NLD. Kyaw Hlaing was previously arrested following the 30 May 2003 Depayin Massacre and sentenced to 1 year in prison when the authorities found him playing cards in his home. After being released, Kyaw Hlaing was subject to ongoing monitoring and harassment. (Source: “Ye-U NLD Supporter Arrested by Burmese Authorities,” DVB, 1 November 2005).

On 11 November 2005, 9 persons from North Okkalapa Township, Rangoon Division, who were arrested in July for providing information to the ILO, were sentenced to 8 to 25 years in prison. The 9 had been arrested under the Article 5(j) of the 1950 Emergency Provisions Act, Article 17/1 of the 1957 Unlawful Associations Act and Article 16/3. The group was not permitted to have legal representation during their trials. Moreover, during the period of pre-trial detention, they were not permitted to receive family visits. Following sentencing, they faced a 1-month ban on receiving family visits. The 9 persons and their sentences were:

1.    Wai Lin, 25 years;

2.    Win Myint, 17 years;

3.    Thein Lwin Oo, 8 years;

4.    Ye Myint, 8 years;

5.    Hla Myint Than, 8 years;

6.    Aye Chan, female, 8 years;

7.    Aye Thi Khaing, female, 8 years;

8.    Yin Kyi, female, 8 years;

9.    Myint Lwin, 8 years. (Source: “Nine People Given Lengthy Jail Terms for Contacting ILO in Rangoon,” DVB, 7 December 2005).

On 20 November 2005, authorities arrested Shwegu Township NLD Joint-Secretary Ko Ko Myint and organizing member Thein Zaw in Kachin State. The authorities reportedly entered their homes for the purpose of checking their guest lists and found opium paraphernalia with opium resin. The authorities also seized NLD related documents. The 2 were charged in relation to the opium. Other NLD members believed the evidence was planted and that the authorities’ true motive was to suppress NLD activities. (Source: “Two Shwegu NLD Leaders Arrested by Burmese Authorities,” DVB, 21 November 2005).

From 7 to 9 February 2005, just days prior to the reconvening of the first 2005 session of the NC, military authorities detained Shan leaders from Shan ceasefire groups and political parties who had attended a meeting in honor of Shan State Day on 7 February 2005 in Taunggyi, Shan State. Those arrested included representatives of the SSA, SNLD, the United Nationalities League for Democracy (UNLD), New Generation – Shan State (NG –SS) and the SSPC. By March 2005, all but 11 of the leaders had been released. U Shwe Ohn, founder of the Shan State People’s Freedom League, which is no longer a registered organization, was placed under house arrest under Article 10(b) of the 1975 State Protection Act for conducting a gathering with other politicians. The remaining Shan leaders were detained in Insein Prison and stood trials commencing on 1 March 2005. Those detained in Insein Prison included U Myint Than “Math“ of NG-SS, Gen. Hso Ten of the SSPC, Sai Hla Aung and Sai Tha Oo of the SNLD, SNLD president and MP-elect Hkun Htun Oo, SNLD Gen. Sec. Sai Nyunt Lwin (a.k.a., Sai Nood), U Ba Thin and U Tun Nyo from NG-SS as well as Sai Nyi Moe and Myo Win Tun. (Source: “Update on Latest Arrests of Political Prisoners in Burma,” NCGUB, 1 January 2006).

In Insein Prison, the 10 leaders were prohibited from receiving family visits or from hiring legal defense. A team of NLD lawyers attempted to represent the leaders when the trial commenced but were denied entrance to the court in the prison where the trials were being held. Instead, legal representatives were appointed by the authorities. (Sources: “Shan Leaders Trial Lawful?,” Irrawaddy, 14 March 2005; “Burma Opposition Radio Says 10 Shan Leaders 'Secretly' Tried in Jail,” DVB, 2 May 2005). On 15 March, Minister of Information Maj. Gen. Kyaw Hsen reported that the detained Shan leaders were facing charges of high treason for conspiring against the State and “trying to disrupt peace and stability of the country by attempting to create unrest.“ Maj. Gen. Kyaw Hsen further indicated that the leaders had attended an unauthorized meeting on 7 February in honor of Shan State day and created the Shan State Joint Action Committee without permission from the regime. Additional charges faced by the group of leaders included violating the Printers and Publishers Act, creating an illegal organization and use of illegal currency. (Source: “Ten Shan Activists Arrested in Myanmar for Conspiracy: Minister,” AFP, 15 March 2005).

