Suu Kyi Says Trial Tests Legal System

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS Tuesday, August 4, 2009

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


RANGOON — Burmese democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi has told the court trying her that her trial on charges she violated her house arrest is a test of the military-run country's legal system.

Suu Kyi's full testimony in the closed-door trial was released for the first time by her opposition political party, the National League for Democracy. The court is due to reach a verdict next week.


Two prison guards stand at the entrance to Insein prison where the trial of Burmese opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi is taking place on July 31. (Photo: AP)
The 64-year old Nobel Peace laureate—who is facing five years in prison for giving temporary shelter to an American man who swam to her house uninvited in early May—declared that the court's decision is already "painfully obvious."

Critics say the ruling military has seized upon the bizarre intrusion as an excuse to keep Suu Kyi jailed through next year's scheduled elections—the country's first in nearly two decades.

The charges against Suu Kyi, who has been detained for 14 of the last 20 years and was under house arrest at the time of the incident, have refocused international outrage on Burma.

The district court was scheduled to deliver the verdict last Friday but postponed its decision to August 11, saying it needed more time to consider relevant legal issues.



"The Court will pronounce on the innocence or guilt of a few individuals. The verdict will constitute a judgment on the whole of legal, justice and constitutional system in our country," Suu Kyi said in her statement during final court arguments on July 24. Her party released the full statement Monday.

Suu Kyi said that she had allowed the American to stay in her home "without malice, simply with intent to ensure that no one concerned should suffer any adverse consequences."

She also said that charges against her cannot be adequately assessed without determining the legality of her latest, five-year house arrest and how Burma's constitution applies in the case.

Her lawyers have argued that the repeated extensions of her house arrest were illegal and that she is being tried under a provision of a constitution that has been superseded.

"Throughout, my lawyers have been scrupulous in their efforts to procure due process, which is critical to the rule of law. Equally critical is the principle that justice must be done and seen to be done, clearly and unequivocally," Suu Kyi's statement said.

Verdicts were also postponed in the cases against the 53-year-old American, John Yettaw, and two women who lived with Suu Kyi—Khin Khin Win and her daughter Win Ma Ma. The women face similar charges to Suu Kyi, and Yettaw is accused of abetting the violation of Suu Kyi's house arrest. He faces up to five years in prison.

Pleading for the Cause of the Rule of Law
By THE IRRAWADDY

The following paragraphs are the excerpt from the 30 pages final argument declared by Aung San Suu Kyi to the court on July 24.

The Court will pronounce on the innocence or guilt of a few individuals. The verdict itself will constitute a judgment on the whole of the law, justice and constitutionalism in our country.

On both occasion of trespass into the grounds of my house, the one on which this present case is constructed as well as the one which took place on 30 November 2008, I acted without malice simply with intent to ensure that one concern should suffer any adverse consequences. An approach that placed a premium on discernment and a sense of responsibility, rather than on imputation, would have accorded with a concept of law as the guardian of security and harmony in civilized societies.

The charges move against me can not be accessed correctly or adequately without enquiry into the legality of the process by which I was confined to house arrest for more than five years. Throughout my lawyers have been scrupulous in their efforts to procure due-process which is critical to the rule of law. Equally critical is the principle that justice must not only be done but seen to be done, clearly and unequivocally.

This lawsuit brought to light anomalies in the interpretation and application of constitutional provisions and further, raised questions about the constitution itself. Thus it is germane to the very conception and character of government and the right of citizen.

As I plead "not guilty" to the charges before this court, I would also plead the cause of the rule of law, flawless in its impartiality, of justice, irreproachable in wisdom and benevolence, and of constitutionalism as a bulwark of lawsuit and just governance.



Copyright © 2008 Irrawaddy Publishing Group | www.irrawaddy.org