By Kaung Rwai Social Action Network and Burma Partnership

 5 September 2011: Presidential Decree establish MNHRC “in charged with promoting and safeguarding the fundamental rights of citizens in accordance with the 2008 Constitution.”  16 March 2012: Parliament refuses to allocate the budget to the MNHRC on the basis that its establishment was not consistent with the Constitution.  Since, the MNHRC has been drafting an enabling law that will reconstitute the Commission.  We don’t know « when » will the law be presented to the parliament (Next parliament session in June?)  OHCHR and APF have been advising the MNHRC on the draft of the enabling law

 The MNHRC has 15 members: including former military regime’s ambassadors and retired civil servants.  Kyaw Tint Swe, Vice-Chairman and Burma representative to AICHR statement to UNGA in Nov 2003 about allegations of rape and other abuses against civilians carried out by the Burma Army in Shan and other ethnic states, “I again reiterate that these allegations were maliciously fabricated by two well-funded NGOs.”  Members were appointed by President with no explanation of the methods of appointment and no consultation.

16 Statements + 3 Field Missions (call for release of political prisoners and humanitarian assistance) + one visit to Prison (recommend more meditation)  Fail to point out serious human rights violations (discrimination, police crackdown, HRC etc.) Handling of Complaints: according to MNHRC in 2011 received 1037 complaints/In 2012 received 2866 complaints.  No investigation, simple letter of notification to relevant authorities, many remain unanswered, exclusion of HRV in ethnic states Drafting of its Enabling Law  Very limited engagement (refused to share draft legislation/ meeting with registered NGOs/ refused to answer questions) APF Associate Membership + Membership in South East Asia NHRIs Forum (SEANF)

 CSOs lack of trust in the composition of the MNHRC  CSOs don’t see the MNHRC as a solution to human rights violations cases esp. ethnic based CSOs/CBOs /Lack of Interest  CSOs see the MNHRC as the government  CSOs lack of understanding of the international standards  MNHRC: No engagment with civil society and no consultation on draft legislation  No communication between MNHRC and Parliament  MPs overwhelmed and no knowledge of Paris Principles and no power in the parliament

The enabling law of the MNHRC must ensure the commission’s independence and compliance with the Paris Principles. The enabling law must be published in advance to allow inputs from CSOs. The composition of the MNHRC must be changed in order to guarantee pluralism, independence and expertise. The MNHRC must engage regularly, meaningfully and in an inclusive manner with CSOs.”

§13 « Acknowledges with interest the activities undertaken by the NHRC, including its review of complaints and its conduct of investigative missions, and encourages the Government to expedite new legislation to reconstitute the Commission so that it is able to further develop its protection work and engagement with civil society, while recalling the need to ensure the Commission’s independent, free, credible and effective functioning in accordance with the Paris Principles;”

 Conduct more trainings for CSOs/CBOs/grassroots HRDs on the relevance of the MNHRC and Paris Principles  Call on the MNHRC to publicize and present their annual report to CSOs  Call on the government to organize public consultation + release the draft of the enabling law before it is tabled in Parliament  Call on the Parliament to do the same  Capacity-building for opposition MPs + DASSK on the Paris Principles  Potential briefings by OHCHR and APF with MPs and civil society before and when law in Parliament  Capacity Building and Awareness Raising for media (BP will start soon)  Engage the MNHRC on its HR protection work or rather lack of it !  After enabling law enactement : Engage ICC/Shadow report

Burma Partnership’s « NHRC Monitor » Webpage :