On 3 November 2005, the Special Court in Insein Prison sentenced the 10 leaders to long prison terms. U Hkun Htun Oo was sentenced to 93 years imprisonment, Gen. Hso Ten to 106 years imprisonment and Sai Nyunt Lwin to 75 years imprisonment while the others received sentences of 70 years imprisonment (sources: “Shan Leaders Sentenced in Rangoon Insein Jail,“ DVB, 4 November 2005; “Shan Leaders Sentenced,” Irrawaddy, 8 November 2005). On 22 November, it was reported that U Hkun Htun Oo was transferred to Puta-O Prison in Kachin State, Sai Nyunt Lwin was sent to Kalay Prison in Chin State and Gen. Hso Ten was sent to Khamti Prison in Sagaing Division (source: “More Shan Leaders Sent to Prisons in Remote Burma,” DVB, 23 November 2005). In mid-December, the locations of Sai Myo Win Tun and Sa Tha Oo were unknown rendering their lawyers unable to advance the appeal process. While it was reported that the 2 were transferred to Mandalay Prison, their families were unaware of their whereabouts. (Source: “Where Are Two Detained Shan Leaders,” DVB, 14 December 2005).

Some observers believed the arrests to be the SPDC's attempt to intimidate ethnic nationality parties into cooperating with the 2005 sessions of the NC. The SNLD won the second highest number of votes after the NLD in the 1990 elections and boycotted the 2004 session of the NC. In addition, the SSA-N and the SSNA were party to a group of 6 ceasefire groups who submitted a statement to the SPDC authorities calling for changes to the principles and objectives of the Convention prior to its convening in 2004. Similarly, in December 2004, NG-SS submitted a proposal to the SPDC that criticized the successive military juntas since 1962 and called for the formation of an Advisory Council external to the military and the opposition groups. (Source: Interim Report Card: July 2004- February 2005, Altsean, March 2005).

On 3 August 2005, personnel from the Bureau of Special Investigation arrested Sao Oo Kya, age 65 and cousin of SNLD Chairman Khun Tun Oo. Sao Oo Kya was arrested under the accusation of attending a New Generation Shan State meeting as well as Shan State Day activities. On 2 October, Sao Oo Kya was reportedly sentenced to 13 years in prison under Section 26(a) of the Hotels and Tourism Act as well as for defaming the state under Section 124(a). (Source: “Burmese Authorities Detain Shan Leader for Defamation,” DVB, 2 October 2005).

On 3 December 2005, military authorities arrested 8 Shan leaders and organizers of the Shan State Literature and Culture Committee. Those arrested included Dr. Sai Maw Kham, chairman of the Shan State Literature and Culture Committee, Sai Hpawn Hseng Moeng, a well-known singer, and Sai Kyaw Ohn “Namkham,“ an organizer. The arrests occurred just after Shan New Year day celebrations, which were held on 1 December. The exact reasons for the arrests were unknown. Yet, some conjecture that the arrests were related to the celebrations as the Comdr. of the Northeast Command Maj. Gen. Myint, had allegedly been negotiating for the celebrations to occur at the end of November rather than in December. Other arguments contend that the leaders were arrested for having connections with the Shan leaders who were arrested in February 2005. (Sources: “Shan Leaders Arrested for Celebration National New Year,” DVB, 8 December 2005; “Crackdowns Follow Shan New Year,” SHAN, 7 December 2005).

