A/HRC/39/41 82. A month after his release in July 2017, Mr. Htwe was re-arrested by Myanmar security forces after he gave an interview to Radio Free Asia detailing his forced recruitment into the army as a child, and charged under section 505(b) of t h e Pen al Co d e for speaking publicly about his experience. The ILO appealed for the charges to be dropped and noted that in the past several years, other underage recruits have spoken publicly abou t their experience without facing such reprisals, which has helped to reinforce the Government’s policy to end underage recruitment and forced labour. On 9 Oct o b er 2017, the Government responded to the ILO indicating that it had previously responded to ILO in 2010 that it had taken measures to close the case. However, on 28 March 2018, the Dag o n Seikkan Township Court sentenced Mr. Aung Ko Htwe to two years in p ris o n wit h h ard labor, despite his status as a complainant with ILO. 83. Human Rights Council resolution of 18 March 2018 (see A/HRC/RES/37/32, p ara. 22) expressed serious concern about reported cases of reprisal fo r co o p eratio n wit h t h e Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Myanmar, and emphasized t hat n o one should face reprisals, monitoring, surveillance, threats, harassment or intimidat io n fo r cooperating or speaking with the special procedures of the Human Rights Council, including the Special Rapporteur, the independent international fact-finding mission or t h e United Nations. The Human Rights Council called on the Government of Myanmar to take appropriate measures to prevent such acts and to combat impunity by investigating promptly and effectively all allegations of intimidation and reprisal in order to bring perpetrators to justice and to provide victims with appropriate remedies. 20. Philippines 84. On 2 October 2017, five special procedures mandate holders expressed concern about the defamatory and intimidating public statements directed at t h e Co mmis s io n o n Human Rights of the Philippines (Commission), its members and its Chairperson Mr. Chito Gascon (PHL 12/2017), because of its human rights monitoring work and cooperation wit h the United Nations. The Commission submitted information to the universal periodic review of the Philippines in 2017 (see A/HRC/WG.6/27/PHL/3, paras. 2-9), 2012 (see A/HRC/WG.6/13/PHL/3, paras. 1-13) and 2008 (see A/HRC/WG.6/1/PHL/3, paras. 1-18). The Commission has received threats of being defunded or abolished and has been vili fied in the media as a hindrance to the implementation of government policies. When commissioners travel for work purposes they are reportedly monitored, which has affect ed their engagement with the United Nations. There has been no Government response t o t h e communication of the special procedures of 2 October 2017. 85. The Commissioner’s former Chairperson, Ms. Leila M. de Lima, has been in pris on since February 2017 on allegations of drug-related charges. In March 2018 it was rep o rt ed that Ms. De Lima had not been arraigned in any of the three most serious drug-related cases for which she was charged. On 27 March 2017, six special procedures mandate holders raised concerns that her arrest may be “politically motivated” (PHL 5/2017). In additio n t o her arrest and detention, Ms. De Lima has been subject to intimidation, threats and judicial harassment in connection with her criticism of government policies surrounding the war o n drugs, such as the extrajudicial killings of suspected criminals and drug users and President Duterte’s proposal to reinstate the death penalty, including when she was Chair of the Commission. 86. Multiple actors have expressed concern at the February 2018 petition of the Department of Justice to a Manila court in February 2018, seeking to declare the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP) and the New People’s Army (NPA) as “terrorist” organizations under the Republic Act 9372 or the Human Security Act 2007 (th e anti-terrorism law). The petition includes a list of over 600 individuals who are labelled as de facto “terrorists.” It is reported that among these are least 80 recognized h uman rig h ts defenders, indigenous peoples’ representatives, and representatives of co mmu n it y -b ased organizations. This is the first time the Human Security Act of 2007 has been used ag ain st numerous activists. 87. A number of these individuals have been long-standing partners of the United Nations who believe their inclusion on this list is in part due to their international advocacy with the United Nations, including the Human Rights Council, the universal periodic review, the treaty bodies, and the special procedures. Among this list are past an d curren t human rights defenders of the Karapatan Alliance for the Advancement of People’s Rights, 34 GE.18-13325