A/HRC/39/CRP.2 been carried out against some individuals who have complained,869 and given that many victims or their family members are located in rural and insecure areas often in continued close proximity to perpetrators. Some victims or witnesses indicated that they did not know how to file complaints or there was no one to complain to.870 Others said they felt there was no point in complaining.871 For example, one individual from Loilen Township, Shan State, whose father was killed told the Mission that he did not file a complaint as “the government does not care about us and the Tatmadaw is abusive. There is no point in filing a complaint – there is no justice.”872 In some cases a combination of reasons are given. One individual from Kutkai Township in Shan State whose son was killed by the Tatmadaw in March 2017 said “I did not complain. I do not have any money and I didn’t know how. I was also afraid.”873 Another told the Mission that she was not aware that forced labour was a violation until she left the country.874 394. Several individuals told the Mission that they had not shared their story with anyone else.875 For example, a village administrator from Muse Township, Shan State, whose village was attacked by the Tatmadaw in one incident and villagers killed in another, stated: After the attack happened in 2016, I didn’t share the story with anyone. Nobody else in the village shared the story either. We didn’t receive threats from the Tatmadaw but we just understood the situation. When the members of my village were killed in 2017, I felt sad, but nobody lodged any complaints then either. We are afraid. As village administrator, I had gone to ask compensation in the past but was told “go and ask compensation from the rebel groups, not from us. 876 (b) Reprisals for speaking out 395. Where individuals did dare to speak out about violations committed in Kachin and Shan States, the Mission was provided with numerous examples of the police or Tatmadaw bringing, or threatening to bring, 877 court cases against them under a range of problematic legal provisions.878 In a number of other cases brought to the attention of the Mission, 879 the Tatmadaw’s response to alleged violations, has been to assert, often without any investigations, that the individuals were either killed by EAOs, or were fighters of these organizations and therefore legitimately killed. Based on such assertions, the Tatmadaw brings cases for defamation of the image of the Tatmadaw, or under the Unlawful Associations Act, against individuals alleging Tatmadaw responsibility for the deaths. This is particularly problematic given that the Mission has found a pattern of individuals being killed while in Tatmadaw custody and given information indicating that the Tatmadaw portrays or disguises civilians that were killed as members of EAOs, such as by making them wear the uniforms of EAOs.880 396. A well-known example is the case of Brang Shawng, who was convicted of making “false charges,” under section 211 of the Penal Code on 13 February 2015 and sentenced to a 50,000 Kyat fine or six months in prison. He alleged his daughter had been shot and killed by the Tatmadaw on 13 September 2012 in Sut Ngai Yang village, Hpakant Township, Kachin State and wrote a letter to the Myanmar National Human Rights Commission calling for an investigation.881 Another individual from Kachin State, told the Mission that after her 869 870 871 872 873 874 875 876 877 878 879 880 881 96 DI-062, PI-070, QI-090. Ibid. PI-041, PI-082. PI-082. PI-070. PI-058. DI-057, DI-058, DI-062, DI-063, PI-117. DI-057. A/HRC/37/70; K-139, PI-037, PI-038, PI-102, PI-106, V-206. See chapter VI, section A.2: Intimidation and reprisal for engagement with the United Nations. K-139, PI-037, PI-106. See this chapter, section A.2: Unlawful killings. A/HRC/28/72, PI-105, V-208.