General situation addressed

Cases
Case status
Unknown
Location of case in SG report
2022-051-001
Relevant SG report
Year of the report
2022
Country Geolocation

Latitude: 21.916221

Longitude: 95.955974

Country Geolocation (linked Cases)
Myanmar (Burma)
From Region
UN body that raised the case prior to the SG report
  • UN (Dep.) High Commissioner on Human Rights
  • UN Human Rights Council: UN Human Rights Council - General
  • UN Human Rights Council: UN Independent Investigation
Dates of prior UN action
July 2021, 13 September 2021, 23 March 2022, April 2022
Type of record
General situation addressed
Gender
Gender unclear
Was the victim a foreign national?
No
Was the victim a minor?
No
Individual's/organization's activity
  1. Multiple United Nations (UN) actors have noted the imposition of continuous restrictions severely limiting civic space, including through online intensified surveillance, Internet blackouts and shutdowns, and legal provisions criminalizing online activity and sharply curbing access to the Internet. In her reports and updates to the Human Rights Council during the reporting period, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights noted that there is virtually no civic space left across the country, and that intense surveillance, including by digital means, amplifies the danger to activists in all military-controlled areas. (A/HRC/49/72, para. 47).
  2. This context amplifies the risks for victims, survivors, witnesses, and human rights defenders to engage with UN entities, human rights bodies, and mechanisms. Due to protection concerns, most UN interlocutors provided consent for the public use of information as long as personal details and other potentially identifying elements were not disclosed. Similarly, alleged victims and witnesses often declined to give interviews due to personal security concerns. Some UN actors have requested support to protect those who engage with them (see below). Relevant names and additional details are withheld for fear of further reprisals.
  3. On 13 September 2021, in his closing remarks responding to interventions on the need to prevent reprisals for cooperation with the Independent Investigative Mechanism for Myanmar, the Head of the Mechanism noted that their highest priority for States’ support and assistance to the Mechanism was the protection of those who wanted to cooperate with it, as many of these individuals feel at risk.
  4. In its April 2022 and July 2021 resolutions on Myanmar, the Human Rights Council called for immediate, unrestricted and unmonitored access for all United Nations entities and mechanisms, including through the lifting of Internet shutdowns and all other Internet restrictions that hinder the flow of information essential for accountability, and to ensure that civil society organizations, human rights defenders, lawyers, victims, survivors, witnesses and other individuals have unhindered access to and can communicate with the United Nations and other human rights entities without fear of reprisals, intimidation or attack (res 49/23, OP 19 and res 47/1, OP13).
Type of rights defended
  • Accountability & impunity
Was the victim a civil servant or member of the security forces or of the judiciary?
No
Reported trigger of reprisal

victims, survivors, witnesses, and human rights defenders who engage with UN entities, human rights bodies, and mechanisms.

Engagement with UN body
  • Unclear
Type of attempted engagement
  • Unclear
Location of mentioned reprisals
Myanmar
Reprisal information
  1. Multiple United Nations (UN) actors have noted the imposition of continuous restrictions severely limiting civic space, including through online intensified surveillance, Internet blackouts and shutdowns, and legal provisions criminalizing online activity and sharply curbing access to the Internet. In her reports and updates to the Human Rights Council during the reporting period, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights noted that there is virtually no civic space left across the country, and that intense surveillance, including by digital means, amplifies the danger to activists in all military-controlled areas. (A/HRC/49/72, para. 47).
  2. This context amplifies the risks for victims, survivors, witnesses, and human rights defenders to engage with UN entities, human rights bodies, and mechanisms. Due to protection concerns, most UN interlocutors provided consent for the public use of information as long as personal details and other potentially identifying elements were not disclosed. Similarly, alleged victims and witnesses often declined to give interviews due to personal security concerns. Some UN actors have requested support to protect those who engage with them (see below). Relevant names and additional details are withheld for fear of further reprisals.
  3. On 13 September 2021, in his closing remarks responding to interventions on the need to prevent reprisals for cooperation with the Independent Investigative Mechanism for Myanmar, the Head of the Mechanism noted that their highest priority for States’ support and assistance to the Mechanism was the protection of those who wanted to cooperate with it, as many of these individuals feel at risk.
  4. In its April 2022 and July 2021 resolutions on Myanmar, the Human Rights Council called for immediate, unrestricted and unmonitored access for all United Nations entities and mechanisms, including through the lifting of Internet shutdowns and all other Internet restrictions that hinder the flow of information essential for accountability, and to ensure that civil society organizations, human rights defenders, lawyers, victims, survivors, witnesses and other individuals have unhindered access to and can communicate with the United Nations and other human rights entities without fear of reprisals, intimidation or attack (res 49/23, OP 19 and res 47/1, OP13).
Types of reprisals suffered
  • Surveillance
  • Threats/Intimidations (incl. "fear of reprisal")
Alleged/likely perpetrators
State actors
Was the reprisal based on new legislation?
Yes
Does the report make general comment about country’s environment for engagement with UN?
Yes
Was the case raised by a State at the UN?
No
Is the country cited for a "pattern of reprisal" in the context of this case?
No
Is a pattern of reprisals mentioned otherwise in the context of this case?
No
Does the report cite "self-censorship" as an issue in the context of this case?
Yes
How many times has the case been followed up in subsequent SG reports?
0