DLA Piper partner fights for Aung San Suu Kyi's freedom

DLA Piper's Jared Genser represents a very high-profile client: Aung San Suu Kyi, a Nobel Peace Prize laureate and the face of democracy in Myanmar, also known as Burma. On Tuesday (11 August), the Myanmar Government convicted Suu Kyi of violating the terms of her house arrest, sparking international outrage and statements from world leaders including British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton calling for her release. 

Suu Kyi, who won the right to be Burma's prime minister in 1990 but was blocked from assuming office by a military junta, has been confined to her house in Yangon for the past six years. In May, the Myanmar government charged her with violating her house arrest in a bizarre case involving an American man who swam across a lake to her house and spent two nights there. Based on Tuesday's verdict, she was sentenced to an additional 18 months of house arrest.

As local lawyers work for her release through the Myanmar courts, Genser, a partner in DLA Piper's government affairs group in Washington DC, has been working the international angles. As president of Freedom Now, a non-profit dedicated to freeing political prisoners, Genser has filed petitions with the UN to generate political pressure and publicity for Suu Kyi's case.

How did you come to represent Aung San Suu Kyi?

"In 2005 my law firm was commissioned by former Czech Republic president Vaclav Havel and Nobel Peace Prize laureate Desmond Tutu to produce a report on Burma for the UN Security Council as part of a global effort to get Burma on the council. Shortly after, I was approached by a member of Aung San Suu Kyi's family to represent her. Up to that point they had never had international counsel."

What did you think of Tuesday's ruling?

"The verdict was a foregone conclusion. From the outset she was detained because she's a threat to the military rule in her country. The Burmese junta knew her house arrest was going to expire and they wanted an excuse to detain her because they are scheduled to hold elections next year. They needed to exclude her from having any involvement in the 2010 elections."

Why was she under house arrest?

"She was taken into custody in May 2003 after government-sponsored thugs tried to assassinate her and about 70 of her supporters were killed. Since then, the junta has held her under the state protection law, which allows a person who is a threat to national security to be held without charges for up to five years."

What were the circumstances surrounding her alleged breach of house arrest?

"This American man, John Yettaw, swam to her house. He had done this before, but was turned away. He begged her to stay overnight for medical reasons and she agreed. She never invited him to her home. She had no idea who he was. He just literally showed up at her door. Ultimately she was charged with breaching the terms of her house arrest, which said she couldn't invite anyone to her home."

What is your involvement in this case?

"I am not a Burmese-qualified lawyer so I'm not trying the case domestically. She has three lawyers representing her in Burma and I'm trying to supplement their efforts with international legal work."

How so?

"For example, in response to the petition I filed with the UN, the Burmese junta argued that she was not detained because she was a threat to national security, but for her own safety. There's no provision of Burmese law that allows a person to be detained for her own safety. I gave that response to her lawyers inside the country, who tried to use it in the domestic legal proceedings to argue that even the Burmese junta itself had admitted she wasn't a threat to national security and that they are violating their own law."

What was her defence at the breach of house arrest trial?

"The first argument was that she did not breach the terms of her house arrest because she was being held under a law that itself was not valid. The state protection law was authorised under the 1974 Constitution that was annulled in 1988. Even if that law was valid, she was being held for six years - beyond the five years authorised by the law. Also, the military junta had exclusive control over security for her home. So it's unreasonable to hold her accountable for the breach of security."

Apparently the court didn't agree.

"No. At the end of the day, this is a political trial."

So, what now?

"We're going to follow up on the petition we filed with the UN to secure a judgment that she is being held illegally and in violation of international law. We will be pushing for the UN Security Council to re-engage in the situation in Burma, not merely because of her extended detention but because of the broader threat to international peace and security posed by the regime in Burma."

This article first appeared on The Am Law Daily blog on americanlawyer.com.