information with dishonesty or participation’, punishable by up to one year’s imprisonment, a fine, or both. 6. Section 8(f) of the Law Protecting the Privacy and Security of Citizens, passed in 2017, provides that no one, without government permission, ‘shall unlawfully interfere with a citizen's personal or family matters or act in any way to slander or harm their reputation.’ Those convicted face six months’ to three years’ imprisonment, plus a fine.6 7. The Law has been used to target those posting online criticism of the government, resulting in prosecutions against more than 100 individuals, including human rights defenders, journalists, and political party members in the past two and half years. 7 Amendments proposed in early 2020 would reduce the maximum penalties and make it a bailable offence, but penalties would remain disproportionate under international law. 8. Section 505 of the Penal Code criminalises the making of a statement ‘with intent to cause, or which is likely to cause’: (a) ‘any officer, soldier, sailor or airman, in the Army, Navy or Air Force to mutiny or otherwise disregard or fail in his duty as such,’ (b) ‘fear or alarm to the public or to any section of the public whereby any person may be induced to commit an offence against the State or against the public tranquility,’ or ‘(c) any class or community of persons to commit any offence against any other class or community.’ Conviction is punishable with imprisonment of up to two years, a fine, or both. The broad language of section 505 has been used frequently to target individuals criticizing the military or military officials. 9. Section 34(d) of the Electronic Transactions Law criminalises the ‘creating, modifying or altering of information or distributing of information created, modified or altered by electronic technology to be detrimental to the interest of or to lower the dignity of any organization or any person’. Following a 2013 amendment, the offence is punishable by only a fine, but remains criminal in nature. Section 33 of the Law can be used to prosecute those who have merely electronically received information related to state secrets;8 Athan documented two cases under section 34(d) during the UPR period. 9 10. Section 124A of the Penal Code criminalises any act that brings ‘or attempts to bring into hatred or contempt, or excites or attempts to excite disaffection towards [the Government established by law for the Union or for the constituent units thereof]’. International standards do not permit restrictions on freedom of expression to protect the state or its symbols, and heads of state or other public officials are legitimately subject to criticism and political opposition. 10 11. Section 295A of the Penal Code provides for up to two years of imprisonment for ‘outraging religious feelings’. Authorities have invoked this section to target religious minorities and have used it twice during the COVID-19 pandemic.11 Blasphemy provisions such as section 295A are not in line with international standards, such as those set forth in Human Rights Council Resolution 16/18 and the Rabat Plan of Action. 12. The Unlawful Associations Act empowers the President to declare groups ‘unlawful’, with far reaching consequences for groups and individuals who interact with them. Section 17(1) provides for two to three 6 Law Protecting the Privacy and Security of Citizens (Union Parliament Law 5/2017), 8 March 2017, section 8(f). San Yamin Aung, ‘Myanmar Lawmakers Submit Bill to Amend Controversial Privacy Law’, Irrawaddy, 18 February 2020, available at: https://www.irrawaddy.com/news/burma/myanmar-lawmakers-submit-bill-amend-controversial-privacylaw.html; Human Rights Watch, ‘Burma: Privacy Law Used to Prosecute Critics,’ 12 January 2018, available at: https://www.hrw.org/news/2018/01/12/burma-privacy-law-used-prosecute-critics. 8 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. See also Centre for Law and Democracy, note 3. 9 Athan data. 10 Athan, ‘The Tatmadaw’s Complaints Violating Freedom of Expression Under Current Government’, 7 January 2020, available at: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1_GTtqk7MRbRZhhV4TW8BCae8T61PAwp/view?fbclid=IwAR1A34zleTg1IouJvWM025iv5tIYDSTddRduhfJdrdaY8kKGYN2_cD3K-E. 11 Zarni Mann, ‘Myanmar Doctor Jailed for Online Criticism of Monks Who Oppose Sex Education’, Irrawaddy, 3 June 2020, available at: https://www.irrawaddy.com/news/burma/myanmar-doctor-jailed-online-criticism-monks-oppose-sexeducation.html; Human Rights Watch, ‘Myanmar: 3 Charged for COVID-19 Street Art’, 8 April 2020, available at: https://www.hrw.org/news/2020/04/08/myanmar-3-charged-covid-19-street-art. 7 3