On 8 July 2005, Col. Khin Maung Zee, commander of the SPDC No. 4 Military Training School in Wae Kali village, Thanpyuzayat Township, Mon State, called Mon Literature Culture Committee (MLCC) Chairman Nai Sein Aye to a meeting. Instead of holding a meeting, Nai Sein Aye was detained at the Thanpyuzayat police station. Nai Sein Aye was formerly a senior leader of the Mon National Democratic Front (MNDF) and was highly active in the community at the time he was detained. (Source: “Mon Literature and Culture Association Leader, NLD Members Arrested,” IMNA, 12 July 2005). Col. Khin Maung Zee accused Nein Sein Aye of engaging in political activities and plotting a revolt against the SPDC. Yet, the Thanbyuzayat Township court ruled him to be innocent. The case was then brought to the Mon State Court where he was again found innocent. On 23 August, Nai Sein Aye was released and instructed to “take a rest and stay quietly for 6 months.” (Source: “A Chairman of Mon Literature and Culture Committee Released,” IMNA, 24 August 2005).

On 13 August 2005, SPDC soldiers arrested N-Lum Ja Naw, a Kachin human rights activist, and 2 friends at the Laja-Yang checkpoint in Kachin State near the China-Burma border. The group was in transit to Laiza when they were found with VCDs, tapes and a Kachin language book about politics. Allegedly all of the items found were produced by human rights organizations operating in exile. (Source: “HR Activist, Two Others Arrested in Kachin State,” Irrawaddy, 18 August 2005).

Arakan State

On 18 October 2005, it was reported that local authorities arrested and detained U Chit Swe from Ba Gu Nar and Ali Amad from Phwee Roa, both in Maungdaw Township for using their mobile phones to try and contact people overseas. (Source: “Imprisonment – the Price of Using Cell Phones in Western Arakan,” Narinjara News, 18 October 2005).

On 27 October 2005, NaSaKa Camp-in-Charge, Aung Min, arrested 2 Rohingya women, Laila Begim (age 40) and Gul Suna (age 45), from Alay Than Kyaw village, Maungdaw Township. The women received permits from NaSaKa camp No. 7 to visit their relatives in Maungdaw on 20 October. Upon returning to their village and showing their permits at the NaSaKa No. 7 camp, VPDC Secretary Mohammed Naru accused them of going to Bangladesh. They were detained and tortured. After 15 days of detention, the NaSaKa authorities reportedly accepted a 40,000 kyat payment for the women's release. Despite this, the 2 women remained in detention at the end of November. (Source: “Two Burmese Rohingyas Women Arrested by Nasaka in Arakan,” Kaladan News, 27 November 2005).

On 13 March 2005, local SPDC authorities arrested Ram Kung, leader of Lungngo Mino Bu youth organization, and 2 other villagers. The authorities accused the youth organization of having links with the Chin National Front (CNF), an armed resistance group. The arrests came following a brawl between a CNF operative and the local police on 12 March 2005. The skirmish resulted in the death of 1 policeman and the injury of 2 others. As Ram Kung and his 2 friends Pau Za Mang and Maung Thang happened to be in the same area at the time the incident transpired, the 3 were arrested and taken to Matupi town the next day. Ram Kung was reportedly held in an undisclosed location and faced a possible long-term prison sentence for having unlawful associations with rebels. When the victims’ relatives inquired with Col. San Aung as to the whereabouts of Ram Kung, the colonel yelled at them and told them that it was none of their business. Col. San Aung also ordered the Lungngo Mino Bu youth organization abolished as of the end of May. (Source: “Youth Organization Abolished and the Leader Arrested,” Rhododendron Publication, CHRO, May-June 2005).

In April 2005, Lt. Aung Naing from SPDC LIB 268, commander-in-charge of Tihbual army camp, and his troops seized U Chan King, headman of Tlaungkhua village, Thantlang Township for allegedly failing to report the activities of the Chin National Army, the armed branch of the CNF. In addition, the troops seized a clerk from Taihdai village. Both the clerk and the village headman were forced to patrol the India-Burma border for approximately 1 month after which, they were brought back to Tlangkhua village in the first week of May. However, they were not released. U Chan King was also ordered to pay a 500,000 kyat fine. The villagers of Tlangkhua sacrificed a cow in an attempt to try and win his freedom. This did not work and Lt. Aung Naing ordered the villagers to pay a ransom for the headman’s release. As of 15 May 2005, the villagers were unsure whether they could raise the ransom money. Money was also collected from Tiahdai for the release of the village clerk. (Source: “Army Abducts Village Headman for Ransom,” Rhododendron Publication,  CHRO, May-June 2005).

