A/HRC/30/29 September, initiated a suo moto case against them. On 24 September, at the first hearing, the members were charged with “spreading wrongful information and giving a wrongful impression of the constitutional mandate of the Supreme Court”. On 30 September, at the second hearing, the Commission members were allegedly questioned about the content of report prepared for the universal periodic review (A/HRC/28/85, case MDV 2/2014). At the time of finalization of the present report, no response had been received from the Government to the communication sent by the special procedures. 31. On 6 May 2015, during its review, the Government stated that the Human Rights Commission staff members enjoyed immunity from prosecution or complaints for acts done in good faith within the purview of their functions. Given however that the case against the Commission members had yet to be decided, the Government deemed it inappropriate to comment further on the issue. On 19 May, after having received reports that the Supreme Court had found the Commission’s submission for the universal periodic review was unlawful and declared that the Commission had to comply with a set of 11 guidelines, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, in a press release, stated that the judgement appeared to be “designed to severely undermine its ability to engage with the United Nations human rights system”. 7 On the same day, two special procedure mandate holders jointly called upon the Supreme Court of Maldives to reconsider its verdict. 8 On 19 June, the President of the Human Rights Council raised the case with the Council Bureau and referred to it in a general manner when, at the twenty-ninth session of the Council, he opened the general debate under item 6 on 26 June 2015. 13. Myanmar 32. On 12 August 2014, a number of mandate holders referred to allegations of reprisal against Sein Than, a human rights defender and leader of a movement denouncing the confiscation and demanding the restitution of Mi Chaung Kan land (A/HRC/28/85, case MMR 5/2014). On 31 July 2014, while on his way to the United Nations office to deliver documents for the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Myanmar, in follow-up to their meeting during her visit to the country earlier that month, Mr. Than was reportedly arrested with force, causing him injury, by 10 plain-clothed individuals who allegedly did not present an arrest warrant. He was reportedly subsequently detained on remand pending trial at Insein prison on charges related to the conduct of a peaceful assembly or procession without the permission of the authorities. In reply, on 27 October 2014, the Government affirmed that Mr. Than had been lawfully arrested, detained and sentenced for having organized processions and staged protests in different townships between March and May 2014 without prior approval (ibid.). 14. Oman 33. On 29 September 2014, the Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association, with two other mandate holders, referred to allegations of reprisals against Tariq al Sabbahi in relation to his visit to the country from 8 to 13 September 2014 (A/HRC/28/85, case OMN 2/2014). On 10 and 11 September, after having met with the Special Rapporteur, Mr. Al Sabbahi received a telephone call summoning him to meet with officers from the internal security department. On 14 September, during the meeting, the internal security officers reportedly informed him that he was forbidden from contacting the Special Rapporteur or United Nations staff members, threatened him with 7 8 OHCHR, “Supreme Court judgement gravely undermines Maldives Human Rights Commission – Zeid”, 19 June 2015. OHCHR, “Maldives: UN experts urge Supreme Court to reconsider decision against Maldivian Human Rights Commission”, 19 June 2015. 11