ROHINYA (MYANMAR) AND

INTERNATIONAL VIOLATIONS
• “For to be free is not to cut off
one’s chains, but to live in a way that respects
enhances the freedom of others”
• -Nelson Mandela
WHO ARE ROHINYAN?

• Rohinya pertains to a minority group of Muslim people living in Rakhine State

in Myanmar.
• They have their own dialect similar to Bengali of Bangladesh
• They are different from the Burmese people in dialect, culture, and skin colors.
• They are called Chittagonians byb British and Bengali by the local of
Myanmar
HISTORY OF ROHINYAN
 17th period, 1948 1989 2011 2016
• Arakan was • Burma gain its Burma • Fall of military • Aung San
occupied and independence Became Junta was elected
conquered by • New Myanm • Start of Blood • Democracy
South Burmese government ar war between was reborn
King was established Burmese and • Start of
• Rohinyan people • Citizenship Act Rohinyan another
flee to • Mujahid blood war
Bangladesh

18th period, 1962

• Gen. Nu win 1991-1997 2012
9th to 14th century • Burma (Myanmar) • Rohinyan
• First Muslim became British the war with • 250k tried
Mujahid to escape escape from
community who settled Colony Myanmar
in Arakan kingdom. • British brought • First exodus Myanmar
• Start of • Repatriatio • Start of
• Accepted by the back the Rohinya exodus
Burmese king as one of • British divide and persecution n of
• Nugami Bangladesh • Conflict was
his subjects. rule policy intensified by
• Starts of the rift policy or to the
Dragon King Rohinyan the alleged
between Burmese rape of
and Rohinya Burmese
woman
ALLEGED HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATION OF
MYANMAR
• forced labor by the Myanmar military (fortifying army camps, road repair, porter)
• land confiscation (especially near development projects and contested areas)
• forced relocation
• arbitrary taxation
• religious discrimination
• human trafficking
• recruitment of child soldiers
• restrictions on freedom of movement
• murder, rape, torture, interrogation, extortion, humiliation, religious persecution, and other
inhumane acts
OTHER STATES RESPONSE:

• Malaysia and Indonesia

• Have a policy of pushing the refugees out of their coast
• Philippines
• Accept the refugees and even prepared a camp solely for them
• United States
• Sanctions the Myanmar but afterwards they lifted it
• Bangladesh
• Temporarily sheltered the refugees with the agreement to the Myanmar that they will take
back their people
UNITED NATIONS BY A VOTE OF 33 FAVOR, 3 DISAGREE
AND 9 ABSTAIN

• The Human Rights Council adopted a resolution in which it strongly condemned

the alleged systematic and gross violations of human rights and abuses
committed in Myanmar, in particular in Rakhine state, notably against persons
belonging to the Rohingya Muslim community and other minorities, and
requested the High Commissioner for Human Rights to track progress
concerning the human rights situation of Rohingya people, and to provide oral
updates to the Council for a period of three years.
MYANMAR CONTENTION

• Deny the atrocities and claimed that there is no ethnical cleansing happening
their states.
• Alleging that they only doing a counter measures after the attack of the
Arakan Rohinyan Socialist Army (ARSA) in one of their post in Rakhine
PROCEDURE IN REDRESSING VIOLATIONS OF
INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS
• Who can be prosecuted?
This Statute shall apply equally to all persons without any distinction
based on official capacity.
CRIMES WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF ICC

• The Court has jurisdiction in accordance with this Statute with respect to the
following crimes:
• (a) The crime of genocide;
• (b) Crimes against humanity;
• (c) War crimes;
• (d) The crime of aggression.
 PRECONDITIONS OF JURISDICTION
• Article 12 of Rome Statutes
• (a) The State on the territory of which the conduct in question occurred or, if
the crime was committed on board a vessel or aircraft, the State of
registration of that vessel or aircraft
• (b) The State of which the person accused of the crime is a national. 3. If the
acceptance of a State which is not a Party to this Statute is required under
paragraph 2, that State may, by declaration lodged with the Registrar,
accept the exercise of jurisdiction by the Court with respect to the crime in
question. The accepting State shall cooperate with the Court without any
delay or exception in accordance with Part 9.
WHO CAN PROSECUTE?