On 28 April 2005 at 8:00 am, troops from SPDC IB 83, Column-2, led by Min Naung, arrested Saw Min Htoo (age 29) and Yeh Kay Heh (age 27) of Noe Maw Pu, Kya In Township without reason. After brutally beating them, the soldiers released them at 5:00 pm. The following day, SPDC IB 83 arrested and beat Saw Ka Lee (age 40) and Par Ee Thar (age 38) from Htee Kya village similarly without reason. The 2 were released afterwards. In addition, the troops burnt down a hut in Yaw Da Yeh village resulting in the loss of 50 tins of rice. (Source: KIC, 2005).

On 9 January 2005, troops from SPDC LIB 598, based at Mae Waing army camp and led by Bo Myint Thein, shot at villagers collecting vegetables at Tha Haw Hta in Mae Waing area. In that incident Wah Tho Kho villager Ah Nge Lay (age 32) was killed, while Saw Si Way (age 25) was wounded and taken to the Mae Waing army camp. (Source: KIC, 2005).

On 5 January 2005, troops from SPDC IB 73 based at Kaw Thay Doe arrested without reason Kaw Thay Doe villagers, Saw Maung Oo and Saw Ta Nay, while they were going to Naw Soe camp. (Source: KIC, 2005).

On 18 January 2005, troops from SPDC IB 60 under control of Column 2 Comdr. Hlaing Tint led by Bo Way Pyo Paing arrested Lay Ti villagers, Saw Ta Day Kwa and Saw Pa Karaw. They were taken to Klaw Mee Doe camp. (Source: KIC, 2005).

On 8 February 2005, troops from SPDC IB 60, Column 2, led by Hlaing Tint seized villager Saw Htoo Gay from Ler Kla Doe village, Tantabin Township and demanded 150,000 kyat from him. He was also forced to sign a note promising not to reveal the matter. The following day, the same troops seized Saw Toe Day of Hu Mu Doe village and destroyed the 13 baskets of rice he was carrying. Moreover, these troops arrested villagers Saw Bwe Htoo, Saw Oliver and Saw Hsa Mu Htaw. As of late March 2005, they had not been released. (Source: KIC, 2005).

On 12 May 2005 at 9:30 pm, troops from SPDC LID 66 and LIB 108, based at Paw Mu Khee went into Haw Poe Loe village and took some photos. They then arrested Saw Achoe from Paw Mu Khee, Ma U Pet from Mwee Loe village and the 55-year-old mother of villager Aung Soe. The troops looted money and food from the village. (Source: KIC, 2005).

On 25 July 2005, troops from SPDC LIB 599 arrested villagers who were working in the betel nut gardens in Taw Ta Tu Township. The troops then held the villagers hostage in the village church. (Source: “Human Rights Violations Update: Northern and Western Karen State,” FBR, 9 September 2005).

In November 2005, troops from SPDC IB 75 burned down 32 houses in Hee Daw Kaw village, Toungoo Township and laid landmines before leaving the village. At this time, 7 villagers were captured by the SPDC troops, including a 1-year-old baby. The following people were detained:

     1.    Saw Bwe , age 40, male, Shro Hser village;

     2.    Naw Traw Ma, age 52, female, Shro Hser village;

     3.    Saw Ta Dah Po, age 28, male, Shro Hser village;

     4.    Naw Ta Mu Mu, age 19, female, with her 1-year old baby, Shro Hser village;

     5.    Naw Htoo Bleh, female, Hee Daw Kaw village; and

     6.    Naw A’pae, age 15, female, Hee Daw Kaw village. (Source: “300 Villagers Still in Hiding,” FBR, 6 December 2005).

In September 2005, troops from SPDC LIB 530 arrested 14 villagers in Loikaw Township who they accused of having contact with the KNPP. Those arrested included the chairman of Dawthenay village, U Lwi Reh, who was reportedly bound with ropes and separated from the other arrestees. Eight villagers were released after 1 month while 6 remained in detention at the DaSaKa, the divisional military authority, prison based in Loikaw city. (Source: “Residents in Lwai-kaw Township Are Arrested And Forcibly Relocate Their Village,” DVB, 21 December 2005).

