III. Legal Framework and Analysis 70 had their citizenship rights progressively stripped away. The law effectively singles out the Rohingya in its failure to include Rohingya as a recognized “national ethnic group” deserving of full citizenship, instead relegating the group to eh-naing-ngan-tha, associate citizens. In turn, the authorities have restricted Rohingya access to freedom of movement and livelihoods as well as the right to form and belong to political parties and run for political office, among other rights. Thus, the 1982 Citizenship Law results in unfavorable treatment to the Rohingya. The NVC process similarly subjects Rohingya to unfavorable treatment as outlined above in detail. In sum, the NVC process requires Rohingya to register as “Bengali” or other foreign identity, relegating Rohingya to the status of foreigners and effectively denying them access to full citizenship in Myanmar. Moreover, without subjecting themselves to the NVC process, Rohingya are further denied free movement and access to livelihoods. Second, the 1982 Citizenship Law and NVC process target the Rohingya based on the protected ground of ethnicity. On its face, the law’s criteria for establishing full citizenship accommodates only certain “national ethnic groups”—not including Rohingya—who purportedly settled within Myanmar before 1824. Moreover, as demonstrated by commentary provided by framers of the 1982 Citizenship Law, the law was intended to exclude Rohingya from equal access to full citizenship on ethnic grounds.278 The NVC process, likewise, also targets the Rohingya based on their ethnicity; it is a process aimed at administratively erasing the Rohingya ethnic group. Third, the Myanmar government has failed to provide any legitimate aim to justify the impact of the 1982 Citizenship Law nor the NVC process on the Rohingya population. Instead, Government officials have provided vague statements justifying the three-tier citizenship system and restrictions implemented through the NVC process to enforce border controls and combat “extremists.”279 These justifications fail to justify the impact on Rohingya, who are an indigenous population in Myanmar.280 THE PROHIBITION AGAINST TORTURE AND OTHER FORMS OF ILL-TREATMENT The right to be free from torture and other forms of ill-treatment is protected by international criminal law, treaty-based law, and customary international law.281 It is also a fundamental right that all States are legally bound to uphold.282 Torture is defined as “severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental,” intentionally inflicted for a specific purpose, such as punishment, intimidation, or coercion, “or for any reason based on 278 General Ne Win, “Speech by General Ne Win: Meeting Held in the Central Meeting Hall, President House, Ahlone Road,” The Working People’s Daily. 279 See, Moe Myint, “Despite Govt Efforts, Divide Persists Over Rohingya Freedom of Movement,” The Irrawaddy; “Genocide Agenda,” Al Jazeera. 280 Notably, the Rohingya also are one of the few ethnic groups in Myanmar who have long existed in Myanmar without a non-state ethnic army. From 1982 to 2016, no Rohingya ethnic armed group existed. The Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army, calling itself Harakh al Yaqin, emerged publicly in October 2016 when it attacked Myanmar police, killing nine. However, ARSA is generally poorly equipped and lacks adequate resources, training, and organization. See Fortify Rights, “Myanmar: Protect Civilians in Rakhine State, Investigate Fatal Shootings,” October 12, 2016, https://www.fortifyrights.org/publication-20161012.html (August 23, 2019); Fortify Rights, “They Gave Them Long Swords”, pp. 73-80. 281 Rome Statute, Art. 7(1)(f); UDHR, Art. 5; ICCPR, Art. 7; CAT, Art. 1. For an in-depth discussion of torture as a violation of customary international human rights law, see Prosecutor v. Anto Furundzija, ICTY, Case No. IT-95-17/1-T, Judgment (Trial), December 10, 1998, paras. 143–146. 282 International Law Commission, State Responsibility: Articles and Commentaries, para. 5 (“Those peremptory norms that are clearly accepted and recognised include the prohibition of aggression, genocide, slavery, racial discrimination, crimes against humanity and torture, and the right to self-determination.” (Emphasis added)). See also, for example, UDHR, Art. 5; ICCPR, Art. 7; CAT, Art. 1.