A/HRC/39/CRP.2 otherwise in “cases of danger to human life, health or safety, or a likelihood of a riot or an affray”.1473 681. By September 2014, all curfew orders in Rakhine State were lifted, except in Maungdaw and Buthidaung Townships, where they have remained in force continuously since 2012.1474 According to credible reports, the orders are more strictly enforced in Maungdaw and Buthidaung towns than in surrounding rural areas. 1475 682. According to the curfew orders, people were not allowed to be outside their homes between 6pm and 6am. These times were later shortened but, on 25 August 2017, the curfew hours in Maungdaw and Buthidaung Townships were again extended.1476 Although the curfew orders were drafted in general terms, in practice they have been enforced mainly against Muslims generally, and in Maungdaw and Buthidaung Townships against the Rohingya. Enforcement has been undertaken by village administrators, the NaSaKa, the BGP and the Tatmadaw.1477 683. Many Rohingya interviewees referred to the curfew as one of the serious restrictions they faced after the 2012 violence.1478 Given its prolonged and discriminatory application, it has had severe, adverse effects on the lives of the Rohingya in Rakhine State, including on access to livelihoods.1479 Interviewees also said that they were not allowed to keep lights or candles on during curfew hours.1480 In some isolated cases, security forces were more lenient and made exceptions, allowing Rohingya to be outside during curfew hours. 1481 However, in the majority of cases, the curfew was strictly enforced, especially in 2012, and in the periods after the ARSA attacks in 2016 and 2017. In some cases, security forces went as far as killing Rohingya – including elderly people – who were outside during curfew hours. 1482 684. The curfew orders also prohibited gatherings of more than five people on “roads, streets, the main road, lanes, garden (or) mosques and public schools”.1483 This has had a farreaching adverse impact over the subsequent six years. The list of public places where gatherings of more than five people is not allowed reveals discriminatory intent, as it includes mosques but not monasteries or temples. Given the importance to Muslims of congregational prayers in mosques, this prohibition represents a serious obstacle to the right to freedom of religion, including religious worship, protected under international human rights law, including by article 18 of the UDHR and article 14 of the CRC. Credible reports indicate that some Rohingya have gathered secretly to pray in private houses, makeshift mosques or madrasas in remote areas.1484 This long-lasting prohibition of gatherings of more than five people is also a violation of the right to peaceful assembly, protected for example by article 20(1) of the UDHR and article 15 of the CRC. 1473 1474 1475 1476 1477 1478 1479 1480 1481 1482 1483 1484 160 Code of Criminal Procedure, s. 144(6). V-047. V-047. See also chapter V, section D.3: An enduring catastrophe. CI-125, DI-073, V-047. See also A/HRC/32/18 CI-062, CI-063, CI-064, CI-076, CI-079, CI-080, CI-082, CI-084, CI-089, CI-092, CI-094, CI-174, CI-175, CI-181, CI-183, CI-184, CI-185, CI-186, CI-187, CI-188, CI-189, CI-192, CI-194, CI-195, CI-196, CI-198, CI-199, DI-003, DI-004, DI-047, DI-050, DI-052, DI-053, DI-054, DI-073, DI-075, DI-076, RI-002, RI-003, RI-009, RI-010, RI-012, RI-015, RI-017. DI-053. CI-082, CI-094, DI-053. DI-075, DI-076. CI-076, CI-174, DI-050, DI-054, DI-073. Township General Administration Department, Curfew Order No. 1/2012 (8 June 2012), available at: http://www.myanmargeneva.org/pressrelease/2.%20Preventive%20measures%20and%20actions%20t aken%20by%20the%20government.pdf. See page 7. V-047.