On 16 March 2005, Column 1 Comdr. Maj. Min Aung of SPDC LIB 104 monitored the movement of villagers in Ta U Ni village, Thaton Township and arrested villager Saw Paw Ner (male, age 26) together with 2 of his companions. The SPDC troops brutally beat these 3 villagers without reason. As of 9 April, they had yet to be released. (Source: KIC, 2005).

On 28 March 2005, 20 soldiers from SPDC IB 351 led by Maj. Ye Win arrested Thit Cha Seik village head and villagers Saw U Lu Moo, Saw Than Sein and Ma Way Htoo of Mon Township without any reason and sent them to military operations HQs. (Source: KIC, 2005).

On 31 March 2005 at 2:00 pm, troops from SPDC IB 351 led by Major Yeh Win with 20 soldiers arrested the following village elders of U Chit Khin village without reason and sent them to the police station:

     1.     Myint Win,

     2.     Ko Naing Oo,

     3.     Soe Hlaing,

     4.     Kyaw Moe Lwin, and

     5.     Nga Soe.

Three days later, the troops demanded 25,000 kyat from Thit Cha Seik villagers for the release of the village elders. (Source: KIC, 2005).

On 1 April 2005, 20 soldiers from SPDC IB 351 led by Maj. Yeh Win arrested U Chit Khin villager Soe Nyo without reason and sent him to tactical command HQs. Four days later, the troops demanded 200,000 kyat for his release. As of 9 April, he had not been released. (Source: KIC, 2005).

On 19 January 2005, the bass guitarist of the Pan Hninsi (Rose Flower) Band and film director for the San Yadana film company, Ko Thet Oo, was arrested in South Okkalapa Township. Accused of having telephone contact with Ko Min Naing of the ABFSU- Foreign Affaris Committee (ABFSU-FAC) in violation of Section 17/1 of the 1957 Unlawful Associations Act, he was detained and interrogated for 28 days in the Rangoon Thuwunna interrogation center. On 15 February, Ko Thet Oo was released. (Sources: “Famous Burmese Artist Detained by Authorities,” DVB, 14 February 2005; “Burmese Artist Ko Thet Oo Released by Burma Junta,” DVB, 18 February 2005).

On 19 April 2005, a patrol of about 60 soldiers from SPDC IB 64, led by Capt. Win Laing, arrested 5 villagers from Wan Paang village, Lai-Kha Township under accusations of supporting the Shan resistance. The arrestees were interrogated, beaten, tortured and detained for 2 days and 2 nights. They were released after senior monks and community leaders of Wan Heng village tract guaranteed that they would behave in the future. Pu Zaang Zan-Da, the village elder, suffered from partial paralysis after being severely beaten by the SPDC troops. The 5 villagers who were arrested were:

     1.    Kae-Min-Da, male, a novice monk;

     2.    Pu Zaang Zan-Da, male, a village elder;

     3.    Zaai Nyunt, male, age 15, villager;

     4.    Ae Mu, female, age 25, villager; and

     5.    Ae Seng, female, age 25, villager. (Source: SHRF Monthly Report, SHRF, June 2005).

On 29 April 2005, a patrol of about 50 troops from SPDC LIB 515, led by Comdr. Myint Lwin, surrounded the monastery at Zalaai Loi village, Lai-Kha Township, where an ordination of Buddhist novice monks was being conducted. The SPDC troops then arrested the abbot of the monastery, Ven. Acina and 8 community leaders who were attending the ordination ceremony. The monk and villagers were accused of attending a meeting held by members of the Shan resistance in October and November 2004. They were taken to Taunggyi were they were separated, detained, interrogated and tortured. As of May 2005, they remained in detention. (Source: SHRF Monthly Report, SHRF, June 2005).

On 3 May 2005, a patrol of SPDC troops from Company No. 4 of LIB 515, led by Capt. Kyaw Aye, arrested the village secretary Zaai Kham Too from Ter Leng village in Haai Seng village tract, Lai-Kha Township, accusing him of providing money and rice to Shan soldiers in the area. Zaai Kham Too was detained, interrogated, severely beaten and tortured by the SPDC troops. Later 300,000 kyat of money was extorted from his relatives for his release. After his release, Zaai Kham Too continued to suffer from injuries sustained at the hands of his captives and was unable to move around without assistance. He also lost 3 teeth during the beating. (Source: SHRF Monthly Report, SHRF, July 2005).

