5/22/22, 12:03 AM Myanmar: Freedom on the Net 2021 Country Report | Freedom House The committee’s final recommendations did not include any substantive changes to human rights or internet freedom in particular. Fair trial rights are often violated in Myanmar’s courts: the accused often have no effective representation, they receive limited access to court documents, and judges are inattentive during proceedings. 226 Trials concerning online activity commonly include significant procedural errors, technically unreliable evidence, and deep-seated judicial unwillingness to consult expert testimony. 227 In many cases, courts have been presented with easily forgeable printouts of digital content, or have ruled without testing the authenticity, reliability, or admissibility of evidence. 228 Judicial independence is impeded by political interference. Under the constitution, judges were nominated by the president, and lawmakers could reject the choice only if it was clearly proven that the nominee did not meet the legal qualifications for the post. The courts generally adjudicate cases in accordance with the government’s interests, particularly in major cases with political implications. A number of laws undermine online media freedom. A 2018 amendment to the Broadcasting Law failed to clarify the country’s transition from analog to digital broadcasting, which created an arbitrary process that could be misused by the government to control broadcasters and online media. 229 Also in 2018, the Myanmar Press Council, a once quasi-independent body that settled disputes involving the media, submitted to the government a proposed amendment of the 2014 News Media Law, which regulates digital media. Whether this proposal would have positively or negatively affected media freedom is unclear. 230 The draft of a right to information law first proposed in 2017 was preempted by new information-related laws and drafts. In December 2019, the National Records and Archives Law was adopted, limiting access to information and retaining secretive standards for government documents, including electronic documents, while further criminalizing the sharing of such material. 231 C2 0-4 pts Are there laws that assign criminal penalties or civil liability for online activities, particularly those that are protected under international human rights standards? 0/4 Since the coup, the military has increased the number and harshness of laws criminalizing online activity. The Telecommunications Law was drafted by a military-backed civilian government in 2013 with the support of the World Bank, 232 and it remains the primary framework for licensing telecommunications providers, including mobile service providers and ISPs. Although the law was welcomed by many stakeholders at the time as a sign of much-needed change, 233 the then government, led by the USDP, added a number of troubling provisions, including Article 66(d)—a vaguely worded measure that criminalizes a range of acts online, such as defamation—and Article 68, which criminalizes “communication, reception, sending, distribution, or sharing of incorrect information with dishonest intention.” 234 The law was amended in 2017 but with no discernible impact, according to civil society activists. 235 Civil TOP society organizations launched a campaign for revision of this and other laws in the run-up to the 2020 general elections. 236 In December 2020, a civil society coalition launched a new push to amend Article 66(d) and the country’s five other criminal defamation provisions, putting forward four reform options. 237 https://freedomhouse.org/country/myanmar/freedom-net/2021 18/28