I. Identity Documents and Genocide: Case Studies 46 The exclusion of Rohingya has led observers to conclude that the 1982 Citizenship Law and the 1983 procedures for its implementation purposefully stripped Rohingya of their citizenship. Although the law is not “retroactive”—meaning people with citizenship before the law’s enactment, including Rohingya, should be able to “transfer over to the new [citizenship] regime without having to prove their lineage” under the new rules—the law continues to put into question the citizenship status of anyone who is not eligible under the law.135 This is because the 1982 Citizenship Law enables discrimination based on “racial and religious grounds.”136 As part of the implementation of the 1982 Citizenship Law, the military government launched a “nationwide citizenship scrutiny exercise” in 1989 and began issuing three different official colorcoded identity documents in line with the three-tiered citizenship categories specified under the law.137 With few exceptions, the government denied full citizenship rights to Rohingya.138 In 1995, significant international pressure from the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) prompted the government to finally grant Temporary Registration Cards, also known as “White Cards,” to several undocumented groups, including some Rohingya.139 However, these cards were temporary and failed to provide citizenship rights.140 In 2015, the government revoked the White Cards ahead of the national elections and issued White Card receipts to Rohingya who surrendered their White Cards.141 Like the cards, the White Card receipts conferred no rights.142 The citizenship documentation situation in Myanmar remained largely unchanged for another two decades—until the 2014 national census, the first census in 30 years. Despite the technical and financial support of the U.N. Population Fund, enumerators in Rakhine State only included Rohingya willing to self-identify themselves as “other” on the census forms.143 Those Rohingya who refused went uncounted and were thus fully disenfranchised in the process.144 State-level laws and policies have further compounded the oppression of Rohingya by extending the intrusive reach of the authorities into all aspects of their daily lives. Research by Fortify Rights indicates that discriminatory and repressive practices, which have had the effect of creating ghetto-like conditions for Rohingya in Rakhine State, dating back to at least the mid-1990s with new ones added through 2009.145 In 2014, Fortify Rights published a report of state-government orders endorsed by high-ranking union-level officials from 1993 to 2013, exposing discriminatory policies targeting the reproductive and sexual freedoms of Rohingya. The policies ranged from forced birth control and coercive limits Rohingya had “watered poisonous plants.” The statement said: “Not only Rakhine but also all the people know that Kalar’s have grown up thanks to U.N. and NGOs that have watered poisonous plants. We recognize those, who work for the further development of Kalars by earning dollars, as traitors.” See, Group of Wuntharnu Ethnic Peoples, “Beware! NGOs that Came Here to Assist Bengali Kalar,” 2012, on file with Fortify Rights. 135 Cheesman, “Problems with Facts about Rohingya Statelessness, E-International Relations”, p. 2. 136 Id. at p. 35. 137 UNHCR, Study on Community Perceptions of Citizenship, Documentation, and Rights in Rakhine State, 2016, https:// themimu.info/sites/themimu.info/files/assessment_file_attachments/Community_Perceptions_FINAL. PDF, p. 6. 138 Fortify Rights, “Tools of Genocide,” p. 42. 139 Burmese Rohingya Organization UK, “The Rohingya, the Citizenship Law, Temporary Registration, and Implementation of the Rakhine State Action Plan,” April 2, 2015, https://www.burmapartnership.org/2015/04/therohingya-the-citizenship-law-temporary-registration-and-implementation-of-the-rakhine-state-action-plan/. 140 Chris Lewa, “North Arakan: An Open Prison for the Rohingya in Burma,” Forced Migration Review, 2009, p. 12. 141 Fortify Rights, “Tools of Genocide,” p. 12. 142 In August 2019, a Rohingya refugee woman from Buthidaung Township, who refused to exchange her White Card receipt for an NVC, told Fortify Rights: “The NVC is another policy of our government to persecute us in a new way. It’s like many of the old polices and old cards that didn’t give us benefits . . . The NVC is for [foreigners] not for Rohingya. I had a three-fold card [NRC citizenship card]. [The Myanmar government] then gave me a White Card, and after, the [Myanmar government] replaced it with a White Card receipt. I don’t need a new card.” See, Fortify Rights, “Tools of Genocide,” p. 45. 143 Fortify Rights, “Policies of Persecution,” p. 21. 144 International Crisis Group, Counting the Costs: Myanmar’s Problematic Census, 2014, p. 16. 145 Fortify Rights, “Policies of Persecution,” p. 22.