The Yangon North District Court pronounced judgment on Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, the Criminal Regular Trial 47/2009, in accord with the Section 22 of the Law to Safeguard the State against the Dangers of Those Desiring to Cause Subversive Acts. As Daw Aung San Suu Kyi was dissatisfied with the judgment, she filed an appeal against it at Yangon Region Court on 3 September 2009. It is criminal appeal case No. 173/2009.

The North District Court pronounced judgment on Daw Khin Khin Win and Ma Win Ma Ma (a) Ange Lay in Criminal Regular Trial 47/2009 in accord with the Section 22 of the Law to Safeguard the State against the Dangers of Those Desiring to Cause Subversive Acts and Section 109 of the Criminal procedure Code. As the two were dissatisfied with the judgment, they filed an appeal against it at Yangon Region Court on 3 September. It is criminal appeal case No. 174/2009.

The Yangon Region Court heard the appeals of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and Daw Khin Khin Win and Ma Win Ma Ma (a) Ange Lay and passed a pronouncement to accept them on 4 September. The court postponed to 18 September (today) to hear the final arguments.

The appeals were heard at Yangon Region Court today at 10 am. Advocate U Kyi Win defending Daw Aung San Suu Kyi of criminal appeal case No. 173/2009 in his argument said, the 2008 Constitution was ratified and that the 1974 Constitution became null and void.

The accused was detained under Section 10 (a) and restricted under Section 10 (b), both of which were invalid, in line with the Section 148 (c), 157, 158, 159 (a) and (b) and 160 of Article (11) of the 1974 Constitution which is null and void as if it was still in force. Hence, the original court order itself is legally wrong. Although it is stated that the restriction orders shall be pronounced by a group in accord with the prescriptions of Section 9 (a), the plaintiff failed to present the evidence that the said prescriptions were followed in doing so. In this regard, the restriction order is wrong as it is not in accord with the law. It is incorrect to pronounce the judgment because of the wrong interpretation of the word stipulated in the restriction order and the order to continue the restriction order. It is wrong to take action against Daw Aung San Suu Kyi by interpreting the Section 159 (a) that the act of permitting the foreigner, conversing with him and serving food to him amounts to breaching the restriction order as her personal freedom has already been restricted. The failure to review the acts of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi that they are in accord with the original rights contained in Section 154 is legally and factually wrong. The act of judges investigating the house of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi without informing her or her lawyers is incorrect. Hence, the defendant must be acquitted.

He said there should be another witness account in accord with Section 428 of the Criminal Procedure Code as it is incorrect to reject a proposal to hear the witness of the Foreign Affairs Ministry of Myanmar in accord with Section 540 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

Deputy Region Law Officer Daw Khin Mar Kyi of Yangon Region Law Office in her argument said, the advocates of appeal plaintiff focused on the facts to restrict the original rights stipulated in the sections 148 (c), 157, 158, 159 (a) and (b) and 160 in accord with the Section 7 of the Law to Safeguard the State Against the Dangers of Those Desiring to Cause Subversive Acts by the chairman of the Central Body of the Home Affairs Ministry. The case against Daw Aung San Suu Kyi is under Section 22 of the Law to Safeguard the State Against the Dangers of Those Desiring to Cause Subversive Acts. According to the section-7, it is prescribed that if there is reason to believe that a citizen did, is doing or will do something detrimental to State sovereignty and security or community peace, the central body can restrict the fundamental right of that person as necessary.

As restrictions had been placed on Daw Aung San Suu Kyi according to the section-7, the restrictions and continued restrictions that she was not permitted to contact foreign embassies and political parties, to leave her house or to communicate by letter or telegram are in accord with the law. As to the directive issued by the State Government stating the sentence to be served by her under the Criminal Procedure Code be amended to be remitted and suspended if she displays good conduct and pardon be granted accordingly regarding the sentence pronounced by the North District Court to the appeal plaintiff to three-year imprisonment and vigorous labour under Article (22) of the Law to Safeguard the State Against the Dangers of Those Desiring to Cause Subversive Acts, not a single word is mentioned in the appeal form. The government took action against appeal plaintiff Daw Aung San Suu Kyi in accord with the existing laws within the framework of law. It has been stated in the appeal form that the restrictions under the articles-148 (C), 157, 158, 159 (a) (b) and 160 of the 1974 constitution placed on her that had been ceased had already become null and void. In the order No (6/88) issued by the State Law and Order Restoration Council on 24 September 1988 after assuming State duties on 18 September 1988, it is stated that all the existing laws are still in effect until SLORC dissolves or revokes them.

Therefore, the 1974 constitution, although it had become null and void due to the situations that happened in the country in 1988, is still in effect according to the order No (6/88). For instance, the provisions of the 1974 constitution that are not contrary to the 1974 State Flag Law and the 1974 State Seal Law are still in effect. It is, therefore, clear that the provisions included in the 1974 constitution that are not contrary to the provisions of the 1975 Law to Safeguard the State Against the Dangers of Those Desiring to Cause Subversive Acts are in effect.

As to the point that there is no word ‘outside contact’ in the restrictions placed on Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, the meaning of contact is the act of communication. So, Daw Aung San Suu Kyi’s acceptance of Mr John William Yettaw’s communication was tantamount to breaking the law. In the case against Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, action was taken against her under the criminal law as she breached the terms of restrictions and prohibitions placed on her. So, the submission that she has the right to enjoy the provisions of the article-154 (A) of the constitution should not be accepted. As to the submission that visiting the scene where the case happened without Daw Aung San Suu Kyi under the Criminal Procedure Code Section 539 (1) is not in conformity with the law, it is in conformity with the law as the scene was visited with the accompaniment of Mr John William Yettaw, who initially created the case, and witnesses.

The sentence to Daw Aung San Suu Kyi by the original court under Article (22) of the Law to Safeguard the State against the Dangers of Those Desiring to Cause Subversive Acts as she was found guilty is in conformity with the law, and the case of the appeal plaintiff should be cancelled.

Similarly, final arguments of appeal plaintiffs Daw Khin Khin Win and Ma Win Ma Ma (a) Ange Lay from criminal appeal No 174/2009 were submitted by advocate U Hla Myo Myint and that of the appeal defendant by deputy region law officer Daw Khin May Day. Advocates of the Supreme Court U Kyi Win, U Nyan Win, U Hla Myo Myint and Daw Khin Htay Kywe and deputy region law officers of Yangon Region Law Office Daw Khin Mar Kyi, Daw Khin May Day and U Myat Khaing attended the hearing of final arguments. The appeal cases are postponed to 10 am on 2 October so as to pass the final judgments.