Mar 2, 2021 | News
Myanmar’s military government should reverse its post-coup d’etat revisions of legal protections for human rights in the country, the ICJ and Human Rights Watch said today.
Myanmar’s State Administration Council (SAC), appointed by the country’s military after it overthrew the elected civilian government on February 1, 2021, has dictated key revisions to the country’s legal system that criminalize even peaceful protests, and enable violations of the right to privacy and arbitrary arrests and detention. The changes were made through orders signed by the commander-in-chief, Sr. Gen. Min Aung Hlaing, on behalf of the SAC, and outside the parliamentary process.
“As Myanmar’s military increasingly relies on excessive force and intimidation to quell peaceful protests against its coup, it is trying to give a veneer of legality to its actions by subverting existing protections in the legal system.”
“These revisions, which violate the principle of legality and Myanmar’s international obligations, in no way excuse or legitimate the widespread violations of human rights now taking place in Myanmar.”
– Ian Seiderman, ICJ’s Director of Law and Policy.
Since the coup on February 1, the military junta has:
- arbitrarily suspended sections of the Law Protecting the Privacy and Security of Citizens (2017), removing basic protections, including the right to be free from arbitrary detention and the right to be free of warrantless surveillance and search and seizure;
- amended the Penal Code to create new offenses and expand existing offenses to target those speaking critically of the coup and the military, and those encouraging others to support the “Civil Disobedience Movement”;
- amended the Ward and Tract Administration Law to reinstate the requirement to report overnight guests;
- amended the Code of Criminal Procedure to make the new and revised offenses non-bailable and subject to warrantless arrest; and
- amended the Electronic Transactions Law to prevent the free flow of information and criminalize the dissemination of information through cyberspace, including expression critical of the coup or the acts of the junta.
Under international legal standards, any restrictions on human rights must be strictly necessary to protect a legitimate interest and proportionate to the interest being protected, even in times of public emergency or for legitimate national security purposes (conditions that do not apply in Myanmar currently). The orders issued by the SAC fail to meet that standard, as they will arbitrarily interfere with the exercise of rights protected under international law, including freedom of expression, freedom of peaceful assembly, the right to liberty, and the right to privacy. Certain rights, such as the rights to bodily integrity and nondiscrimination, are not subject to restriction.
“By stripping the people of Myanmar of their basic rights, the military is once again demonstrating its disdain for international human rights protections,” said Linda Lakhdhir, Asia legal advisor at Human Rights Watch. “The junta cannot justify the oppression of Myanmar’s inhabitants through the unilateral creation of arbitrary new laws.”
Contact
Osama Motiwala, ICJ Asia-Pacific Communications Officer, e: osama.motiwala(a)icj.org
Mandira Sharma: ICJ Senior Legal Adviser, e: mandira.sharma(a)icj.org
Analysis of Legal Code Changes
Law Protecting the Privacy and Security of Citizens (2017)
On February 13, the State Administration Council arbitrarily suspended sections 5, 7 and 8 of the Law Protecting the Privacy and Security of Citizens, eroding basic protections for individuals.
Section 5 required the presence of two witnesses whenever the police enter a residence for the purposes of search or seizure “to ensure that there is no damage to the privacy or security of the citizen.” The suspension of that protection significantly raises the risk of abuses during searches and arrests.
Section 7 required a court order for any detention of more than 24 hours. Suspension of the provision will facilitate violations of international law, which provides that any person detained on a criminal charge be promptly taken before a judge.
Section 8 provided protections of an individual’s right to privacy by prohibiting search and seizure, surveillance, spying, or any investigation affecting the privacy, security, and dignity of the individual without a court order – protections that the junta has removed. Under international law no one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with their privacy, family, home or correspondence.
Penal Code Amendments
On February 14, the SAC announced amendments to the Penal Code that could lead to criminal liability for thousands of demonstrators exercising their rights to free expression of their views, and anyone publicly criticizing the military coup d’etat through any means.
The SAC inserted a new provision, section 505A, that could be used to punish comments regarding the illegitimacy of the coup or the military government, among others. The new section would criminalize comments that “cause fear,” spread “false news, [or] agitates directly or indirectly a criminal offense against a Government employee.” Violation of the section is punishable by up to three years in prison.
Section 505(a) previously made it a crime to publish or circulate any “statement, rumor or report” “with intent to cause, or which is likely to cause, any officer, soldier, sailor or airman, in the Army, Navy or Air Force to mutiny or otherwise disregard or fail in his duty.” It has been replaced with much broader language clearly designed to penalize those encouraging members of the civil service of the security services to join the Civil Disobedience Movement.
Under the revised provision, any attempt to “hinder, disturb, damage the motivation, discipline, health and conduct” of the military personnel and government employees and cause their hatred, disobedience or disloyalty toward the military and the government is punishable by up to three years in prison.
