|
Conclusion
The official trail report shows the lack of due process of law in
Burma and the judiciary's contempt for fundamental human and legal
rights. It demonstrates how the SLORC uses its repressive laws as
a tool to suppress political opposition with the aid of an acquiescent
judiciary.
Denying the prisoners access to legal counsel is contrary
to one of the most basic legal rights and to international standards
for fair trails. Without such access to legal counsel the accused
should never have been convicted of the charge brought against them.
Perhaps one of the more disturbing aspects of the
trail report is how the judiciary accepts the use of interrogations,
beatings and torture in prison. It is evident from the official
report that these were used as a means to obtaining confessions
for use as evidence against some of the accused.
The denial of freedom of expression also demonstrates
how the treatment of prisoners by the SLORC's prison administration
falls well short of international minimum standards (Appendix IV).
The trail report shows how political prisoners are not only refused
the right to read, write or have access to national and international
news, but that such activity is regarded as punishable.
An examination of the evidence produced at the trail
also shows that the prisoners should not have been found guilty
of the charge under Section 5 (E) of the 1950 Emergency Provision
Act. Under this law a person can be convicted of planning to, or
actually disseminating false information either if they know the
information to be false, or there's enough proof that it's false.
In court, the accused argued that they knew the information contained
in the letters and magazines to be the truth. Therefore, the prosecution
had to prove that this information was no discussion regarding the
truthfulness of the information was instead false for the judge
to then convict the accused of the charge. However, there was no
discussion regarding the truthfulness of the information - it was
only stated that it was 'damaging' to the government. For this reason
the 22 accused should, once again, never have been convicted of
the charge brought against them.
Such abuses of fundamental legal and human rights
are used by SLORCs a means to silence political opposition. In the
face of such abuses, there is a continuing need for increasing international
pressure on the SLORC to respect justice and individual freedoms
and heed the will of the people it purports to represent in their
call for democratic reform.
|
