ASEAN Regional Coalition to #StopDigitalDictatorship INTERSECTIONAL GENDER ANALYSIS: LAO PDR (LAOS) The 1991 Constitution acknowledges the equal rights of women and men, laying the foundation for gender equality. However, the Lao constitution fails to explicitly recognise the equality of the LGBTIQA+ community under the law, as it does not state that all Lao citizens are equal in the eyes of the law, irrespective of their sexual orientation and gender identity. Article 37 unambiguously excludes LGBTIQA+ individuals by specifying that only ‘both genders’ enjoy economic, social, and cultural rights. This omission not only reflects a legal gap but also perpetuates societal discrimination and marginalisation against LGBTIQA+ individuals.94 Complementing the constitutional mandate on gender equality, the National Action Plan on Gender Equality 2021−2025 (NAPGE) aims to promote gender equality and eliminate discrimination. Contrastingly, Laos’ Parliament reflects a disparity in gender representation. For example, In 2021, the Lao PDR (Laos) had only 21.95% representation of women in Parliament.95 These rates have been low for some years, although they are one of the highest in Southeast Asia. Unlike some neighbouring countries, Lao PDR (Laos) does not enforce gender quotas in its national Parliament, contributing to the persistent underrepresentation of women in political decision-making processes. 3.3 Access to Effective Remedy: Outlined in Law but Routinely Denied in Practice The gender composition of Parliament significantly influences the gender responsiveness of legislation, including laws about digital freedom, thus warranting attention to address gender disparities in political representation.96 Globally, 85% of women reported witnessing digital violence, and nearly 40% have experienced it personally, but there is no data of this nature in Lao PDR (Laos).97 While the NAPGE categories violence into physical, sexual, psychological, and economic forms, digital violence remains underexplored within Lao PDR (Laos). The absence of this specific data on digital violence against women hampers targeted interventions and policy formulation in this domain. It underscores a critical gap in addressing gender disparities in digital spaces because Such data is crucial for policymakers, advocacy groups, and stakeholders to develop targeted interventions and policies aimed at addressing and preventing digital violence against women effectively.98 Interestingly, in Lao PDR (Laos), just 2% of women who experience violence appeal to legal authorities, although more than a third of women experience one type of violence in their life.99 Cultural norms, fear of retaliation, and distrust in legal mechanisms contribute to this underreporting, perpetuating a cycle of impunity for perpetrators and silence for victims. Online Gender-Based Violence (OGBV) is deeply rooted in discriminatory social norms, and gender inequality and is often connected to offline violence.100 However, HRDs and activists who have been detained and prosecuted for online activities face barriers in seeking redress as due process, judicial independence and trial procedures remain a serious problem. LPRP’s influence on the judiciary as well as corruption continue to undermine the rule of law in the country. Due process rights have been denied Lao people may seek judicial remedy for violations and appeals processes are often non-existent or of their rights in a court or an administrative remedy delayed, sometimes indefinitely. Alarmingly, judges from the National Assembly. Article 41 of the Lao often decide guilt or innocence prior to trials on the Constitution allows people to file complaints and basis of police or prosecutorial investigation reports, petitions to the National Steering Committee on Human despite assurances of presumption of innocence Rights, under the National Legislative Assembly. being in place.102 Lao PDR 101 139