However, since the start of 2014, the authorities have reverted to a number of both old and new tactics, such as charging people with multiple offences for the same actions, charging people in different townships for the same action, or increasingly resorting to charging people with non-bailable offences, with the result that human rights defenders and activists are kept in prison for lengthy periods of time. CHARGING WITH MULTIPLE OFFENCES In 2012 and 2013, individuals arrested and charged for their human rights or political activities often faced charges predominantly under one law: the newly adopted Peaceful Assembly Act. However since the start of 2014, Amnesty International has documented a resurgence in the number of cases where people face not only one charge but a list of different criminal offences, often for the same action. Moreover, those who receive prison sentences must, unless the judge specifies otherwise, serve them consecutively, resulting in lengthy prison terms.28 In particular, activists accused of participating in peaceful protests are often subject to additional charges known as the “public servant” clauses. These include deterring a public servant from his or her duty by “causing hurt” (Section 332 of the Penal Code) or “causing grievous hurt” (Section 333)29 or by “assaulting, threatening to assault or obstructing” a public servant supressing a riot or unlawful assembly (Section 152). 30 For example, election candidate Myat Nu Khaing was charged with a series of offences under the Penal Code, for taking part in a peaceful protest on 29 December 2014 against the use of excessive force by state security forces at the Letpadaung copper mine in Sagaing Region. The charges levelled against her include inciting the public to commit offences “against the State or the public tranquillity” (Section 505(b)); “assaulting or preventing a public servant from the discharge of his duty” (Section 353); performing “obscene acts and songs” in public (Section 294); “assaulting or obstructing public servant when suppressing a riot” (Section 152); and “rioting” (Section 147). There is no evidence that she committed any of these offences. As a result of these charges she now faces up to nine years and nine months’ imprisonment solely for participating in the protest. These charges are used even where reliable sources confirm that individuals did not use or incite violence, such as the case of four Rohingya men who in March 2015 were sentenced to terms of imprisonment of between eight and five years for their role in a 2013 community protest against a government-led population registration exercise in Rakhine State, which did not allow members of the community to identify as Rohingya.31 These protests led the authorities to suspend the registration exercise. 32 Amnesty International, Myanmar: Justice on trial (Index ASA 16/019/2003), 30 July 2003. Section 332 of the Penal Code provides that: “Whoever, voluntarily causes hurt to any person being a public servant in the discharge of his duty as such public servant, or with intent to prevent or order that person or any other public servant from discharging his duty as such public servant, or in consequence of anything done or attempted to be done by that person in the lawful discharge of his duty as such public servants, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.” It is a bailable offence. Section 333 of the Penal Code increases the charge from “hurt” to “grievous hurt”, and the maximum prison sentence to 10 years. It is a non-bailable offence. 30 Section 152 of the Penal Code provides that: “Whoever assaults or threatens to assault, or obstructs or attempts to obstruct, any public servant in the discharge of his duty as such public servant, in endeavouring to disperse an unlawful assembly, or to suppress a riot or affray, or uses, or threatens, or attempts to use criminal force to such public servant, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both”. 31 The Rohingya are a Muslim ethnic minority, the vast majority of whom live in northern Rakhine State in western Myanmar, who have faced decades of state-sponsored persecution. The Myanmar authorities deny the existence of the Rohingya – insisting on referring to them as “Bengalis”, viewed by many as a divisive term used to deny recognition of the community and to imply they are actually migrants from neighbouring Bangladesh. 32 See box: Targeting the leaders, p21. 28 29 NEW EXPRESSION MEETS OLD REPRESSION ENDING THE CYCLE OF POLITICAL ARRESTS AND IMPRISONMENT IN MYANMAR Amnesty International 17