The SAC also significantly broadened the “treason” provisions in section 124 of the Penal Code. Section124A, which already criminalized comment that “bring into hatred or contempt” or “excite disaffection against” the government, was expanded to include comments relating to the defense services and defense services personnel, effectively criminalizing any criticism of the military or military personnel. Violation of the section is punishable by up to 20 years in prison.
The newly added section 124C imposes a prison term of up to 20 years on anyone who intends to “sabotage or hinder the performance of the Defense Services and law enforcement organizations who are engaged in preserving the stability of the state.” This provision would criminalize efforts to encourage security forces to join the Civil Disobedience Movement or permit unauthorized protests.
Finally, under section 124D, a person can be sentenced up to seven years in prison if they hinder a government employee from carrying out their duties. This provision is so broad that any actions of protesters could be interpreted as preventing security personnel or defense service officers from performing their duty.
Code of Criminal Procedure
On February 14 the junta amended the Code of Criminal Procedure Amendment Law to make offenses under sections 505A, 124C and 124D non-bailable and subject to arrest without a warrant.
Ward or Village Tract Administration Law (13/2/21)
The amendments to the Ward or Village Tract Administration Law (13/2/21) further increase the military’s ability to conduct surveillance on people’s movements, in particular on human rights defenders seeking shelter away from their own homes. Amendments to section 17 of the Act require all overnight guests from other wards or villages to be reported to the ward or village tract administrator, who are authorized by section 13 to “take action” against any who “failed to inform the guest list.” Section 27 reintroduces criminal sanctions for failing to report overnight guests. Such provisions existed under previous military governments and were deeply resented.
Electronic Transactions Law (Law No 7/ 2021)
On February 15, the junta also amended the Electronic Transactions Law to include, among others, provisions that had been proposed in the draft Cybersecurity Law.
As was true under that much-criticized draft law, the amended Electronics Transactions Law permits government agencies, investigators, or law enforcement to access personal data in relation to “cyber-crimes,” “cyber misuse” or any criminal investigation.
The amendments also include several provisions (articles 38(d) and (e)) that provide criminal penalties for “unauthorized” access to online material and that could be used to prosecute whistle blowers, investigative journalists, or activists who use leaked material for their work.
Section 38B criminalizes “obtaining, disclosing, using, destroying, modifying, disseminating, or sending someone’s personal data to anyone else without approval,” with one to three years in prison. While the protection of the right to privacy online is important, this provision goes well beyond legitimate protections on privacy and imposes arbitrary restrictions on freedom of expression.
In particular, “personal data” is defined in a manner so broad as to include virtually any information associated with a person. The law is therefore impermissibly vague and overbroad, as it would likely prevent even the disclosure of information about anyone involved in alleged human rights violations, including by human rights defenders and journalists.
Section 38C criminalizes the creation of “misinformation or disinformation with the intent of causing public panic, loss of trust or social division on cyberspace,” and provides for imprisonment of one to three years in addition to fines. These provisions are similarly vague and overbroad and unnecessarily and disproportionately limit the exercise of expression online, including criticism of the coup and the military junta.
***
Download the full statement here.
Feb 12, 2021 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
The ICJ today addressed an emergency Special Session of the UN Human Rights Council on Myanmar, outlining violations to human rights and the rule of law occurring in the country since the coup d’état of 1 February.
The Special Session is expected to adopt a resolution to address “The human rights implications of the crisis in Myanmar.”
The ICJ statement read as follows:
“Madame President,
The International Commission of Jurists condemns the Myanmar military’s unlawful seizure of authority and the unconstitutional declaration of a state of emergency on 1 February.
These actions defy core rule of law principles and provide an illegitimate basis for the suspension and erosion of human rights.
Nearly 200 people, including human rights defenders, have been arbitrarily detained, some in unknown locations. Security forces have used excessive force against peaceful protesters, causing serious injuries.
Regulations imposed pursuant to the state of emergency grant military forces nearly complete impunity. Furthermore, these regulations suspend crucial judicial remedies for violations of rights, such as the writ of habeas corpus.
Judges, including from the Supreme Court, have been illegally removed and replaced, undermining the independence of an already embattled judiciary.
The military takeover further endangers the already grave situation of the Rohingya community.
The ICJ calls on the Human Rights Council to urge the military to immediately return authority to the civilian government and allow immediate access to the Special Rapporteur on Myanmar and other special procedures, the OHCHR, and the Independent Investigative Mechanism for Myanmar, whose mandate includes investigating all serious human rights violations.
Member States should take necessary measures to ensure truth, justice and accountability for crimes under international law, including by supporting all relevant accountability mechanisms.
Thank you.”
