Myanmar: Analysis of the Organisation Registration Law court rather than by an administrative body. 98 At a minimum, if a registration body can dissolve an NGO, this decision must be subject to prompt judicial review.99 In Myanmar, cancelling a certificate is the equivalent of dissolving the organisation, because registration is mandatory. Registration boards can cancel certificates for a wide-ranging list of often vague and poorly defined reasons, including for several minor administrative errors or for failing to comply with technical requirements of the NGO Law. No procedures are set out, meaning that NGOs may not even have an opportunity to defend themselves against allegations, and only a very limited appeal procedure is available to another or the same registration board. None of this complies with international freedom of association standards. International standards also provide that administrative sanctions should only be imposed after NGOs are given advance warning and an opportunity to correct the violation.100 Civil society organisations are sometimes small and staffed by volunteers. Unintentional compliance failures will inevitably occur. The NGO Law does not provide sufficient opportunity for the correction of minor or unintentional infractions. Although registration boards may issue a warning, which could function as an opportunity to correct noncompliance, they are not required to issue a warning before imposing a more severe sanction. Criminal sanctions should not be imposed simply for a failure to comply with substantive rules in a law which governs NGOs.101 Serious misconduct, such as crimes related to fraud or money laundering, can be addressed by other laws. Some of the criminal sanctions in the NGO Law duplicate existing crimes, such as using money in an illegal manner. Having overlapping criminal offences is not good practice according to basic principles of criminal law and in this case represents overcriminalisation of those who are exercising their right to freedom of association. Imprisonment as a penalty for a failure to register or for operating past the period of registration is also a grossly disproportionate penalty and a serious violation of freedom of association, as discussed in the section on mandatory registration above. Imposing criminal penalties on officers or members of NGOs, and not merely on the NGO, also raises concerns. NGO laws should generally shield individual staff or members from liability for acts of the organisation. Individuals may face criminal liability for their own actions but, as noted in the last paragraph, this should not include special NGO crimes. The NGO Law imposes criminal penalties on members and staff for mere membership in an unregistered NGO, regardless of whether they have any direct responsibility for the failure to register or are even aware of its unregistered status. It also creates new crimes which are 98 Ibid., para. 100; and Guidelines on Freedom of Association and Assembly in Africa, note 14, para. 58. Report of the UN Special Rapporteur on human rights defenders, 4 August 2009, paras. 84 and 114, undocs.org/A/64/226; Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, note 81, para. 541(20). 100 2009 Report of the Special Rapporteur on human rights defenders, note 99, para. 118. 101 Ibid., para. 118. 99 The Centre for Law and Democracy is a non-profit human rights organisation working internationally to provide legal expertise on foundational rights for democracy. 22