A/HRC/39/CRP.2 and dispute resolution at a local level.110 MaBaTha has thus been perceived to be responsive to local community needs and concerns.111 Further, the leadership of the MaBaTha is comprised of popular members of the monkhood. 92. On 23 May 2017, the Sangha issued a statement declaring that MaBaTha was not formed in accordance with the Sangha Organization Law and the Sangha Organizational Procedures, that neither the group nor individuals associated with it can use the full Myanmar language name it was using and that all of the organization’s signboards across the country had to be taken down.112 On 20 July 2018, the Sangha reportedly banned the Dhamma Wunthanu Rakkhita Association, the successor of MaBaTha, as well. 113 Regardless of their formal status, the narratives spread by these groups have become accepted in many circles across Myanmar. C. History of human rights violations 93. Today, the Tatmadaw enjoys considerable popularity among the Bamar-Buddhist majority. The violence, particularly the “Rohingya crisis” in Rakhine State, has been used by the military to reaffirm itself as the protector of a nation under threat and to cement its political role further. This is remarkable considering its appalling human rights record and the long struggle of the democracy movement against its rule. 94. During the military dictatorship (1962-2011), Myanmar was considered one of the most repressive countries in Asia. The main concern of the rulers was to maintain power and to attain and preserve “national unity in the face of ethnic diversity”. Human rights were “subordinate to these imperatives”. 114 In 1997, the then United Nations Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Myanmar observed that “the absence of respect for the rights pertaining to democratic governance is at the root of all the major violations of human rights in Myanmar in so far as this absence implies a structure of power which is autocratic and accountable only to itself, thus inherently resting on the denial and repression of fundamental rights”.115 Reports of serious human rights violations were pervasive, affecting the entire spectrum of civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights. 95. During Ne Win’s rule (1962-1988), reports of serious human rights issues arose largely in two contexts: the suppression of critics and the security forces’ operations against insurgencies in ethnic areas. Types of human rights violations frequently reported included the arbitrary deprivation of life (including through excessive use of force), arbitrary detention and torture, sexual violence, forced labour, violations of land and housing rights (including through mass expulsions), and violations of the rights to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly. 96. Following the violent repression of anti-Government protests in 1988 and the 1990 elections, Myanmar became a country of concern at the United Nations. The General Assembly adopted its first resolution on the situation in Myanmar in 1991, noting with concern the “substantive available information indicating a grave human rights situation in Myanmar”.116 Similar resolutions were adopted most years thereafter. The Commission on Human Rights created the mandate of Special Rapporteur on the human rights situation in Myanmar in 1992.117 The United Nations Secretary-General appointed a Special Envoy to 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 International Crisis Group, Buddhism and State Power in Myanmar (2017). M. Walton, “Misunderstanding Myanmar’s Ma Ba Tha” (Asia Times, 9 July 2017). Ibid. The Irrawaddy, “Nationalists Rally in Yangon to Denounce New Ban on Ma Ba Tha” (13 August 2018). C. Renshaw, “Human rights under the new regime”, in Constitutionalism and Legal Change in Myanmar, A. Harding, K.K. Oo, eds. (Oxford and Portland, Hart Publishing, 2017), pp. 215 and 218. E/CN.4/1997/64, para. 102. A/RES/46/132 E/CN.4/RES/1992/58 27