which in other countries is used as a primary means to trace ancestry, which adds to difficulties in reasonably satisfying eligibility requirements for citizenship. The principle of legality The principle of legality is a recognized general principle of law, a foundational requirement contained in almost every international human rights instrument, 106 as well as a basic tenet of criminal law.107 Law needs to be predictable, fairly certain and capable of being respected. Vague and overbroad legal provisions, purporting to prevent intangible social harms, such as “disloyalty to the State”, which can be used to punish a wide range of behaviors enforced in an abusive manner, likely fail to satisfy the principle of legality. 108 As such, the requirement of legality, and more precisely, legal certainty, or lex certa, is a general, basic principle of law. Laws must be clearly, precisely and comprehensibly drafted so they can be ordinarily understood, implemented and enforced. Particularly with respect to criminal law provisions, they ought to be formulated sufficiently clearly and precisely to ensure that individuals can regulate their conduct according to the law. Lack of clarity in law also allows selective, arbitrary or discriminatory interpretations by authorities responsible for implementing provisions, a situation that is particularly problematic when combined with the high level of discretion with which the authorities in Myanmar operate, and the lack of access to redress through the courts. Administrative arrangements to implement the 1982 Law are particularly complex and opaque, to the extent that they are not reasonably possible to effectively follow and implement. As noted above, the 1982 Law and its three 1983 Procedures contain an unwieldy number of provisions and forms. Determinative powers, including to issue and to revoke citizenship, are generally delegated to Union level authorities, but in practice exercised at lower levels, although it is unclear how or what guidance is being used to make such decisions. Under the 1982 Law, two of the Central Body’s four members are direct appointees of the military, and report to its Commander-inChief. This means that, as a matter of law, under current legal arrangements, civilian executive authorities do not yield effective control over matters related to citizenship: this is incompatible with rule of law principles. 109 The 1982 Law places significant limits on the right to seek an independent review of administrative decisions related to citizenship, including judicial review. The process for an appeal of the decisions taken by the Central Body is convoluted, with the application to appeal having to pass various departments on its route to the Union Government, and it is unclear if decisions are made at ministerial-level or by delegates, if at all.110 Such decisions cannot reasonably be viewed as independent or impartial, given the Central Body and Union Government share members, and so any scenario would involve members of the Central Body or their delegates considering an appeal to their own decision. As well as the significant deficiencies in the administrative appeal process, section 70(b) of the 1982 Law declares the Union Government’s decision on appeal to be “final,” in violation of the principle of separation of powers in the constitution, including with respect to the authority of the courts to review executive decisions. Courts must have the power to review decisions taken by the executive that are capable of having an impact on “fundamental rights” guaranteed in the Constitution. Therefore, the finality clause described above, and which is featured in many legislative texts in Myanmar, undermines rule of law and the separation of powers, and is contrary to the judiciary’s constitutional authority of review of executive decisions in matters of “fundamental rights”.111 Additionally, section 71 of the 1982 Law, which states that the authorities do not need to provide reasons for their decisions, is also contrary to principles of due process and effective judicial review, since it undermines the right of the affected persons to be provided with reasoned decisions in matters that concern their “fundamental rights”, as well as their ability to bring an effective challenge against the said decisions by appealing them. Section 71 also undermines their right to seek an effective review of the said decisions, including 12