INSULTING RELIGION UNDER SECTION 295(A) OF THE PENAL CODE Article 295(a) of Myanmar’s Penal Code criminalizes “outraging religious feelings” or “insult[ing] or attempt[ing] to insult religion or religious belief” and provides for up to two years’ imprisonment. 120 Amnesty International is aware of at least two politically-motivated prosecutions, both initiated in 2014, brought under this law against four individuals: Htin Lin Oo, charged after giving a speech critical of the use of Buddhism to promote discrimination, and three Yangon nightclub workers charged after an image of the Buddha wearing headphones was used to promote their bar online.121 The right to freedom of expression applies to information and ideas of all kinds, including those deemed offensive.122 The UN Human Rights Committee has underlined that prohibitions pertaining to displays of lack of respect for a religion or other belief system, including blasphemy laws, are not compatible with international human rights law unless they fall within the scope of the permissible restrictions on the right to freedom of expression. The Committee has stressed that it is not permissible for such laws to be used to prevent or punish criticism of religious leaders or commentary on religious doctrine and tenets of faith. 123 Moreover, Section 295(a) of the Penal Code allows for an excessively broad and subjective interpretation of what could outrage or offend religious feelings, and therefore does not meet the “legality” test, under which restrictions on the right to freedom of expression must be provided by clear, detailed and well-defined laws. DEFAMATION UNDER SECTIONS 499-500 OF THE PENAL CODE Defamation is criminalized in Section 499 of the Penal Code,124 and carries a maximum sentence of two years’ imprisonment under Section 500. Amnesty International opposes laws criminalizing defamation, whether of public figures or private individuals, and considers that defamation should be treated as a matter for civil litigation. The UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression has called for the decriminalization of acts considered to be acts of defamation and for civil liability proceedings to be the sole form of redress for complaints of damage to reputation. 125 The UN Human Rights Committee similarly recommends that States should consider decriminalizing defamation and in any event has stated that imprisonment is never an appropriate penalty. 126 Section 295 (a) of the Penal Code: “Whoever, with deliberate and malicious intention of outraging the religious feelings of any class of [persons resident in the Union], by words, either spoken or written, or by visible representations insults or attempts to insult the religion or the religious beliefs of that class, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.” 121 See Chapter 3, Section 3.4, p29 122 Human Rights Committee, General comment No. 34, Article 19: Freedoms of opinion and expression, UN Doc. CCPR/C/GC/34, 12 September 2011, para. 11. 123 Human Rights Committee, General comment No. 34, Article 19: Freedoms of opinion and expression, UN Doc. CCPR/C/GC/34, 12 September 2011, para. 48. 124 Section 499 of the Penal Code: “Whoever, by words either spoken or intended to be read, or by signs or by visible representations, makes or publishes any imputation concerning any person, intending to harm, or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm, the reputation of such person, is said, except in the cases hereinafter excepted, to defame that person”. 125 Frank La Rue, UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, Report to the UN Human Rights Council, 20 April 2010, UN Doc. A/HRC/14/23, para. 83. 126 Human Rights Committee, General comment No. 34, Article 19: Freedoms of opinion and expression, UN Doc. CCPR/C/GC/34, 12 September 2011, para. 47. 120 NEW EXPRESSION MEETS OLD REPRESSION ENDING THE CYCLE OF POLITICAL ARRESTS AND IMPRISONMENT IN MYANMAR Amnesty International 39