2. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.” 4 4.3 Legitimate Restrictions on the Right to Privacy Article 17 of the ICCPR on privacy is less specific about permissible reasons for restricting the right to privacy as compared to Article 19 on the freedom of expression (See Chapter 4.1 on the Freedom of Expression). Restrictions on the right to privacy must be neither “unlawful” nor “arbitrary”. A restriction is “unlawful” when the interference is not authorised by States on the basis of national law authorising interference. The national law must be sufficiently accessible, clear and precise and also must not conflict with other provisions of the ICCPR, such as the prohibition on discrimination, or the country’s own constitution. The protection against “arbitrary interference” means that the interference should be reasonable in the particular circumstances. It must be in proportion to the aim, and the least intrusive option available to accomplish the aim, and be necessary in the circumstances for reaching a legitimate aim. 343 The Myanmar Legal Framework and its Current Application The 2008 Constitution Most countries have provisions to protect privacy as part of their constitution. At a minimum, these provisions usually include the rights of privacy in the home and of communications. The 2008 Constitution of Myanmar provides certain privacy protection: “357. The Union shall protect the privacy and security of home, property, correspondence and other communications of citizens under the law subject to the provisions of this Constitution.” 344 The constitutional provisions provide for a wide scope of protection by using the term “other communications” but the protections are available to citizens only and are not specific about the kinds of protections it will offer. Moreover, the guarantees are “subject to the provisions of this Constitution” (Art. 357), which has numerous restrictions on these constitutional guarantees that are quite broad. There has been little constitutional jurisprudence developed in Myanmar, meaning there is little to rely on that might limit the application of these broadly worded restrictions. 343 The limitation must also be shown to have some chance of achieving that goal while at the same time not being so overly restrictive that the restriction makes the exercise of the right meaningless. The onus is on the authorities seeking to limit the right to show that the limitation is connected to a legitimate aim. Where the limitation does not meet these criteria, the limitation would be unlawful and/or the interference with the right to privacy would be arbitrary. Pillay report 344 Constitution of Myanmar (2008). CHAPTER 4.3: PRIVACY 159