Mizzima

FEM’s new report Myanmar military’s “justice” system examines the lived experience of lawyers, courts, and trials after the coup started.

This mini report summarises the lived experiences of those caught up in the military’s “justice system”, comparing the legal standards that existed, at least on paper, before the coup, and outlining the current conditions 

Since the coup, a person accused of a crime can be detained by either the police or the military. It is unclear whether there is an arrest warrant. Detentions and arrests are always violent or include a disproportionate threat of violence.

The report outlines dramatic changes including:

Police investigations are now launched before allegations are made.

Prior to the coup, the police had to prepare a First Information Report (FIR) after receiving information, usually from a victim although anybody can complain, about the commission of a cognisable offence. An FIR was the start of the criminal justice process and police only started investigating after preparing one. 

Since the coup, the police often launch investigations before preparing an FIR. They launch the investigation without having received information containing a specific allegation, or having suspicion of an exact crime. The police search property, conduct interrogations, and seek out witnesses before preparing an FIR. The police then prepare an FIR on the basis of what they discover during searches, interrogations, and witness reviews. 

Police use searches to conceal rampant theft.

Since the coup, searches are conducted by either police officers or members of the military or both. Informants and local administrative staff may also participate. It is unclear whether there is ever a search warrant. FIRs are not produced prior to the search. Searches are not conducted in public, with the required minimum of two witnesses, or in sight of the person being investigated. 

Searches are not truthfully documented by the police. The police never supply the required documentation of the search to the person being investigated. The police force gets the accused to sign a search form later while in the police station, and not in front of the required minimum of two witnesses. 

Lack of documentation or accountability means that the police seize property without recording it, without submitting it to the court, and without returning it. In some cases, the police destroy the property of an accused individual and their family. Police, including junior and senior officers, seize anything of value, regardless of whether it is related to the investigation. Electronic devices including phones and laptops as well as gold and cars are taken. 

Men, women, and children are all denied bail.

A majority of those detained are taken to military interrogation centres either immediately or after being taken to a police station. 

Detained individuals are later kept in prisons without bail and are not allowed access to their families. Even women and children are denied bail. Individuals awaiting trial are regarded as “political” prisoners. They face worse conditions than criminal prisoners. 

Most people arrested confess under conditions of inducement, threats, coercion, and torture

Since the coup, most individuals arrested have confessed to a crime and written a statement of confession. After being arrested and held in the police station, the police often use harmful practices to interrogate the accused person and induce, threaten, and coerce them to confess. Harmful practices include cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment and punishment, as well as torture. 

Arrested individuals are often sent to military interrogation centres too. The military interrogation centres use more harmful practices to induce, threaten, and coerce the arrested individuals into confessing. 

Arrested individuals may also face harmful practices as punishment for providing false confessions. 

The police and military also interrogate to extract details about other individuals and networks. 

Confessions extracted under force are commonly used and accepted in courts. 

Charges are then laid without any evidence or witnesses presented and when a case gets to court the judges openly deny the accused their basic legal rights.

Since the coup, charges are laid without a proper review of the evidence. Prosecutors lay charges in accordance with the orders of the police or military. 

There is no evidence to prove every element of the alleged crime. If there is any evidence, it is not accessible, legitimately admissible, or reliable. There are usually no independent witnesses. If there are witnesses, they are not credible. Accused individuals are told the charge but are not given specifics including the exact time and location of the alleged crime. 

Trials are rushed through between 3 to 10 times faster.

There is no public interest review. Prosecutors do not check the public interest, weigh up the nature and seriousness of the crime, or check the interests of the “victim” or community affected. Prosecutors that know the accused is innocent continue with the case regardless because they are instructed by or are fearful of the military. 

Lawyers are threatened and prosecuted for properly defending their clients.

Those individuals accused of criticising the military are charged under the Penal Code, facing a maximum sentence of three years imprisonment. Those individuals accused of encouraging or enabling the opposition NUG, CRPH, or PDFs, are charged under the Counter Terrorism Law and face a maximum sentence of the death penalty or life imprisonment. 

Some arrested individuals reportedly pay bribes to have charges reduced in severity to avoid long prison sentences. For example, by shifting charges from under the Counter Terrorism Law to the Penal Code. 

FEM’s earlier report, ‘505A Act of Revenge’, documented almost four thousand cases of the military detaining, arresting, charging, trying, and sentencing people for exercising their right to freedom of expression. 

Each person has faced the military’s tyrannical “justice” in the military’s draconian “system”. Some people have been fortunate enough to be supported by a few brave defence lawyers intent on trying to uphold some element of fairness, due process, and humanity.

This new report summarises the lived experiences of those caught up in the military’s “justice system”, comparing the legal standards that existed, at least on paper, before the coup, and outlining the current conditions.

FEM believes that a clearer understanding of the lived experiences within the military’s “justice system” will enable improved support to defendants as well as stronger advocacy for the protection of human rights.