Feb 12, 2021 | Advocacy, News
The Myanmar military should immediately abandon the draft Cyber Security Law and end Internet restrictions it has imposed since taking power in a coup on 1 February, said ARTICLE 19, Open Net Association, and the ICJ today.
“It is telling that controlling cyberspace is one of the top priorities of the Myanmar military, which seized power through an illegitimate coup d’etat only last week,” said Sam Zarifi, ICJ’s Secretary General. “The military is used to having total power in Myanmar, but this time they have to face a population that has access to information and can communicate internally and externally.”
Under international law, the rights to freedom of expression and information may only be restricted if prescribed by law, in pursuit of a legitimate aim, and necessary and proportionate to that aim. This right applies equally online. In 2018, the UN Human Rights Council condemned ‘all undue restrictions on freedom of opinion and expression online that violate international law’.
“Having illegally seized control of government, the military is trying to ram through a hugely problematic law that would imperil the Myanmar public’s ability to share and access information online,” said Matthew Bugher, ARTICLE 19’s Head of Asia Programme. “The draft law is further evidence of the military’s intent to control online discourse and permanently undermine Internet freedom in the country.”
Human rights bodies and experts have repeatedly condemned Internet shutdowns, which are inherently unnecessary and disproportionate irrespective of their purported objectives. Four UN special procedures with mandates from the Human Rights Council stated in their 2011 Joint Declaration on Freedom of Expression and the Internet that, ‘Cutting off access to the Internet, or parts of the Internet, for whole populations or segments of the public (shutting down the Internet) can never be justified, including on public order or national security grounds’. The UN Human Rights Council has repeatedly called on Myanmar to lift Internet restrictions in the country.
Anonymity is furthermore crucial to protecting the right to freedom of expression and other human rights, including the right to privacy. UN Human Rights Council Resolution 38/7 recognizes that ‘privacy online is important for the realization of the right to freedom of expression and to hold opinions without interference, and the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association’. The UN Special Rapporteur on freedom of expression in a 2015 report stated that restrictions on encryption must confirm to the three-part test on restrictions to the freedom of expression noted above.
“The ban on online anonymity in the cybersecurity law is not just bad for Myanmar but sets a dangerous precedent for the whole of Asia”, said Kyung Sin Park, Executive Director of Open Net Association, whose founders spearheaded a successful constitutional challenge against a similar law in South Korea in 2012. “The content takedown provisions and criminalization of online speech in the draft law are extremely broad and utterly lacking due process even in comparison to other Asian countries. The proposal smacks of a legislative attempt to extend the powers the military had taken in an unlawful, anti-democratic coup.”
ISPs, online service providers (as defined by the draft law to mean content providers) and other stakeholders have only been given until 15 February for input. This is a clear indication that the military has no intention of engaging in meaningful consultation.
On 10 February, a group of 158 Myanmar civil society organizations released a statement rejecting the draft Cyber Security Law, while reiterating their view that the Myanmar military could not legitimately exercise legislative authority.
“All online service providers inside and outside the country should be alarmed at this intrusion of military authority into cyberspace and refuse to implement these hugely problematic restrictions,” said ICJ’s Sam Zarifi.
SPECIFIC PROBLEMATIC PROVISIONS OF THE DRAFT CYBERSECURITY LAW (based on an unofficial translation of the draft law):
Many provisions in the draft law are vague and overbroad, in contravention of the principle of legality. If enacted, the draft law would greatly extend the powers of military authorities to restrict and punish online expression.
The law provides overarching control to the military’s ‘State Administration Council’, a newly-formed body appointed by the Commander-in-Chief. The direct military control of Internet service provision and its role in the policing of content online is in and of itself cause for alarm. Further, the military should in no circumstances be charged with protecting personal data.
Section 29 of the draft law is overly broad as it demands the prevention, removal, destruction and cessation of a broad and vaguely defined range of expression, including online comments deemed ‘misinformation’ or ‘disinformation’, any expression that causes hate and risks disrupting unity, stability, and peace, and ‘written and verbal statements against any existing law’.
Under section 64, any person convicted of creating ‘misinformation’ and ‘disinformation’ with the intent of causing public panic, loss of trust or social division in cyberspace is punishable by three years’ imprisonment, a fine, or both.
International human rights bodies have repeatedly urged governments against laws that create ‘false news’ offences, warning about their potential abuse by governments to suppress criticism and other forms of speech protected by international human rights law.
Section 30 threatens the right to online anonymity by requiring online service providers to retain usernames, IP addresses, national IDs, and other personal data for up to three years, and to provide this information to authorities upon request. For this purpose, Section 28 requires an online service provider to ensure that any device that stores the user’s information must be kept in a place designated by the relevant Ministry.