• Article 15 of Rome Statute

• The Prosecutor may initiate investigations motu propio on the basis of
information on crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court.
 DUTIES OF PROSECUTOR
• . The Prosecutor shall analyse the seriousness of the information received

• For this purpose, he or she may seek additional information from States,
organs of the United Nations, intergovernmental or non-governmental
organizations, or other reliable sources that he or she deems appropriate, and
may receive written or oral testimony at the seat of the Court.
• If the Prosecutor concludes that there is a reasonable basis to proceed with
an investigation, he or she shall submit to the Pre-Trial Chamber a request for
authorization of an investigation, together with any supporting material
collected. Victims may make representations to the Pre-Trial Chamber, in
accordance with the Rules of Procedure and Evidence.
CONTINUATION….

• If the Pre-Trial Chamber, upon examination of the request and the supporting
material, considers that there is a reasonable basis to proceed with an
investigation, and that the case appears to fall within the jurisdiction of the
Court, it shall authorize the commencement of the investigation, without
prejudice to subsequent determinations by the Court with regard to the
jurisdiction and admissibility of a case.
ISSUANCE OF WARRANT OF ARREST
• At any time after the initiation of an investigation, the Pre-Trial Chamber shall, on the
application of the Prosecutor, issue a warrant of arrest of a person if, having
examined the application and the evidence or other information submitted by the
Prosecutor, it is satisfied that:
• (a) There are reasonable grounds to believe that the person has committed a crime
within the jurisdiction of the Court; and
• (b) The arrest of the person appears necessary:
• (i) To ensure the person's appearance at trial;
• (ii) To ensure that the person does not obstruct or endanger the investigation or the court
proceedings; or
• (iii) Where applicable, to prevent the person from continuing with the commission of that crime
or a related crime which is within the jurisdiction of the Court and which arises out of the same
circumstances.
PRE TRIAL

• Upon the surrender of the person to the Court, or the person's appearance
before the Court voluntarily or pursuant to a summons, the Pre-Trial Chamber
shall satisfy itself that the person has been informed of the crimes which he or
she is alleged to have committed, and of his or her rights under this Statute,
including the right to apply for interim release pending trial. \.
TRIAL

• The accused shall be present during the trial.

• If the accused, being present before the Court, continues to disrupt the trial,
the Trial Chamber may remove the accused and shall make provision for him
or her to observe the trial and instruct counsel from outside the courtroom,
through the use of communications technology, if required. Such measures shall
be taken only in exceptional circumstances after other reasonable alternatives
have proved inadequate, and only for such duration as is strictly required.
DECISION

• In the event of a conviction, the Trial Chamber shall consider the appropriate
sentence to be imposed and shall take into account the evidence presented
and submissions made during the trial that are relevant to the sentence.
• Thesentence shall be pronounced in public and, wherever possible, in the
presence of the accused.
PENALTIES

• the Court may impose one of the following penalties on a person convicted of a
crime referred to in article 5 of this Statute:
• (a) Imprisonment for a specified number of years, which may not exceed a maximum
of 30 years; or
• (b) A term of life imprisonment when justified by the extreme gravity of the crime
and the individual circumstances of the convicted person.
• In addition to imprisonment, the Court may order: (a) A fine under the criteria
provided for in the Rules of Procedure and Evidence; (b) A forfeiture of proceeds,
property and assets derived directly or indirectly
ENFORCEMENT: THE ROLE OF THE STATE

• (a) A sentence of imprisonment shall be served in a State designated by the Court

from a list of States which have indicated to the Court their willingness to accept
sentenced persons.
• (b) At the time of declaring its willingness to accept sentenced persons, a State may
attach conditions to its acceptance as agreed by the Court and in accordance with
this Part.
• (c) A State designated in a particular case shall promptly inform the Court whether it
accepts the Court's designation.
GENOCIDE OR ETHNICAL CLEANSING?
 ISSUE/S:

• Whether or not is Myanmar liable and accountable

for the atrocities of crime they committed?
CONCLUSION
• Myanmar is not signatories of Rome Statue and under such law they can only
acquire jurisdiction over the persons of the defendant if the states of the latter
signed such.
• Myanmar is not cooperative enough to pin point who will be the alleged violators
since the rift of the Rohinyan and Burmese people is deeply rooted in their culture
• from the act of Myanmar itself, they are trying to hide the facts of ethnical cleansing
by not providing any pieces of evidence to any envoy of United Nations that
investigate the matter.
• that even if Myanmar were found guilty of such crimes, they will not be willing to
submit under the scrutiny of other states during the trial. In connection to this, since
Russia and China are backing up their military forces and even vetoed the resolution
of making Myanmar accountable for their crime against Rohinya. So, the possibility
of making them liable under the international law seems to be futile.