Introduction 1. In this Universal Periodic Review (‘UPR’) report, the submitting organisations assess the progress made by the Government of Myanmar in implementing recommendations received during its second UPR in November 2015 that relate to freedom of expression, information, assembly, and connected rights. This UPR report is organised under the following headings: • • • • • • • • Legal framework for expression Prosecution of journalists, human rights defenders, and others exercising their right to freedom of expression and information Threats and violence against journalists and others exercising the right to freedom of expression Media freedom Restrictions on the right to peaceful assembly Promotion of pluralism, diversity and tolerance and combating discrimination Digital rights Access to information Legal framework for expression 2. Myanmar’s legal framework is highly restrictive from a freedom of expression perspective. Myanmar’s Constitution fails to fully protect the right to freedom of expression; the Constitution heavily prescribes this right and does not explicitly mention the right to access government information nor media freedom.1 3. Myanmar’s laws contain numerous provisions which are fundamentally incompatible with international human rights law and standards.2 None of the provisions identified as problematic during the 2015 UPR have been amended or repealed. They continue to be applied by the government, military, and private individuals against journalists, human rights defenders, and others exercising their right to freedom of expression. 4. Several of Myanmar’s laws criminalise defamation, though the Human Rights Committee has called on all states party to the ICCPR to decriminalise defamation. 3 Sections 499-500 of the Penal Code broadly criminalise harm to reputation and are susceptible to arbitrary application to shield powerful interests and individuals from legitimate criticism. Sections 499-500, cover ‘any imputation’ made with the intent to harm or knowledge that harm would occur, and is punishable by up to two years’ imprisonment. Truth is a defence only if made ‘for the public good’. According to human rights organisation Athan, at least 10 cases were filed during the UPR period under sections 499-500 of the Penal Code. 5. Five other laws contain criminal defamation provisions.4 Several laws specifically target online defamation. Section 66(d) of the 2013 Telecommunications Law vaguely criminalises online defamation,5 punishable by up to two years’ imprisonment, a fine, or both. Amendments to this section in August 2017 allowed for release on bail and reduced the maximum penalty from three to two years’ imprisonment, but failed to align the section with international standards. Section 68(a) of the law further broadly prohibits ‘communications, reception, transmission, distribution or conveyance of incorrect Free Expression Myanmar, ‘20 expert organisations urge Myanmar to fully guarantee the internationally protected right to freedom of expression in the Constitution,’ 11 April 2019, available at: http://freeexpressionmyanmar.org/20-expertorganisations-urge-myanmar-to-fully-guarantee-the-internationally-protected-right-to-freedom-of-expression-in-theconstitution/. 2 ARTICLE 19, ‘Myanmar Briefing Paper: Criminalisation of Free Expression,’ May 2019, available at: https://www.article19.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/2019.06.6-A19-Criminalisation-of-Free-Expression-final.pdf. 3 See, Human Rights Committee (HR Committee), General Comment No. 34, CCPR/C/GC/34, 12 September 2011, para 47. 4 Free Expression Myanmar, ‘Defamation?,’ May 2019, available at: http://freeexpressionmyanmar.org/wpcontent/uploads/2019/05/Defamation-international-standards.pdf 5 It criminalises ‘extorting, defaming, disturbing or threatening to any person by using any telecommunications network’. See Centre for Law and Democracy, ‘Myanmar: Groups Plan to Reform Digital Content Restrictions,’ 10 December 2017, available at: https://www.law-democracy.org/live/myanmar-groups-plan-to-reform-digital-content-restrictions/. 1 2