A/HRC/39/CRP.2 intimidation, gang-rape, forced labour, robbery, setting of fire to homes, eviction, land confiscation and population resettlement as well as the systematic destruction of towns and mosques”.126 He noted that approximately 300,000 Rohingya had reportedly fled to Bangladesh by April 1992, and that a similar campaign in 1978 had also led to a reported 200,000 Muslims fleeing to Bangladesh. He added that these violations were alleged to be primarily committed by the armed forces, mentioning also that he had received numerous reports of security officers confiscating or tearing National Registration Cards of Muslims. He further stated that, according to his sources, there appeared to be a government policy of moving non-Muslim Burmese into northern Rakhine State in an effort to displace the people the Government called “foreigners”, and that Muslims were said to have been virtually prisoners of their provinces since 1964, not being allowed to travel even between villages within a single township.127 101. In 1993, Special Rapporteur Yozo Yokota also reported that his information strongly indicated that the “Rakhine Muslims” had been singled out for human rights violations, which had resulted in approximately 250,000 persons being forced to flee into Bangladesh.128 In nearly all subsequent reports of the United Nations Special Rapporteurs, the issue was raised as a continuing source of grave concern. In this context, all Special Rapporteurs assessed that the 1982 Citizenship Law was discriminatory, in violation of Myanmar’s obligations under international law, and created conditions that promoted statelessness, in particular for the Muslim population of Rakhine State.129 102. In 2007, Special Rapporteur Sergio Pinheiro, together with five other special procedures of the Human Rights Council, publicly called on the Government of Myanmar to take urgent measures “to eliminate discriminatory practices against the returnees in northern Rakhine State”.130 In 2008, the Special Rapporteur concluded that the Rohingya were “subject to systematic discrimination and abuse …, especially with regard to the restriction of movement, arbitrary taxation, forced labour, confiscation, forced eviction and arbitrary arrest (including harassment and violence by police forces, death in custody and sexual violence). In addition, people are often harassed (house searches, confiscation of assets) or beaten by police forces, mainly during controls or at checkpoints. Cases of rape of young women and children, perpetrated by different police forces, have been reported.”131 Special Rapporteur Quintana, in 2010, similarly stated that, based on his assessment of the situation during a mission to northern Rakhine State, he was “deeply concerned about the systematic and endemic discrimination faced by the … Rohingya”132, also specifically noting that the Myanmar authorities had refused to issue birth certificates to many Muslim children since 1994 which had led to further discrimination. 133 He identified the “problem of statelessness” as the “root of chronic scourges endured by [this] population”. 134 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 E/CN.4/1993/62. The Government of Myanmar responded that there was no discrimination based on religion, that the allegations were “fabricated by some big countries and certain foreign news agencies”, that “among those who fled were mostly poor people who were lured by stories that relief food and goods were being distributed on the other side” and that “some left because they were threatened by terrorist insurgents to burn down their houses”, that the issue was one of “illegal immigration” which had also been the cause of the “outflow of people of Bengali stock back in 1978”, that the “Rohingya do not exist in Myanmar either historically, politically or legally”, that the Tatmadaw was a “methodically and systematically organized institution made up of highly trained and disciplined personnel”, and that the “grotesque allegations made against the Tatmadaw were totally false.” See E/CN.4/1993/62. E/CN.4/1993/3, para. 235. Ibid, para. 226; A/62/223, para. 57. Early on, one of the Special Rapporteurs pointed out that these discriminatory laws would in the short term produce serious violations of the rights of both minorities and other persons living in the country as well as a sense of not belonging to Myanmar. In the long term, he forecast, the situation was likely to encourage and exacerbate secessionist movements likely to be destructive of a multi-ethnic and multi-religious nation (A/52/484, para. 151). A/62/223, para. 55. A/HRC/7/18, para. 78. A/HRC/13/48, para. 86. Ibid., para. 88. A/64/318, para. 72. 29