ASEAN Regional Coalition to #StopDigitalDictatorship 5.3 Access to Effective Remedy: Weak Before the Coup, Non-Existent Since Then Myanmar’s judicial system was flawed before the 2021 coup. The dominant influence of the Burmese military was constant, whether after the 1962 coup d’état, with the prosecution and imprisonment of lawyers considered political for having defended justice, or during the attempted democratic transition, when a few reforms became possible.127 After 2021, there was a setback compared to the few previous successes. The 2008 Constitution, introduced by the military, allows the military to take over the reins of the country in an emergency situation for an initial period of one year, with the possibility of two extensions of six months each. According to the 2008 Constitution, during this emergency period, the military can assume all government responsibilities, giving the head of the ruling military council, General Min Aung Hlaing, legislative, judicial and executive powers. However, the junta-run National Defence Security Council has authorised the military to extend the so-called emergency period, marking multiple extensions since then. The Council justifies this decision by arguing that the country remains in an abnormal situation.128 Before the coup, the right to a fair and public trial and due process rights were often violated in Myanmar, particularly in cases of freedom of expression.129 Trials concerning online activity were often filled with procedural mistakes and lacked tested and reliable evidence.130 The denial of bail was prevalent in politically motivated arrests and detention. For example, in June 2019, Min Htin Ko Ko Gyi, who was sued under Article 66(d) of the 2013 Telecommunication Act and also charged under Article 505(a) of the Criminal Code for a series of Facebook posts, was denied bail despite undergoing Myanmar liver cancer treatment.131 However, individuals had the option to file a complaint against an injurious decision with the Myanmar National Human Rights Commission (MNHRC), which theoretically had the authority to conduct presumed independent inquiries under the civilian government.132 However, the protection provided under MNHRC’s mandate was inadequate. Civil society organisations criticised the Commission’s ability to promote and protect human rights, especially due to its failure to take prompt action and publicly defend two Reuters journalists who reported on the situation of Rohingya in Rakhine State.133 The two reporters were charged under 1923 Official Secrets Act for accessing “illegally acquired information with the intention to share it with foreign [online] media.” Owing to its inability to operate as an independent and effective non-judicial grievance mechanism, MNHRC was accredited “B” by the Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions.135 Numerous initiatives have been taken since 2021, leading to a deterioration in respect for the law and independent justice in Myanmar, such as launching investigations without any information on the case, inadequately documenting searches by the police, and the lack of clarity regarding the existence of arrest warrants.136 Indeed, the now junta-run MNHRC has been stripped further of its proper functioning, having done nothing to address widespread and systematic human rights violations in the country.137 Among the most significant is the military’s suspension of the writ of habeas corpus under the 2008 Constitution. The 2008 Constitution allows for the immediate suspension of the writ of habeas corpus and the rule of law as soon as a state of emergency is declared (article 381). At the same time, it authorises the restriction or even revocation of certain fundamental rights, while guaranteeing the military junta’s impunity (article 432). As a result, the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus is used to legitimise illegal detentions, torture and other forms of ill-treatment, as well as enforced disappearances.138 Photographer and anti-junta activist Aye Kyaw was 203