"...in finally acquitting the two defendants Ye Naung and Myint Oo (a.k.a.) Mya Oo of all charges the Supreme Court found that, ?There is not any evidence against defendants Ye Naung and Myint Oo apart from their statement before Defence Services Intelligence. While it is correct that Defence Services Intelligence unit personnel are persons authorized to uncover and arrest criminal offenders and confessions made before them are admissible as evidence in Military Courts under Defence Services Rule 22(2)(3)(4), it is apparent that they are not admissible as evidence in 1991 The Union of Myanmar v. U Ye Naung & Another civilian courts under the Evidence Act, section 24?; thus the defendants finally acquitted on the basis of the finding on the Evidence Act, section 24, the Office of the Attorney General moved that in its understanding the finding does not correspond with the law for the Chief Justice with the Full Bench of the Supreme Court to undertake to re-examine the said finding in accordance with the Procedures for the Hearing of Special Appeals, paragraph 17, giving rise to this Special Appeal..."