(69%).18 In most other cases there was reasonable suspicion to believe that they were likely detained as a journalist (25%).19 A cause for detention unrelated to journalism was established in just a few cases (6%).20 The military arbitrarily detained many journalists who were documenting protests and conflicts, in an effort to suppress information about the violent crackdowns from reaching the wider public. Half of detained journalists were captured while reporting on protests against the military (50%). The military also captured journalists in raids on their homes (25%) and on their offices (4%). Some journalists were detained after being summoned to police stations (5%). When adjusted for population size, a journalist was four and a half times more likely to be detained in an area experiencing significant conflict. Most detained journalists were from Myanmar except for five foreign journalists (2%). The majority of journalists detained were comparatively junior employees such as reporters and photojournalists (83%), many captured while actively reporting.21 A minority were more senior employees, such as editors (6%). The military also searched for and detained the media leadership in an effort to censor entire media outlets. A large minority detained were owners, CEOs, chief editors, and publishers (11%). Targeted Because of their Journalism 69% Very likely (probable cause) 25% Likely (reasonable suspicion) 6% Unlikely 3 JOURNALISTS TORTURED TO DEATH In general and in its treatment of journalists, the military violated the absolute prohibition on torture under international law.22 Freed journalists consistently reported widespread torture and different forms of cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment suffered while under detention. The military has tortured to death at least three journalists since the coup 18 Probable cause was established through the prima facie facts of the case. For example, probable cause would have been established if a photojournalist was detained while documenting a protest. 19 For example, it was reasonable to suspect that a journalist who was individually targeted for detention while at home, and then later charged under a law often used against journalists, was detained because of their work. 20 For example, being detained while making a speech at a protest. 21 This included journalists working on staff contracts and journalists regularly employed under other contractual agreements, such as stringers and freelancers or “citizen journalists”. 22 A peremptory norm of general international law (jus cogens). See: International Court of Justice (2009), “Questions relating to the Obligation to Prosecute or Extradite (Belgium v. Senegal)”. Assessing Detentions of Journalists in Myanmar, Feb. 2021 to Feb. 2025 8