The draft law also has overly broad catch-all provisions in Sections 61 and 73 respectively whereby online service providers that fail to comply with any provisions of the draft law face a maximum penalty of three years’ imprisonment and a fine and individuals failing to comply with any rules, regulations, notifications, orders, directives, and procedures issued under the draft law are subject to one year’s imprisonment and a fine. These sanctions which are punitive in purpose and effective are non-compliant with the requirement of proportionality under international human rights law and standards on freedom of expression.
The draft law also provides for enhanced power to control the Internet without the benefit of judicial review by independent civilian courts. In the ‘public interest’, a ministry approved by the State Administration Council may temporarily prohibit any online service or take control of devices related to online service provision, as well as permanently ban any online service provider. This is a less stringent standard than that provided under the problematic and much-criticized section 77 of the Telecommunications Act, which allows for shut downs or control of telecommunications in an ‘emergency situation’.
Download
Statement in Burmese.
Contact
Osama Motiwala, ICJ Asia-Pacific Communications Officer, e: osama.motiwala(a)icj.org
Feb 8, 2021 | News
The Myanmar military’s coup d’etat of 1 February is unconstitutional and fails to comply with basic rule of law principles, said the ICJ today.
“The Myanmar military’s actions violate even the flawed Constitution that the military itself imposed in 2008,” said Sam Zarifi, ICJ’s Secretary General. “The irregularities alleged by the military in the recent elections do not justify declaring a state of emergency and shattering the already weak rule of law in the country.”
The coup d’etat does not comply with the Constitution of the Republic of the Union of Myanmar 2008, which suffers from multiple shortcomings in basic respect for the rule of law and international human rights standards.
Article 417 of the Constitution requires the President to declare a state of emergency when there is a risk to the sovereignty of the country.
Article 418 requires the President to hand over all power to the Commander-in-Chief of the Army. Contrary to this provision, the state of emergency was declared by the Vice-President, after the military detained President Win Myint.
“The accountability of the military to the civilian authorities is a core rule of law principle”, said Sam Zarifi “Myanmar’s military leaders have turned this principle on its head by usurping total authority again.”
The ICJ is concerned that Myanmar’s Constitution provides for the possibility of suspending protections for a number of human rights, such as freedom of expression and association and the right to habeas corpus. Under international human rights law, derogations from certain rights are permissible only when strictly necessary to meet a specific threat to the life of the nation, conditions not met under the current emergency.
The right to habeas corpus is among those rights that may never be suspended. The writ of habeas corpus allows any person detained by any State agent, including during emergencies, to challenge the lawfulness of the detention.
“The right to test the lawfulness of any detention needs to be restored and the judiciary must be able to independently examine the legality of any arrests and detentions and order to release of those it finds are detained illegally” said Sam Zarifi.
Of particular concern to the ICJ is the near-total impunity provided to the military after the declaration of the State of Emergency, and the proliferation of arbitrary detention without recourse to legal review.
Article 432 of the Constitution effectively shields the military and security forces from any review of ’legitimate measures’ pursuant to the declaration of a state of emergency, which the ICJ notes also flies in the face of the rule of law.
“After the shock of the coup d’etat, we are now seeing brave lawyers and civil society activists trying to use peaceful means at their disposal to demand their rights,” Zarifi said. “This movement is not focused around an icon or even one party, but on the notion that the people of Myanmar should be able to government themselves and decide their future.”
Contact
Sam Zarifi, ICJ’s Secretary General, sam.zarifi(a)icj.org
Sep 14, 2020 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
In a statement to the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva, the ICJ has welcomed the report of the Independent Investigative Mechanism for Myanmar (IIMM)
The oral statement was delivered in an interactive dialogue with the IIMM, and read as follows:
“The ICJ salutes the Mechanism in setting up the necessary infrastructure for its operation despite the challenges brought about by the COVID-19 pandemic. Given the lack of genuine and independent domestic investigation and prosecution of serious human rights violations in Myanmar, the efficient establishment of the Mechanism is welcomed.
The ICJ shares its concern over the Government of Myanmar’s lack of cooperation with the Mechanism. The ICJ recalls Myanmar’s obligation to ensure accountability for serious human rights violations occurring in Myanmar, including, but not limited to, the acts against ethnic Rohingya that were the subject of the report of the Government-appointed Independent Commission of Enquiry.
Given the Mechanism’s mandate to gather and preserve evidence of any serious human rights violations committed in Myanmar from 2011 to the present, the ICJ underscores the need to investigate the widely reported accounts of killings, serious physical injury, mass displacement and destruction of property in various parts of Rakhine and Chin states in the context of the ongoing conflict between Myanmar and the Arakan Army. The Myanmar Government still refuses to hold a ceasefire despite the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in Rakhine. The parties to the conflict must be held accountable for any violation of international human rights and humanitarian law.
The ICJ would like to ask: how can States and inter-governmental organizations strengthen support for the mandate?”
For more information, contact: Kingsley Abbott, kingsley.abbott(a)icj.org
