The rights to freedom of association and peaceful assembly are enshrined in Article 20 of the UDHR: “Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.” Under international human rights law, restrictions on the rights to freedom of expression, association and peaceful assembly must be the exception rather than the rule. International human rights law also sets a three-part test that any restrictions on the rights to freedom of expression must meet in order to be lawful: 1. Legality: restrictions must be provided by clear, detailed and well-defined laws. 2. Legitimacy: restrictions can only be imposed to serve a legitimate aim explicitly specified in international human rights law, namely to protect the rights and reputation of others; national security, public order, public health or public morals. Human rights bodies provide strict interpretations of each of these. 3. Necessity and proportionality: measures must be both necessary to achieve the specific legitimate aim and proportionate, the state can only impose the least restrictive measure required to achieve any of the above protective aims and any restrictions must not be overbroad. It should be noted that this is a cumulative test, all three requirements need to be met for a restriction to comply with international human rights law and standards. 97 4.2 MYANMAR’S LEGAL FRAMEWORK Myanmar’s legal framework is a combination of British colonial-era laws, such as the 1908 Unlawful Associations Act; post-independence laws such as the 1950 Emergency Provisions Act; laws enacted during the military era, such as the 1975 State Protection Act; and more recent legislation enacted during the 2011– 2015 Thein Sein administration. From 1988 to 2010 in the absence of a Constitution or legislative body, the military government issued decrees and announcements. Many of these laws and decrees provide for arbitrary restrictions on the rights to freedom of expression, association and peaceful assembly.98 In addition, the authorities also use criminal laws to fabricate or contrive criminal charges against individuals for politically motivated reasons, for example “trespass” related charges under Sections 447 and 448 of the Penal Code, 99 the “public servant clauses” mentioned in Chapter 3, and the 1947 Immigration (Emergency Provisions) Act.100 Amnesty International highlights below ten repressive laws and provisions which have been used to arrest, prosecute and imprison human rights defenders and activists since 2014. Many other laws and provisions remain on the books and could be used to arrest, prosecute and imprison human rights defenders and other activists. The specific laws discussed below must be repealed, or reviewed and amended to bring them in line with international human rights law and standards. ICCPR Article 19(3); Human Rights Committee, General comment No. 34, Article 19: Freedoms of opinion and expression, UN Doc. CCPR/C/GC/34, 12 September 2011, paras. 21-36. 98 Amnesty International, Justice on trial (Index: ASA 16/019/2003), 29 July 2003, p27. 99 See for example the case of Zaw Pe and Win Myint Hlaing, Amnesty International, Imprisoned for corruption investigation (Index: ASA 16/006/2014), 2 May 2014. 100 See the case of U Gambira, Amnesty International, Former prisoner of conscience arrested: U Gambira (ASA 16/3244/2016), 20 January 2016. 97 NEW EXPRESSION MEETS OLD REPRESSION ENDING THE CYCLE OF POLITICAL ARRESTS AND IMPRISONMENT IN MYANMAR Amnesty International 33