Freedom of Expression During Myanmar’s Revolution: The Gap Between Legal Provisions and Practice The findings of this research indicate that the Federal Democracy Charter and the Karenni State Interim Arrangement prioritize collective rights over individual rights, and that freedom of expression is conflated with cultural rights. Rights are framed not primarily as universal individual entitlements, but rather within the context of specific identity-based groups such as ethnic groups, women, and youth. None of the four documents explicitly references or incorporates the standards of the ICCPR or the UDHR in defining the scope of these rights. This has created a situation in which local military leaders can interpret it however they want. 6.2 Re-imposed Restrictions and the Tension Between Security and Freedom The key finding across all the regions is that security conditions override the provision of rights. Regardless of how interim arrangements and constitutional provisions are drafted, the term “security” ultimately prevails over constitutional guarantees in practice. The draft constitution of the Sagaing Region states that rights may be restricted if they harm public security. Similarly, the Mandalay Region Interim Political Plan re-imposes restrictions on the rights it grants through broad, open-ended language, such as “if those rights harm democratic and federal principles, public health, or public morality.” In addition, the Mandalay Region Interim Political Plan contains a constitutional immunity clause. Article 151 explicitly states that no legal action may be brought before any court in relation to legislative, executive, or judicial acts carried out according to this Interim Political Plan.33 This provision represents a significant warning sign. Although Article 19 grants freedom of expression, Article 151 effectively provides immunity to interim authorities if they justify their 33 Mandalay Region Interim Political Plan 30