IF FAIL TO ARREST The Director of the President’s Office Hmuu Zaw, PRESIDENT U THEIN SEIN MUST BE ARRESTED and tried at ICC

IF FAIL TO ARREST WIRATHU, THEIN SEIN MUST BE ARRESTED by ICC.
IF FAIL TO ARREST The Director of the President’s Office Hmuu Zaw, PRESIDENT U THEIN SEIN MUST BE ARRESTED and tried at ICC.
IF FAIL TO ARREST The Voice Weekly Editors and Publishers, THEIN SEIN MUST BE ARRESTED and tried at ICC.
Maung Khin added 6 photos.
ကြၽန္ပ္တုိ႔ၿမန္မာၿပည္တြင္ အခ်ဳိ႔႕ပုဂၢဳိလ္မ်ားသည္ ပုဒ္မ ၅၀၅၏ အထူးကင္းလြတ္ခြင္႔ၿဖင္႔၊ေကာလဟာလမ်ားကုိ ေပ်ာ္ေပ်ာ္ႀကီး က်ဴးလြန္ေနမူ႔မ်ား။………………………………….

ပုဒ္မ ၅၀၅ – အမ်ားၿပည္သူ၏ အက်ဳိးပ်က္စီးေစမူ႕ကုိ ၿဖစ္ေသာေဖၚၿပခ်က္။
Statements conducing to public mischief (Section -505)
ဥပေဒဖြင္႔ဆုိခ်က္
____________
မည္သူမဆုိ ေဖၚၿပခ်က္ကိုၿဖစ္ေစ၊ေကာလဟာလကိုၿဖစ္ေစ၊ သတင္းၿပဳရာတြင္ သုိ႔တည္းမဟုတ္ ထုတ္ၿပန္ေၾကၿငာရာတြင္၊သုိ႔တည္းမဟုတ္ ၿဖန္႔ခ်ိရာတြင္-
(က) ………….
(ခ) …………..
(ဂ) လူအမ်ဳိအစားအခ်င္ခ်င္းၿဖစ္ေစ၊လူမ်ဳိးစုအခ်င္းခ်င္းၿဖစ္ေစ တစ္ဖက္နဲ႔တစ္ဖက္ ၿပစ္မူွက်ဴးလြန္ေအာင္ လွဴံ႕ေဆာ္ရန္အႀကံရိွလ်ွင္၊ သုိ႔တည္းမဟုတ္ အဆုိပါလွဴံ႕ေဆာ္ၿခင္းကုိ ၿဖစ္တန္ရာသည္႔အေၾကာင္းရွိလ်ွင္၊ ထုိသူကုိ နွစ္နွစ္ထိ ေထာင္ဒဏ္တစ္မ်ဳိးမ်ဳိးၿဖစ္ေစ၊ ေငြဒဏ္ၿဖစ္ေစ၊ ဒဏ္နွစ္ရပ္လုံးၿဖစ္ေစ ခ်မွတ္ရမည္။

ကင္းလြတ္ခ်က္။ ။…………………………..အထက္ကဆုိခဲ႔ေသာ အႀကံမရွိဘဲၿပဳလ်ွင္၊သုိ႔တည္းမဟုတ္ ထုတ္ၿပန္ေၾကၿငာလ်ွင္၊သုိ႔တည္းမဟုတ္ ၿဖန္႔ခ်ိလ်ွင္ ဤပုဒ္မ၏ အဓိပၸာယ္အရ ၿပစ္မွူမေၿမာက္။

p1 p2 p3

Tags: , , , , , , ,

4 Responses to “IF FAIL TO ARREST The Director of the President’s Office Hmuu Zaw, PRESIDENT U THEIN SEIN MUST BE ARRESTED and tried at ICC”

  1. drkokogyi Says:

    TQ brother…With this three screenshots…you have given enough evidence to use at ICC to arrest and jail the U Thein Sein led government for OMISSION of duty to act. Hmuu zaw is his office director so U Thein Sein is guilty of “Command Responsibility.”…https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Command_responsibility
    Voice Weekly is run by the military affiliated people. So Min Aung Hlaing is responsible according to “Command Responsibility.”.Command responsibility, sometimes referred to as the Yamashita standard or the Medina standard, and also known as superior responsibility, is the doctrine of hierarchical accountability in cases of war crimes.[1][2][3][4]

    The term may also be used more broadly to refer to the duty to supervise subordinates, and liability for the failure to do so, both in government, military law and with regard to corporations and trusts.