On 8 and 10 May 2005, local SPDC authorities forced villagers from Murng-Nai and Kae See Townships to attend rallies to protest the Interim Shan Government, which was created on 17 April 2005 by a little known Shan exile group. Following these rallies, SPDC authorities arrested the following villagers and took them to the Eastern Regional Military Command in Taunggyi:

     1.    Zaai Tui, male, of Pha Pawk village, Kae-See Township;

     2.    Nan-Taw, village tract headman, of Wan Hai village, Murng-Nai Township;

     3.    Za-Wa-Na, male, of Wan Hai village in Murng-Nai Township.

In addition, troops from SPDC LIB 515 arrested and detained, Tae-Zin-Da, a Buddhist monk from Wan Paang village, Wan Hai village tract, Murng Nai Township. The troops also burned down the monastery in which Tae-Zin-Da lived. Furthermore, local SPDC troops arrested monk Pan-Nya-Sa-Mi from Hin He monastery in Murng Nawng village, Kae-See Township. The monk was detained at the Military Operation Command base in the area. As of late June 2005, all those who had been arrested remained in detention. (Source: SHRF Monthly Report, SHRF, July 2005).

In the evening of 21 February 2005, a patrol of about 40 troops from SPDC LIB 332 came to Pa Khaa village, Murng-Pan Township and stopped for the night. The next morning, SPDC soldiers found 3 of their MA-11 guns were missing. The commander of the SPDC troops gathered all the villagers to the headman’s house and accused them of stealing the guns. The SPDC troops then took the headman and 9 other villagers with them to their base, telling the rest of the villagers to bring the guns within 3 days if they wanted the 10 villagers to be released. Otherwise, the troops threatened to return and arrest their families. After 2 days, the SPDC troops informed the villagers that they could pay 1,000,000 kyat in lieu of the guns. The headman and villagers were released after the money was paid. (Source: SHRF Monthly Report, SHRF, June 2005).

On 30 August 2005, a patrol of police encountered 4 young men on 2 motorcycles as they were returning home after visiting friends in Wan Waeng village, Muse Township. The police proceeded to stop, arrest and take the 4 to the police station where they were charged with staying out late at night. They were then locked in stocks. Their relatives and leaders were required to pay 15,000 kyat per person to secure their release. The 4 young men were:

     1.    Ai Pee, male, age 18, from Nawng Mo village;

     2.    La Ting, male, age 18, from Terng Long village;

     3.    Yi Mon, male, age 18, from Terng Long village; and

     4.    Zaai Paang, male, age 16, from Terng Long village. (Source: “Arrest, Detention and Extortion in Mu-Se,” SHRF Monthly Report, SHRF, December 2005).

On 26 April 2005, a combined force of 30 troops from SPDC IB 25, Column 1, under the Coastal Command HQ and 20 troops from Kaw Paw Militia led by Saw Ah Neh Poe arrived at Mae Nan Ma Nweh village on the Thai-Burma border. The troops then went to a cattle trading site 3 km into Thailand and arrested Thai cattle trader Ni Mae Kyar Lola and the 3 cattle traders from Burma, Ko Than Aung, Saw Char Wa Poe and Am Pee. They were detained from 7:00 am to 2:00 pm. The 4 traders were then taken into Burma. (Source: KIC, 2005).

On 7 January 2005, police detained Joseph Moynahan, an 81-year-old U.S. citizen who staged a one-man protest outside Rangoon City Hall. He carried a sign which read, “Buddha says, ‘Quality of sidewalk and quality of government is same thing.’” He reported being roughly handled by police, questioned for 3 hours at a police station and locked in his hotel room for the night. On 8 January 2005, he was taken to the airport and put on a flight to Bangkok, Thailand. (Source: “Rangoon Expelled American Solo Protestor,” AP, 12 January 2005).

