Background 40 2012-PRESENT: BUILDING TO THE NVC PROCESS As early as 2012, the Government of Myanmar initiated efforts to identify Rohingya in official documents as “Bengali.”69 Under President Thein Sein in 2014, the Myanmar authorities initiated a pilot “citizenship verification process” in Taung Pyo internment camp in Rakhine State’s Myebon Township in an attempt to register Muslims holding White Cards, including Rohingya and ethnic Kaman—a predominantly Muslim ethnic group recognized by the government.70 The government at the time registered Rohingya “applicants” as “Bengali” or “Bengali/Islam.”71 As a result, the government effectively required Rohingya residents in Myebon Township to officially disavow their ethnic identity. While the authorities forced some Rohingya to participate, the process was met with resistance and, consequently, it stalled.72 In 2014, the government used the Rohingya lack of citizenship to exclude them from the U.N.supported national census, which the governments of the United States, the United Kingdom, and others funded.73 The White Card, held by many Rohingya at the time of the 2010 elections, enabled Rohingya to vote as well as join and create Rohingya-led political parties. The cards officially expired nationwide on March 31, 2015, ahead of national elections, and the government announced that all holders of “temporary identity cards” should surrender their cards to the government authorities and submit to the citizenship “verification” process.74 Beginning in June 2015, through the citizenship verification process, the government issued Identity Cards of National Verification (ICNV), ostensibly to identify applicants who meet the eligibility requirements to become a citizen of Myanmar.75 While the cards did not mention race or religion, the application forms required applicants to specify their “race” and “religion.”76 Like before, the 69 See, Todd Pitman, “AP Exclusive: Myanmar Verifying Muslim Citizenship,” Associated Press, November 30, 2012, https://news.yahoo.com/ap-exclusive-myanmar-verifying-muslim-citizenship-072224996.html; Fortify Rights, Policies of Persecution; Human Rights Watch, “All You Can Do Is Pray.” 70 Human Rights Council, Report of the Detailed Findings of the Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on Myanmar, para. 482. 71 Human Rights Watch, “All You Can Do Is Pray,” p. 110. 72 Fortify Rights, Submission to United Nations Periodic Review: Myanmar, November 2015, https://www.fortifyrights.org/ downloads/FR_UPR%20Submission_September_2015.pdf (accessed August 23, 2019); San Yamin Aung, “Burmese Govt Resumes Citizenship Verification of Rohingyas,” The Irrawaddy, June 16, 2014, https://reliefweb.int/report/ myanmar/burmese-govt-resumes-citizenship-verification-rohingyas (accessed August 23, 2019). 73 United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), “UNFPA Concerned about Decision Not to Allow Census Respondents to Self-Identify as Rohingya,” April 1, 2014, https://myanmar.unfpa.org/news/statement-unfpa-concerned-aboutdecision-not-allow-census-respondents-self-identify-rohingya (accessed August 23, 2019). 74 Guy Dinmore, “Uncertain Future for Hundreds of Thousands as White Cards are Revoked,” Myanmar Times, April 1, 2015, https://www.mmtimes.com/national-news/13852-uncertain-future-for-hundreds-of-thousands-as-white- cards-are-revoked.html (accessed August 23, 2019); Amnesty International, “Caged Without a Roof,” p. 29. 75 Human Rights Council, Report of the Detailed Findings of the Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on Myanmar, para. 484. 76 See, Annex II: National Verification Card (NVC) Application Form. The terms “race” and “ethnicity” are often used interchangeably in Myanmar. More broadly, race is commonly regarded as reflecting objective biological or genetic traits, whereas ethnicity is regarded as reflecting subjective cultural or religious traits. However, international jurisprudence increasingly looks to subjective understandings of groups in conjunction with an analysis of objective elements. The Genocide Convention lists four types of protected groups: national, ethnic, racial, and religious. As expressed by the ICTY in the case of Jelisić, there is increasing skepticism of the accuracy of objective definitions of the four protected groups under the Genocide Convention, particularly the ethnic, racial, and national categories. Prosecutor v. Goran Jelisić, International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY), Case No. ICTY-95-10-T, Judgment (Trial), December 14, 1999, para. 70. See also, Prosecutor v. Rutaganda, International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR), Case No. ICTR-96-3-T, Judgment (Trial), December 6, 1999, para. 56 (“[M]embership of a group is, in essence, a subjective rather than an objective concept. The victim is perceived by the perpetrator of genocide as belonging to a group slated for destruction. In some instances, the victim may perceive himself/herself as belonging