    The doctrine of “command responsibility” was established by the Hague Conventions (IV) and (X) of 1907 and was applied for the first time by the German Supreme Court in Leipzig after World War I, in the 1921 trial of Emil Müller.[5][6][7]

    The “Yamashita standard” is based upon the precedent set by the United States Supreme Court in the case of Japanese General Tomoyuki Yamashita. He was prosecuted in 1945, in a still controversial trial, for atrocities committed by troops under his command in the Philippines during World War II. Yamashita was charged with “unlawfully disregarding and failing to discharge his duty as a commander to control the acts of members of his command by permitting them to commit war crimes”.[8][9]

    The “Medina standard” is based upon the 1971 prosecution of U.S. Army Captain Ernest Medina in connection with the My Lai Massacre during the Vietnam War.[10] It holds that a commanding officer, being aware of a human rights violation or a war crime, will be held criminally liable when he does not take action.

  2. drkokogyi Says:

    In the criminal law, an omission, or failure to act, will constitute an actus reus (Latin for “guilty act”) and give rise to liability only when the law imposes a duty to act and the defendant is in breach of that duty.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omission_%28criminal_law%29
    Duty to act when contracted to do so

    In R v Pittwood (1902), the defendant was convicted of gross negligence manslaughter after he failed to close the gate on a level crossing as he was contracted to do. This caused a train to collide with a hay cart, and the court ruled that “a man might incur criminal liability from a duty arising out of contract.”
    Preventing and prosecuting war crimes

    Following the Nuremberg Trials international law developed the concept of command responsibility. It holds that military commanders are imposed with individual responsibility for war crimes, committed by forces under their effective command and control, they failed to prevent or adequately prosecute, if they:

    “either knew or, owing to the circumstances at the time, should have known that the forces were committing or about to commit such crimes.”[2][3][4]

  3. drkokogyi Says:

    Sin of omission
    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Jump to: navigation, search
    For other uses, see Omission (disambiguation).

    In Catholic teaching an omission is a failure to do something one can and ought to do. If this happens advertently and freely, it is considered a sin.

    The degree of guilt incurred by an omission is measured like that attaching to sins of commission, by the dignity of the virtue and the magnitude of the precept to which the omission is opposed as well as the amount of deliberation.

    A person may be guilty of a sin of omission by failing to do something which he is able to do and which he ought to do, by reason of a cause for which he is entirely responsible, as when a person knows that drinking to drunkness will incapacitate him, and yet drinks.[clarification needed]

    Paul the Apostle refers to this sin directly when he states “For I do not do the good I want …” (Romans 7:19).

    see Romans 7:7-25

    James the Just more exactly defines this sin when he states, “Whoever knows the right thing to do and fails to do it, for him it is sin.” (James 4:17)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sin_of_omission

  4. drkokogyi Says:

    Responsibility to protect
    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Jump to: navigation, search

    The responsibility to protect (R2P or RtoP) is a United Nations initiative established in 2005. It consists of an emerging intended norm, or set of principles, based on the claim that sovereignty is not a right, but a responsibility.[1][2] R2P focuses on preventing and halting four crimes: genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and ethnic cleansing, which it places under the generic umbrella term of mass atrocity crimes.[3] The R2P has three “pillars”:[4][5]

    A state has a responsibility to protect its population from genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and ethnic cleansing.
    The international community has a responsibility to assist the state to fulfill its primary responsibility.
    If the state manifestly fails to protect its citizens from the four above mass atrocities and peaceful measures have failed, the international community has the responsibility to intervene through coercive measures such as economic sanctions. Military intervention is considered the last resort.

    In the international community R2P is a norm, not a law, however it is grounded in international law.[6][7] R2P provides a framework for using tools that already exist, i.e. mediation, early warning mechanisms, economic sanctioning, and chapter VII powers, to prevent mass atrocities. Civil society organizations, States, regional organizations, and international institutions all have a role to play in the R2P process. The authority to employ the last resort and intervene militarily rests solely with United Nations Security Council.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Responsibility_to_protect

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: