Supreme Court (Yangon) pronounced the order to confirm Yangon Division Court’s order dated 9 June and dismiss the Criminal Revision Case. (DAW SU)

THE NEW LIGHT OF MYANMAR Tuesday, 30 June, 2009

YANGON, 29 June—Final statements of both sides
were heard at Supreme Court (Yangon) on 24 June for
Criminal Revision Case No 333 (b)/2009 filed by
Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, Daw Khin Khin Win and Ma
Win Ma Ma in dissatisfaction with Yangon Division
Court’s order of confirming Yangon North District
Court’s order of refusing nomination of defence
witnesses U Win Tin and U Tin Oo in Yangon North
District Court’s Criminal Case No 47/2009 against
US citizen Mr John William Yettaw, Daw Aung San
Suu Kyi, Daw Khin Khin Win and Ma Win Ma Ma.
Supreme Court (Yangon) pronounced the
judgment on the Criminal Revision Case at 10 am
today.
In the judgment, Supreme Court (Yangon) said
that the lawsuit against applicant No (1) Daw Aung
San Suu Kyi was filed under Section (22) of the Law
to Safeguard the State Against the Dangers of Those
Desiring to Cause Subversive Acts; that the Section is
to take action if a person against whom action is taken
opposes, breaches or fails to abide by the restriction
order (or) prohibition order; that Daw Aung San Suu
Kyi just needs to argue, providing an evidence that
she did not oppose or breach the restriction order (or)
prohibition order in the trial filed by the initial court;
that the lawyer of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi in the case
said that the witnesses they nominated were important
for the judgment, U Tin Oo, for instance, was
nominated as he was assumed to be a witness capable
of giving profound statements that action should not
be taken under the Law to Safeguard the State Against
the Dangers of Those Desiring to Cause Subversive
Acts; that according to the provision of Section (7) of
that Law, the provision is that the cabinet is authorized
to pass an order, as may be necessary, restricting any
fundamental right, not the provision that action is
Supreme Court (Yangon) dismisses criminal revision case for
refusing nomination of two defence witnesses in trial against
US citizen Mr John William Yettaw, Daw Aung San Suu Kyi,
Daw Khin Khin Win and Ma Win Ma Ma
taken in accordance with the judiciary or judicial trend;
that therefore, it is to be assumed that there is no need
to take into consideration the statements of the lawyer
of the applicants; that the lawyer of the applicants also
demanded that U Win Tin and U Tin Oo should be
examined as defence witnesses regarding political
character of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi; that the
explanation of the provision of Section 55 of the
Evidence Law says that the term “character” stipulated
in Sections 52, 53, 54 and 55 comprises both reputation
and disposition; that according to the explanation,


there is no provision in the Evidence Law that says
there is the right to nominate a witness regarding
political character; that in view of the statements given
by the witnesses in the case of the initial court, there is
not any argument regarding character or political
character of applicant Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, the
accused of the initial court; that therefore the character
of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi does not attract any argument
in the initial case; that according to the documents of
the file of the initial court, applicant Daw Aung San
Suu Kyi, the accused of the initial court, was examined
as the accused, not as a witness in the court; that so it
can be deduced that the application for examining U
Win Tin and U Tin Oo as defence witnesses for
character of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi is particularly
intended to disrupt and delay the case; that the district
court refused to summon and examine U Win Tin and
U Tin Oo as defence witnesses in accordance with the
provision of Section 257 (1) of Code of Criminal
Procedure; that the lawyer of the applicants publicly
admitted that the judge of the district court pronounced
an order according to Section 257 (1) of Code of
Criminal Procedure; that Yangon Division Court
reviewed that it dismissed the revision case as it is
designed to delay the trial as evidenced by the
documents of the initial court, although the initial
court’s order does not enumerate, in accordance with
Section 257 (1) of Code of Criminal Procedure, the
reason of why the nomination of three defence
witnesses was refused; that however, it cannot be said
that the review of the division court is wrong; that the
lawyer of the applicants submitted that the division
court pronounced an order “it is right according to
Paragraph 1115 of Manual to Courts” and it did so
without any authority bestowed on it; that it is
required to find out whether his statement is right
or not; that with daily records, stating in brief the
reason of refusing the nomination, the district court
pronounced the order to refuse the nomination of
defence witnesses, according to Paragraphs 1115
and 1116 of Manual to Court, and the court
procedure, so it is not wrong; that it is virtually
illogical to say that the division court’s confirmation
of the district court’s daily records, referring to
Paragraph 1115 of Manual to Courts, is beyond its
authority; that therefore, it is assumed that the
criminal revision case to summon and examine U
Win Tin and U Tin Oo as defence witnesses is
intended to hinder and delay the trial because they
just wanted to submit a subject that does not need
any argument in the case; that the district court’s
order to refuse to summon and examine U Win Tin
and U Tin Oo as defence witnesses, and the division
court’s confirmation of the district court’s order
are in accordance with the law; and that therefore
making a deduction that the Supreme Court does
not need to intervene in the case with the authority
to revise the orders of the district and division
courts, it pronounced the order to confirm Yangon
Division Court’s order dated 9 June and dismiss
the Criminal Revision Case.—MNA