A/HRC/32/18 Rohingya in Rakhine State. The lack of citizenship of the Rohingya community heightens their vulnerability to a range of human rights violations. 27. In June 2014, the Government initiated a citizenship verification process, piloted in Myebon (Rakhine State). Members of the Rohingya community refusing to identify as “Bengali” were arbitrarily excluded from the verification process. The process was reportedly suspended in 2015. Although those granted citizenship in Myebon were allowed to vote in 2015, their freedom of movement and access to basic services and livelihoods after receiving citizenship has not improved. On 7 June 2016, a citizenship verification process – conducted within the framework of the Citizenship Law of 1982 – was relaunched in Kyaukpyu, Myebon and Ponnagyun. 2. Restrictions to freedom of movement 28. The Rohingya and the Kaman face severe restrictions on their freedom of movement. Although in place in northern Rakhine State for decades, restrictions were tightened after 2012 and differ in severity between townships. Even though their stated purpose is to ensure security, their application is disproportionate and discriminatory, given that they target Muslims exclusively. The majority of Rohingya live in northern Rakhine State, where they require official authorization to move between, and often within, townships (in northern Rakhine State, for example, a village departure certificate is required to stay overnight in another village.). The procedures to secure travel are onerous and time-consuming. Failure to comply with requirements can result in arrest and prosecution. Restrictions routinely lead to extortion and harassment by law enforcement and public officials. 29. Since the outbreak of violence in June 2012, town administrators have imposed a curfew in northern Rakhine State, allegedly to “protect the safety of both communities”. The curfew, regularly extended since 2012, is reportedly based on section 144(1) of the Myanmar Code of Criminal Procedure, which permits temporary orders in urgent cases and requires a magistrate or delegate to issue a curfew order. OHCHR received credible allegations that the procedure prescribed by section 144(1) has not been followed. The curfew affords broad discretionary powers to the authorities, including with regard to limitations on assembly and prohibiting movement between dusk and dawn. The curfew constrains the ability of Muslims to worship and practice religion freely by limiting gatherings of more than five people. Reportedly, it is only enforced against the Rohingya. While a separate presidential state of emergency was lifted in March 2016 in northern Rakhine State, the curfew remains in place. 30. Most of those displaced during the violence in 2012 reside in central Rakhine State, in approximately 39 camps for internally displaced persons. Restrictions on movement in camps are severe, and many are subject to extreme security measures. In certain locations, there is strict control of access and exits through security checkpoints. Given the nature, extent and duration of confinement, many camps could be considered places of deprivation of liberty under international law (see CCPR/C/GC/35, paras. 3 and 5).24 31. The blanket restrictions on freedom of movement for Muslim communities clearly violate international human rights law, which requires any limitations to be necessary and proportionate (see CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.9, para. 14).25 The restrictions discriminately target the Muslim population and severely constrain their access to livelihood, food, health 24 25 8 See Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement (E/CN.4/1998/53/Add.2, annex), Principle 12: 1-2. Universal Declaration of Human Rights, arts. 13 and 29(2).