In early 2005, SPDC military authorities arrested 6 North Korean defectors in Tachilaek, Shan State. The 6 were reportedly en route to South Korea to seek asylum. In February 2005, the 6 were being held in an undisclosed location and faced charges of illegal entry, which carries a penalty of 1 to 5 years imprisonment. The South Korean embassy requested that the 6 defectors be transferred to their custody. (Source: “Fate of Six North Koreans Arrested in Burma Unknown,” Irrawaddy, 22 February 2005).

On 4 April 2005, troops from SPDC LIB 232 led by Maj. Nyi Nyi Min arrested 4 Bangladeshi woodcutters who were cutting wood on the Burma side of the border. The 4 woodcutters were transferred to the local police on the following day and detained at Minkha Mong outpost in Maungdaw Township. They faced charges of illegal entry. The 4 woodcutters were:

      1.    Adu Hok, age 25;

      2.    Mar Mauk Hossein, age 52;

      3.    Ali Hosein, age 20; and

      4.    Ahbi Ramad, age 40. (Source: “Four Bangladeshi Woodcutters Abducted by Burmese Army,” Narinjara News, 8 April 2005).

On 14 April 2005, NaSaKa border security forces arrested 24 Bangladeshi woodcutters as they were cutting wood in Burma near Border Post 46. Previously, the woodcutters had been able to engage in their activities by paying bribes to the NaSaKa. On this occasion, however, the NaSaKa refused the bribe. In July 2005, the 24 woodcutters were sentenced to 3 years in prison under 31/13 of the Illegal Immigration Act and 2 years imprisonment under 42/1 of the Forestry Act. The 24 were sentenced by the Maungdaw Township court. (Source: “Bangladeshis Given Five Year Sentence in Burma,” Narinjara News, 7 July 2005).

On 12 February 2005, troops from SPDC LIB 269 arrested 10 Indian nationals who were illegally felling trees in Aisih village, Kyikha Township, Chin State near the India-Burma border. Their trucks were confiscated and the group was taken to the Tonzang Township jail. Five of the 10 arrested were released. As of the beginning of July, the remaining 5 had yet to stand trial and their relatives were attempting to bring their cases to the Tonzang Township court by the end of the same month. (Source: “Five Indian Smugglers Detained without Trial in Chin State,” Mizzima, 8 July 2005).

Go to Top

(l) When any person has been sentenced to punishment for an offence, the President of the Union may at any time, without conditions or upon any conditions which the person sentenced accepts, suspend the execution of his sentence or remit the whole or any part of the punishment to which he has been sentenced.

(2) Whenever an application is made to the President of the Union for the suspension or remission of a sentence. The President of the Union may require the presiding Judge of the Court before or by which the conviction was or has confirmed to state his opinion as to whether the application should be granted or refused, together with his reasons for such opinion, and also to forward with the statement of such opinion a certified copy of the record of the trial or of such record thereof as exists.

(3) If any condition on which a sentence has been suspended or remitted is, in the opinion of the President of Union, not fulfilled, the President of the Union may cancel the suspension or remission, and there upon the person in whose favor the sentence has been suspended or remitted may, if at large, be arrested by any police-officer without warrant and remanded to undergo the un-expired portion of the sentence.

(4) The condition on which a sentence is suspended or remitted under this section may be one to be fulfilled by the person in whose favor the sentence is suspended or remitted, or one independent of his will.

(4A) The provisions of the above sub-sections shall also apply to any order passed by a criminal Court under any section of this Code or of any other law, which restricts the liberty of any person or imposes any liability upon him or his property.

(5) Nothing herein contained shall be deemed to interfere with the right...of the President of the Union...to grant pardons, reprieves, respites or remissions of punishment.

(5A) Where a conditional pardon is granted...by the President of the Union, any condition thereby imposed, of whatever nature, shall be deemed to have been imposed by a sentence of a competent Court under this Code and shall be enforceable accordingly.

(6) The President of the Union may, by general rules or special orders, give directions as to the suspension of sentences and the conditions on which petitions should be presented and dealt with.

(Source: “Summary and Situation of Members of Parliament,” NCGUB, 1 December 2005).

Go to Top

(Source: “Update on Latest Arrests of Political Prisoners in Burma,” NCGUB, 1 October 2005).

Go to Top

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Go to Top